D&D (2024) Longsword finesse when used 2H

[Yaarel]

i mean, if they include greatswords as a subset of longswords (they probably would), i wouldn't be surprised. but we're not talking about the archaeological definition of longsword or greatsword - we're talking about D&D. D&D longswords are more hand-and-a-halves then proper two-handed swords (although you can use particularly short two-handed swords - which would not be greatswords - in one hand fairly effectively). claymores are very much on the big end of two-handed sword (though not as far as, say, a zweihander). that was more my point - claymores would fall more under greatsword then longsword in D&D. you are not effectively using it one-handed.

The claymore is a longsword scientifically. The reason why the claymore is also a "D&D" "Versatile" "Longsword" is, one can wield the claymore with either one or two hands.

A D&D Greatsword cannot be wielded one-handed. So it really is an even longer bladelength than a claymore. Historically, these kinds of extremely long swords behave more like polearms do.

i fear any scientific term that includes "D&D".

yeah, zweihanders and odachi would also fall under the greatsword - although doesn't that mean the greatsword should have reach (since their bladelengths get over 5 feet)? discussion for a different day, i suppose.

Yes, reach. In my list of D&D sword types.

Shortsword 1d6 Slash/Pierce (Finesse, Light)
Katana 1d6 Slash/Pierce (Finesse, Versatile 1d10)
Sword 1d8 Slash/Pierce (Finesse)
Longsword 1d8 Slash (Versatile 1d12)
Greatsword 1d12 Slash (Heavy, Reach, Two-Handed)

So, this Greatsword stat does have the Reach property. This Reach implies a bladelength at least 5 feet. Also remember the hilt tends to be long, and the wielder makes lunges while fighting.

i have no idea what you're referring to here. sabres? i would not call a sabre a greatsword.

Yeah. Sometimes the term "sabre" is used for these oversized horseback weapons.

D&D illustrations can get stupid, honestly.

Heh, for a "Greatsword", I think this:

and this:

and even this:

But other players are thinking this:

and this:

For me, a "Greatsword" means moreorless the whole sword is longer than the person is tall. So it is more like a polearm.

 

[W'rkncacnter]

The claymore is a longsword scientifically.

what does this even mean?

The reason why the claymore is also a "D&D" "Versatile" "Longsword" is, one can wield the claymore with either one or two hands.

not effectively.

Yes, reach. In my list of D&D sword types.

okay, i don't need your list of sword ty--

Shortsword 1d6 Slash/Pierce (Finesse, Light)
Katana 1d6 Slash/Pierce (Finesse, Versatile 1d10)
Sword 1d8 Slash/Pierce (Finesse)
Longsword 1d8 Slash (Versatile 1d12)
Greatsword 1d12 Slash (Heavy, Reach, Two-Handed)

woah, wait, why in the sam hell does the katana have piercing but not the long/greatsword????

So, this Greatsword stat does have the Reach property. This Reach implies a bladelength at least 5 feet.

but the base D&D greatsword...doesn't. so clearly that's not a prerequisite in 5e.

Yeah. Sometimes the term "sabre" is used for these oversized horseback weapons.

ah, okay. i wouldn't call a sabre oversized, so i got confused about what you were referring to.

and this:

okay, something about that sword is way off.

 

[Charlaquin]

And the feared Messerschmitt (literally "Knife-Blender"...schmitt is the German translation of the French word cuisinart), which is four full-size swords arranged radially around a powered shaft, spinning at several thousand RPMs, mounted to a flying platform.

(Which puts me in mind of the excellent joke that ends with the punchline, "Nein...zeese fokkers, they vere flying messerschmitts."

Is... is that just a helicopter?

 

[Charlaquin]

@Yaarel and @W'rkncacnter, you're both right. Claymores got larger throughout the medieval period and into the early modern period. The earlier claymores could be used one or two handed, though even then they were larger than other medieval two-handed swords of the time, and by the late medieval, they were probably too large for most people to use in one hand effectively.

Most of the way we now categorize swords is really not how they were referred to historically. Generally people just called any sword a sword, or the analogous term in their native language. The term "longsword" historically referred not to a type of sword, but to a set of swordfighting techniques designed for use with, well, swords that were long. For the most part, pretty much any sword with a grip longer than your hand could be used in longsword fighting. The really big ones - zwihanders, bihanders, montantes, the later claymores (pretty much all their local languages' equivalents of "great sword" or "two-hander") were almost their own type of thing though, with significantly different techniques from regular swords, and generally used by highly-paid specialists.

 

[Yaarel]

Claymores got larger throughout the medieval period. ... The later claymores were almost their own type of thing though, with significantly different techniques, and generally used by highly-paid specialists.

That is one of the reasons for distinguishing between a bladelength less than 4 feet versus more than 4 feet.

Likewise, I like how 5e distinguishes between the "Longsword" versus the extralong "Greatsword".

 

[Scott Christian]

In general I get what you're saying, and agree that too many players seem to want more and more and more without giving up anything.

Except that in this case what I want my character to "get" is almost purely cosmetic. He can already be good at both melee and ranged, by dual-wielding short swords. This wouldn't make him any more effective mechanically. It's expanding the range of ways one can imagine their character, without power creep.

If I were arguing for 2H swords to be finesse, then sure. But that's not what I'm suggesting.

Oh yeah, sorry if I came across rude. That was not the intention.

I agree with your flavor choice. Heck, if I were DM, I'd let you run with it. Because I do not think things like that break the game by any means.

 

[OldSchoolGamerGirl]

While I can see the appeal, I would avoid that because it's a straight-up buff for wizards and sorcerers with decent Dex.

and makes a fighter with a high dex who uses a staff possible without multi into monk

 

[Bill Zebub]

and makes a fighter with a high dex who uses a staff possible without multi into monk

Hmm, ok, yeah.

It seems to me, though, that the concept of "somebody who kicks @$$ with a staff without wearing heavy armor" is already supported: the Monk itself, without multiclassing.

Why does it need to be a fighter?

 

[Bill Zebub]

Is... is that just a helicopter?

 

[OldSchoolGamerGirl]

Hmm, ok, yeah.

It seems to me, though, that the concept of "somebody who kicks @$$ with a staff without wearing heavy armor" is already supported: the Monk itself, without multiclassing.

Why does it need to be a fighter?

it doesn't have to be a fighter, but I would like a martial character with less magic, and none of the "mind body soul" flavor text worked in.