D&D 5E The best solution for longswords

[Cap'n Kobold]

I completely agree. In D&D, if you are going to fight with a 2 handed weapon, a 2-handed sword (historically a claymore or a zweihander) is much better than a longsword (finally, in 5e the long sword is equivalent to the historical weapon). HOWEVER in real life a long sword is a better weapon 90% of the time - you may not be able to cleave someone in half but it's much, much faster and better defensively too. This bothers me.

Bear in mind that the zweihander is on the top end of a scale that starts with the historical longsword in the '5e greatsword' category. Historical longsword is a little shorter, quite a bit lighter, and (depending upon style/purpose) is used for thrusting as much as slashing. Against a single D&D longsword its a very unfair matchup. (Of course D&DE longsword-type swords were almost always used with a shield, which changes things drastically once again.

There I disagree on many of those (esp arming sword, falchion, viking sword). The sword handle was short (esp a viking sword) and there is no room for a second hand, baring half-swording (a maneuver that wasn't done on either viking sword or falchion anyway). If I was to stat such a weapon (and I did in my game, the tulwar) I would give them 1d8 damage, strength, slashing, non versatile.

You can get a bit of extra power with two hands, but you're right in that the design of the hilt isn't designed to incorporate this: one hand would be covering the other.
I just don't really regard the (admittedly considerable) difference provided by a longer hilt to be worth creating a new category of weapon that would be the same as the longsword entry but without versatile. (OK. maybe also a bit lighter and cheaper, but these aren't major differences IMO).
A character that uses longsword and shield with a Viking theme for example, is probably going to be using two hands on their sword so rarely, the difference just isn't going to come up as significant.

 

[TheCosmicKid]

I don't believe so. The historical longsword is a dedicated two-handed weapon. There are some techniques that involve taking a hand off the hilt while executing them, but it could not be effectively wielded with a single hand.

I concur, with one possible qualification: "...on foot". You would hold it in one hand while slashing at infantry from horseback. And maximizing both foot and mounted effectiveness seems to have been the primary purpose for what a generation of gamers has come to call "bastard" weapons -- not switching between one and two-handed grips while on the ground for no particular reason.

 

[TheCosmicKid]

A character that uses longsword and shield with a Viking theme for example, is probably going to be using two hands on their sword so rarely, the difference just isn't going to come up as significant.

I sort of wonder about that. Shields break, after all. (Not in D&D, but it does sound like Pathfinder 2E is going this direction.) The Vikings, who were not armchair warriors like me, apparently felt that the swords they carried were well suited to their purposes even despite the possibility of being unshielded.

 

[Ancalagon]

It's a bit late this evening for me to be doing some research re blade lenght, *but* my gut feeling for a "solution" for the longsword is this:

A bastard sword, or a long sword (not a honking greatsword), when wielded two handed is a very fast and lively weapon (the 2nd ed rule that made the speed go slower for a bastard sword wielded two handed was ridiculous). This speed, and the leverage provided by the longer hilt, made it a very accurate weapon, and also one very well suited for defense.

So there should be a "versatile" fighting style to reflect this. And a while ago, this was discussed here http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?480015-New-quot-Fighting-Style-quot-Versatile

But we couldn't find a clear consensus. My gut tells me that it should be +1 AC, +1 to hit, but this may not balanced with other styles. The +1 to hit is problematic particularly due to bounded accuracy. However, only +1 to AC is strictly worse than the defensive style.

 

[S'mon]

A bastard sword, or a long sword (not a honking greatsword), when wielded two handed is a very fast and lively weapon

True; OTOH a weapon wielded one handed has less reach than the same weapon wielded 2-handed. In earlier editions it would work well to give a 2hw +1 to hit, since they are both faster & have better armour penetration than 1hw. I don't think that works great in 5e though, except as part of a fighting style.

BTW I love how easy it is to make up new fighting styles in 5e to cover all sorts of stuff.

