D&D 5E Katana in 5th edition - finesse?

[Yaarel]

I'm going to say this one more time: Half-swording was how greatswords were designed to be used. It was not a sub-optimal situation for them. What you're proposing here is like writing rules for shotguns that make them sniper weapons.

The twohanders were designed for half-swording, as their elaborate hilts make clear. At the same time, half-swording does less damage. The damage done by the full momentum of a twohander swing is much more (and much more dramatic) than pushing a half-swording stab.

That's how it works in some games with finer resolution on the combat map. For D&D and its 5-foot squares, it doesn't really track well.

D&D is so close. If it went with a meter/yard square grid, instead of a 5-foot square, it would be straightforward to track the combat distances. And the advantages of the reach of different weapons: adjacent hand-to-hand range (including grappling and daggers), sword range, and polearm range (including spear and greatsword), plus occasionally a pike range.

D&D can probably approximate this by means of conditions. For example. Perhaps a ‘reach’ weapon or a ‘polearm’ weapon can allow a character to attack without becoming ‘engaged’, thus can move away without provoking opportunity attacks, thus has no need to spend an action to ‘disengage’. Probably all long weapons, including spears and greatswords, should both allow attacks at reach and make hostiles unable to ‘engage’ thus unable to attack with nonreach weapons.

 

[Guest 6801328]

Yup. In other words, plot protection. The sword fits the criteria for the rule of cool.

That is why I feel it is ok to stat the longsword specifically as 1d8 finesse versatile. It is ok it this sword gets an edge, and in some cases, deserves it.

Well, as I've been explaining in the thread on Str vs. Dex I think it's weak design that Dex and Str are effectively interchangeable, but...yeah...given that that's what we've got, I would be ok with the longsword being finesse or versatile (not both at once) as long as all references to "rapier" were banished from the game, and all character sheets with the word "rapier" on them consigned to the purifying flames.

 

[Guest 6801328]

If it went with a meter/yard square grid, instead of a 5-foot square, it would be straightforward to track the combat distances. And the advantages of the reach of different weapons: adjacent hand-to-hand range (including grappling and daggers), sword range, and polearm range (including spear and greatsword), plus occasionally a pike range.

D&D can probably approximate this by means of conditions. For example. Perhaps a ‘reach’ weapon or a ‘polearm’ weapon can allow a character to attack without becoming ‘engaged’, thus can move away without provoking opportunity attacks, thus has no need to spend an action to ‘disengage’. Probably all long weapons, including spears and greatswords, should both allow attacks at reach and make hostiles unable to ‘engage’ thus unable to attack with nonreach weapons.

It could, but I'm glad it doesn't. I don't really want more combat complexity for the sake of a bit more realism.

Even if the grid were smaller there would still be a million things that just don't feel realistic in the game. You'll never get rid of all of them. So overall I prefer streamlined combat. It's plenty fun for me.

 

[GreenTengu]

No offense, but that may be the worst idea for D&D I've ever seen.

Swords are functionally equivalent to hammers and axes in D&D, and yet the vast majority of players choose them. Why? Because they think swords are cool. Because centuries of stories...myths, literature, children's stories, pulp fiction, comic books...have established the sword as The Weapon of choice for heroes. People play RPGs to have fun, and they think swords are fun, so they have their characters use swords.

And you want to punish them for this? To effectively force them to choose a "better" weapon because...it pleases your sense of historical realism? (And yet you are apparently enjoy a game where you heal to full health over night while sleeping in your armor?)

Crazy.

While we're at it, let's make players roll for tooth decay because, you know, medieval realism and all.

Well, if everyone else is arguing that one should boost the stats and viability of all swords to the point that there really is no point in any other weapon being on the weapons table at all, then someone ought to take the counter point.

Why the hell even have axes and maces and halberds in the game at all after you are done giving every single sword versatility and finesse (in a game where Dex build melee warriors are ridiculously better than Str build ones in every respect already) and reach and ability to be used as light weapons and boosting their damage die and whatever other random garbage is being proposed here.

The existence of the rapier stated as it is has already nullified any reason for Strength or heavy armor to even exist as part of the game and has completely devalued any races, stats or abilities that are centered on the stat.

So, yes, all swords should be knocked down a die size in damage. The rapier and great sword need to be reduced as they are right now as they break the game by doing more damage than a weapon with their properties should.

Any swords you add the finesse property to should also be reduced by a damage die-- especially if you are adding versatility to them.

 

[Guest 6801328]

Well, if everyone else is arguing that one should boost the stats and viability of all swords to the point that there really is no point in any other weapon being on the weapons table at all, then someone ought to take the counter point.

Why the hell even have axes and maces and halberds in the game at all after you are done giving every single sword versatility and finesse (in a game where Dex build melee warriors are ridiculously better than Str build ones in every respect already) and reach and ability to be used as light weapons and boosting their damage die and whatever other random garbage is being proposed here.

