D&D 5E The fall from grace of the longsword

[Guest 6801328]

God save me from a game that actually tries to model realistic advantages/disadvantages of various weapons.

I'm all for some interesting tradeoffs (for example, if more monsters had resistances to S/P/B) but I don't care if those differences are historically accurate.

I think it's great that if you're choosing a 1H martial weapon you can choose Warhammer or Battleaxe without feeling you've chosen sub-optimally.

Is this OP really wishing for a return to a time when a longsword was clearly better?

 

[Krachek]

I have been an avid player of elven characters since 1st edition. As such, many of my elves used longswords and I'm not afraid to say it was not only because of their racial tendencies but also because the weapon always had some niche that made it a preferable one-handed weapon. Whether it was the 1d12 large damage of 1st and 2nd, or the 19-20 crit range for a 1d8 weapon of 3rd, or the +3 proficiency bonus of 4th there has always been something that made the longsword shine. In 5th edition, the choice to use a longsword is purely aesthetic. As a matter of fact, in my opinion it may be the worst of the 1d8 versatile (1d10) weapons. The warhammer weighs less and deals bludgeoning damage, which is an advantage against skeletons and certain oozes. The battleaxe weighs a little more buts costs 5gp less to buy. The only positive to the longsword is that it weighs slightly less than the battleaxe. The fact that it no longer has any mechanical advantage strikes me as odd.

To complete your analysis, the most effective dueling style weapon is the quarterstaff used with polearm master.

 

[Zardnaar]

They decided to simplify the weapons and the longsword suffered a bit for that. I kind of miss the 3E/4E ways of making the weapons different (or even AD&D) but they looked at B/X weapons I suppose.

It would also perhaps be more accurate to state they shifted a lot of the complexity to the class and feats. For example half orc barbarians may be better served by a greataxe over greatsword, nature clerics with a staff (shillagh+ polearm master), and monks with spears for example.

The problem here is they did not make an equivalent feat for longwords and feats like Polearm Master, Great Weapon Master and crossbow expert/sharpshooter exist.

This kind og obsoletes te long sword especially when they create the rapier as a 1d8 weapon as well, how many classes want to use a 1d10 versatile weapon in 2 hands? Kensai monks, rogues might except they can't sneak attack with it despite being proficient.

Basically rapiers should be a d6 weapon, scimitars should be d8 slashing non finesse weapon with some other ability and longswords as is.

 

[JacktheRabbit]

Why a longsword?

How about unlike a warhammer, spiked mace, or battle axe I like the fact that I can sheath my longsword when not using it and have both hands free. You can try to hang a mace or warhammer off your belt but it just does not work as well and you are stuck carrying your battle axe 24/7.

Also while I am not an expert I would think that since you can attack in more versatile ways with a longsword it probably works better in conjunction with a shield. This is though the opinion of a complete amateur.

 

[JacktheRabbit]

One other thought comes to mind. DnD groups are not armies on the battlefield. It might not always make the most sense to assume best or most common on battlefield means best for a group of adventurers.

By 3rd or 4th level a DnD fighter is probably better than 99% of the soldiers on a medieval battlefield. He also faces potentially a much wider range of threats than the average soldier fighting for the local baron against his neighbor over land rights.

DnD characters are more skilled, so weapons that offer more if more skilled make sense, DnD characters face a greater variety of threats so versatile weapons make sense, finally DnD characters are RICH so the financial limitations that often helped determine what a medieval army is carrying and wearing into battle do not apply.

It is like spear vs trident. On a battlefield the spear makes more sense, cheaper, easier to produce, and quite effective when used by troops in tight formations. A trident though in the hands of an expert probably has a higher top end, you can parry better with it, you can potentially break enemy weapons or disarm enemies in ways you cannot with a spear. These benefits will require more training and apply more to individual fights and not to the battlefield.

Just remember two small armies of a couple hundred men in each is nothing at all like a DnD party battling the normal foes encountered when adventuring and for that reason the equipment good for one is not automatically good for the other.

 

[Horwath]

To complete your analysis, the most effective dueling style weapon is the quarterstaff used with polearm master.

Do not forget getting shillellagh cantrip shenanigans into the mix.

 

[Carlsen Chris]

To me that brings longswords in line with how it was used in medieval times. Maces and battleaxes were often preferred in battle.

Source?

 

[Hussar]

OTOH, it was always my understanding that the sword was the weapon of last resort. Your lance was broken, you lost your pick or mace and your horse is dead. Time to yank out the sword because it's the only thing at hand. After all, against most foes in the real world, there are a lot of weapons far more effective than a sword. You used a spear for a long, long time because it was a much better weapon to use. Longer reach, better penetration, far more versatile and, well, you could always throw it in a pinch.

If you were using your sword on a battlefield, again, as I understand it from readings I've done on TheArma and sites like that, you were already waste deep in the sheep dip.

 

[Carlsen Chris]

If you were using your sword on a battlefield, again, as I understand it from readings I've done on TheArma and sites like that, you were already waste deep in the sheep dip.

It's probably to safe to say that your statement is so full of sweeping generalizations that it doesn't say anything at all.

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

One other thought comes to mind. DnD groups are not armies on the battlefield. It might not always make the most sense to assume best or most common on battlefield means best for a group of adventurers.

By 3rd or 4th level a DnD fighter is probably better than 99% of the soldiers on a medieval battlefield. He also faces potentially a much wider range of threats than the average soldier fighting for the local baron against his neighbor over land rights.

DnD characters are more skilled, so weapons that offer more if more skilled make sense, DnD characters face a greater variety of threats so versatile weapons make sense, finally DnD characters are RICH so the financial limitations that often helped determine what a medieval army is carrying and wearing into battle do not apply.

This is generally a very good point. Some weapons are just plain designed to be used in a battlefield situation, and don't work so well/weren't used in an 'adventuring' situation.
Much of an adventurer's weapon choice may be setting and campaign-driven. Who are the people that the adventurer is going to be facing? Heavily-armoured humanoids? Large wild beasts? Do the laws/social mores of the area permit walking down the street in full armour and carrying 100lbs of assorted spiky, crushy or choppy killing implements? Or is a more low-key approach likely to be rewarded?
In many of those situations a longsword may well be the best weapon to carry.

It is like spear vs trident. On a battlefield the spear makes more sense, cheaper, easier to produce, and quite effective when used by troops in tight formations. A trident though in the hands of an expert probably has a higher top end, you can parry better with it, you can potentially break enemy weapons or disarm enemies in ways you cannot with a spear. These benefits will require more training and apply more to individual fights and not to the battlefield.

I don't think that this really holds up. Spears are generally a better weapon than tridents no matter what the level of skill. Tridents have only really been used as a weapon in one specific instance; roman gladiatorial combat. It was used there partly for thematic reasons, but mostly because it is a bad weapon, and will tend to produce superficial wounds rather than lethal ones. Thus leading to a bloodier and more prolonged combat spectacle.

It's probably to safe to say that your statement is so full of sweeping generalizations that it doesn't say anything at all.

Its true for much of what people probably think of as 'D&D era' combat. (Late mediaeval knights and footmen in Europe, The heyday of the samurai, etc.) Other times, and under pressures of other factors, swords were a more primary option. (Roman legions, civilian situations etc.)