 

[DEFCON 1]

If you want speed to reflect the use of versatile weapons, this is where Mearls' 'Greyhawk Initiative' system would come in handy. If you use his 'Variant: Weapon Speed', normally you'd roll the weapon's damage as the die you'd use for initiative (lowest rolls go first). So in this case, you let all versatile weapons roll their base damage for speed, even when used two-handed. So a longsword (used one or two-handed) rolls 1d8 for their initiative, while the greatsword rolls 2d6 (or really 1d12).

Does going earlier in the first round actually get you very much to make versatile now seem useful? That I can't answer (as I've never tried Greyhawk Initiative, and I've never found going earlier to be that huge of a benefit personally.

 

[GreenTengu]

The solution is easy-- it is the solution to most of the problems regarding Dex vs. Str builds..

Get rid of the damn rapier from the weapons table. That is the source of all the balance problems with weapon users!

Dex fighters already get the high AC without armor, a higher percentage opportunity to go first, access to superior ranged attacks and a high save that actually matters... not to mention what one can do with all those Dex skills.

So taking an average of 1 damage per an attack in straight-up melee combat does not invalidate them at all-- it simply brings them slightly more reasonably into line.

 

[Ancalagon]

True; OTOH a weapon wielded one handed has less reach than the same weapon wielded 2-handed.

Actually... it's the reverse, and you can do a pretty simple test to prove yourself that it it's the case. Take a sword like object (some kind of stick will do). Plant your feet on the ground, grab the stick with two hands, and extend it forward as far as possible, arms straight. This is your maximal reach. Now remove one hand, and twist/push forward the shoulder of the hand still holding the "sword" - you will gain at least 4-6 inches of reach. You can't do this with a two handed grip, because while you put one shoulder forward, the other one pulls back.

This difference however, while it matters a *lot* in real life, in D&D shouldn't matter much - reach is measured in 5 feet square increments, not inches...

edit: mind you, a two handed grip does allow you to use longer weapons! I was talking about the same weapon used one or two handed.

In earlier editions it would work well to give a 2hw +1 to hit, since they are both faster & have better armour penetration than 1hw. I don't think that works great in 5e though, except as part of a fighting style.

BTW I love how easy it is to make up new fighting styles in 5e to cover all sorts of stuff.

It is, but it's surprisingly challenging to make one for versatile weapons that is balanced due to the existing styles...

 

[S'mon]

Actually... it's the reverse, and you can do a pretty simple test to prove yourself that it it's the case. Take a sword like object (some kind of stick will do). Plant your feet on the ground, grab the stick with two hands, and extend it forward as far as possible, arms straight. This is your maximal reach. Now remove one hand, and twist/push forward the shoulder of the hand still holding the "sword" - you will gain at least 4-6 inches of reach. You can't do this with a two handed grip, because while you put one shoulder forward, the other one pulls back.

This difference however, while it matters a *lot* in real life, in D&D shouldn't matter much - reach is measured in 5 feet square increments, not inches...

edit: mind you, a two handed grip does allow you to use longer weapons! I was talking about the same weapon used one or two handed.



It is, but it's surprisingly challenging to make one for versatile weapons that is balanced due to the existing styles...

Sorry I meant 1hw has longer reach.

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

But we couldn't find a clear consensus. My gut tells me that it should be +1 AC, +1 to hit, but this may not balanced with other styles. The +1 to hit is problematic particularly due to bounded accuracy. However, only +1 to AC is strictly worse than the defensive style.

I'm actually thinking of implementing a Versatile weapon style that gives +1 to hit, +1 AC, and +1 to checks and saves to make or resist shove, disarm, and grapple-type maneuvers when using a weapon with the Versatile property with both hands.

I don't think that it steps on the Defence style's toes, because Defence style works with both dedicated 2-handed weapons and weapon and shield combos, both of which are generally better options than 2-handing a versatile weapon.