The existence of the rapier stated as it is has already nullified any reason for Strength or heavy armor to even exist as part of the game and has completely devalued any races, stats or abilities that are centered on the stat.

So, yes, all swords should be knocked down a die size in damage. The rapier and great sword need to be reduced as they are right now as they break the game by doing more damage than a weapon with their properties should.

Any swords you add the finesse property to should also be reduced by a damage die-- especially if you are adding versatility to them.

Agree with all the criticisms, especially about the rapier (although "ridiculously better in every respect" is overstating the case) but reducing sword damage doesn't solve it. The powergamers would just switch to axe/hammer, and the roleplayers who genuinely prefer swords would be punished.

Honestly I prefer the Dungeon World system (damage die is set by class, so you are free to fluff your weapon however you choose) but that ain't gonna happen. For version 5.5 I think WotC's goals should be to make both Str and Dex contribute, in different ways, so that making either one your primary is viable, but you can't dump the other.

 

[TheCosmicKid]

And if they got closer, then the next weapon you would want to use is a polearm. One good stab to their chest or slash across their belly or to their legs and your swordsman is just finished. The polearm just guarantees you at least the first attack, if not every subsequent attack until the last if you are generally skilled enough to keep them at bay with the pole. Its not something they can "get by". There is a reason 300 spearmen could kill 10,000 swordsman in a mountain pass, it wasn't just the warriors were so good-- having a polearm and shield is just that much better than relying on a sword.

The Persians at Thermopylae were mostly archers and spearmen.

And the Romans, who actually conquered Greece, were... swordsmen.

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

Even daggers require strength. The "finesse" distinction in D&D is rather artificial.

Just because a weapon is listed as Finesse, it doesn't mean you can't still use your Str to hit and damage. You can choose to use Dex, but you don't have to.

I am just going to jump in here and point out....

Historically, on the actual battlefield... swords SUCKED. Using a sword of any sort was an undesirable situation. So what is with this drive to make all swords into GOD weapons?!!

The sword is generally considered to be the second-best weapon for most given situations.
So they were carried (when the warrior could afford one) as a back up to the warrior's primary, whether that was a polearm, or a bow, or a spear/lance.

The fact that they are even functional in D&D is due to the clumsy hit point system. In proper combat, a single arrow is pretty certain to maim, if not kill, anyone it hits and remove them from combat. So obviously the ideal way to deal with your opponent would be a bow or a crossbow.

Unless your opponent has a shield. In which case most bow, crossbow, and sling projectiles are much less effective, and more suitable for attrition and preventing fast maneuver.

However, most D&D combats are not military in nature. Adventurers don't usually engage in unit-to-unit combat, but individual combat, where many large polearms for example are much less useful.

And it is in more individual combat that swords do tend to excel. You might have an axe if you couldn't afford a sword, but until the advent of heavy armour requiring specialised weapons, the sword was second only to the shield for individual, armed combat.
Making a good sword was also much harder than the majority of other weapons, particularly for areas with poor starting materials, so it became a symbol of wealth and status as well.

As such-- I suggest all swords should have their die size reduced 1 size from their current stats to more accurately reflect their general worthlessness as proper weapons of war and proper status as easily transported weapons of last resort.

That is going a tad too far I think. But I'm certainly not a fan of trying to give finesse to longswords or arming swords. Agile and well-balanced does not equate to Finesse in D&D terms: they fail the Baggins/Lee test for me.

Even if it does make Elves even more powerful.

 

[billd91]

And if they got closer, then the next weapon you would want to use is a polearm. One good stab to their chest or slash across their belly or to their legs and your swordsman is just finished. The polearm just guarantees you at least the first attack, if not every subsequent attack until the last if you are generally skilled enough to keep them at bay with the pole. Its not something they can "get by". There is a reason 300 spearmen could kill 10,000 swordsman in a mountain pass, it wasn't just the warriors were so good-- having a polearm and shield is just that much better than relying on a sword.

Public relations also had a hand in that since the force blocking the pass was well over 1000 (probably around 2000 depending on how many helots the Spartans brought) and not just 300 Spartans. I guess the Thespians and Thebans didn't have PR men on the payroll...

 

[Guest 6801328]

Public relations also had a hand in that since the force blocking the pass was well over 1000 (probably around 2000 depending on how many helots the Spartans brought) and not just 300 Spartans. I guess the Thespians and Thebans didn't have PR men on the payroll...

Thespians? Well that was their first problem. If you bring Roleplayers to a Powergaming fight, they're gonna lose.

 

[TheCosmicKid]

Just because a weapon is listed as Finesse, it doesn't mean you can't still use your Str to hit and damage. You can choose to use Dex, but you don't have to.

If you can choose to use Dex, then the weapon does not require strength. In D&D, a character with 3 Str and 20 Dex can perform well with a dagger. In reality... it's gonna be a bit more challenging.