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

[Bill Zebub]

2d6 averages 7 when both attacks hit. The probabilities that one attacks out of two hits is higher than a that of a single attack landing, but the probabilities that both attacks hit are lower than that of a single attack landing a hit.

If we assume that the first attack hits in both cases, d6 averages 3.5+stat, d10 averages 5.5+stat. Then, the second attack might or might not hit, so let's say your target number is 11 on the d20 to hit the AC, that's 1 chances out of 2, averaging to 1.75 damage. The lower the TN, the more this second attack contributes to average damage.

Then again it's possible that only the second attack hits, in which case TWF nets a 3.5 damage over one attack at d10 (because there's no bonus to damage from stat). So my maths are not the greatest but eyeballing it overall, two attacks at 1d6, with only the first adding stat bonus to damage, probably washes out with one attack at 1d10+stat bonus.

Oh, I see.

The only difference is that the standard deviation is higher for the two attacks, which is what you are trying to describe. But expected DPR is still average damage * chance to hit.

Really the only time it matters is when there is a reason you need to hit beyond that average damage, such as rogue sneak attack or preventing regeneration, in which case dual is superior.

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

I don't see a balance issue: I removed the Finesse requirement for Sneak Attack for 5e and I've not seen any thematic or balance issues.
We will probably have to wait for the Warrior playtest to see weapon rules: so far only the change to the Light property and the interaction of Heavy with GWM feat have been revealed IIRC.
Until then, this sort of thing is pretty much speculation.

Not sure I agree...fast, skinny guys using big swords has been a trope for a while now.

Those skinny guys are generally depicted as massively (often superhumanly) strong.

The way I figure it, if power isn’t your thing, two hands on the hilt gives you the leverage to move it quickly.

If the weapon is dependent on leverage, then the strength (literally the ability to apply leverage) of the wielder is relevant.
If the weapon is not dependent on leverage, then you do not need the additional hand on the hilt limiting your reach.

 

[Charlaquin]

I think we need to differentiate weapons more, not make them more samey.

In addition, this is the old Ninja-Katanas argument we've heard for decades. But think of it this way: Katanas, Broadswords, and Bastard swords (the historic inspirations of the D&D Longsword) are HEAVY.

Not really. The weight of most swords pretty much caps out at about 3 lbs, or around 1.3 to 1.4 kg. Only dedicated two-handed swords like Zwihanders really get much heavier than that, and even those are a lot lighter than you’d think because the blades are really thin (which makes edge alignment that much more important for such big swords). Turns out, 3 lbs is the sweet spot for optimizing strike force, giving you the most mass without sacrificing the ability to accelerate it by muscle power. The difference tends to be in how that weight is distributed (hence the very long blades also being very thin).

 

[Bill Zebub]

(which makes edge alignment that much more important for such big swords).

Edge alignment?

 

[tetrasodium]

Edge alignment?

if "-" & " /" were sword strikes & "|" a target
| - ← Would be aligned well
but
|/← would not be

Spoiler: this gives more detail

 

[Bill Zebub]

if "-" & " /" were sword strikes & "|" a target
| - ← Would be aligned well
but
|/← would not be

Spoiler: this gives more detail

Ohhhh…I thought they were referring to something about how the blade was forged/ground. Symmetrical bevels or something.

And bonus points for the ascii art.

 

[Charlaquin]

Edge alignment?

You cut through a target more easily and cleanly if you hit it at the right angle. This is especially important with a long, thin blade because it’s liable to wobble otherwise, which wastes a lot of kinetic energy that could otherwise be directed into your target. Ever used a metal ruler? Think about how, if you hit it on the broad side it wobbles, but if you hit it on the narrow side it might not.

 

[Charlaquin]

Ohhhh…I thought they were referring to something about how the blade was forged/ground. Symmetrical bevels or something.

That’s also a thing. Well, not symmetrical bevels, but the angle of the cutting edge (a 90 degree angle, for example, can cut with enough force, but mostly isn’t going to do it very well. 45 degrees is pretty much the optimal blade angle).

 

[Bill Zebub]

You cut through a target more easily and cleanly if you hit it at the right angle. This is especially important with a long, thin blade because it’s liable to wobble otherwise, which wastes a lot of kinetic energy that could otherwise be directed into your target. Ever used a metal ruler? Think about how, if you hit it on the broad side it wobbles, but if you hit it on the narrow side it might not.

No, but an aeronautical engineer once designed a wobbly javelin for my limp wrist that helped my fraternity win the campus Greek Olympics. Maybe you saw the documentary.

 

[Bill Zebub]

That’s also a thing. Well, not symmetrical bevels, but the angle of the cutting edge (a 90 degree angle, for example, can cut with enough force, but mostly isn’t going to do it very well. 45 degrees is pretty much the optimal blade angle).

Depends what you are cutting. I learned to grind a progressive bevel so that it’s nearly 90 degrees at the very edge, but you’d need a microscope to see it. The majority of it is about 17-24 degrees per side, so 34-40 degrees total.

(Then again my blades are for cutting meat without armor over it.)