D&D 5E Mike Mearls's Tweets

[El Mahdi]

My original reply to Derren was pointing out the fallacy that in the situation he provided that implied that a shortsword would be potential more effective than a Two-handed sword.

I understood what you were responding to. You were right, the short-sword is not potentially more effective. However, I was responding to your claim that conversely, the two-handed sword was potentially more effective than the short-sword in the same circumstances. On that point I believe you're wrong, and you have provided no evidence why this is so. A two-handed sword being wielded in a half-sword manner (one hand on the hilt, one hand on the blade) is going to be about as long as the short-sword (thus basically the same reach). Therefore, no advantage for the two-handed sword. One might even make the argument that since the short-sword can be wielded one handed in this situation, it's potentially more manuevarable than the two-handed sword (even when wielded in a half-sword manner). However, I'm more of the mind that it's a wash. But my previou statement still holds true.

Effective: Yes.

More Effective: No.

Only when you are not comparing them for a job at hand. If you are trying to split boards, both a hacksaw and a hammer could do it but the splits created with the hacksaw would be cleaner and more accurate.

Also a shortsword:two-handed sword isn't a hacksaw:hammer comparison. It is more a 6" hacksaw to 4' handsaw comparison. I'm not comparing a shortsword(a thrusting/cutting weapon) and a mace(a bludgeoning weapon), I'm commenting on a comparison about two thrusting/cutting weapons.

That's a good point.

I wasn't trying to say that.

...

I never did. I think you are confusing me with other posters.

Nope. No confusion.

At that point every weapon starts having problems, and a half-sworded two-handed sword would still be potentially more effective than a shortsword.

 

[El Mahdi]

Modeling the real world is a nice extra, but shouldn't be the primary reason for any rule.

I Agree.

I'll admit though: I Loooooooove Realism! But I'm not willing to sacrifice ease of gameplay for it. So Yeah, I'm of the mind that Balance should be the primary motive for any rule. However, I don't think that realism or world support should be ignored.

A rule that's simple and balanced, and is realistic or provides world support...priceless.

 

[Nellisir]

DISCLAIMER: I realize this post is pedantic, overly-detailed, and obsessed with the minutiae of a hypothetical comparison. I totally understand the point being made. But leaving the hypothetical comparisons uncorrected hurts me. Deeply. In my heart. Blame it on my father, who has a workshop stuffed with hand tools (and sawdust).

Only when you are not comparing them for a job at hand. If you are trying to split boards, both a hacksaw and a hammer could do it but the splits created with the hacksaw would be cleaner and more accurate.

A hacksaw is a finely-toothed saw used to cut plastic or metal. It would be excruciatingly slow in wood, and the teeth would clog quickly.

The cuts would, however, be cleaner and more accurate than you would get with a hammer. (Which is not to say that I haven't made some lovely splits with the claw side of a a hammer...)

Also a shortsword:two-handed sword isn't a hacksaw:hammer comparison. It is more a 6" hacksaw to 4' handsaw comparison.

There are 6" hacksaws. A better comparison, however, might be an 18" toolbox saw, or if you want to stay really small, a keyhole or drywall saw.

There are no 4' handsaws. There are 4' (and larger) two-person saws, used for cutting logs and beams, but 4' is too large. I'm not sure I've ever seen a handsaw longer than 32", maybe 36" tops. There's just not enough depth in the human arm to use a saw that big effectively.
Edit: OK, wikipedia has a picture of a 5', single person crosscut saw, so I'm wrong about them not existing. In my defense, my father has two old two-person felling saws, but we never had occasion to use them. I will also note that as pictured, it's clearly a two-handed weapon. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crosscut_saw

OK, that's out of my system. Resume your day!

 

[Ultimatecalibur]

I understood what you were responding to. You were right, the short-sword is not potentially more effective. However, I was responding to your claim that conversely, the two-handed sword was potentially more effective than the short-sword in the same circumstances. On that point I believe you're wrong, and you have provided no evidence why this is so. A two-handed sword being wielded in a half-sword manner (one hand on the hilt, one hand on the blade) is going to be about as long as the short-sword (thus basically the same reach). Therefore, no advantage for the two-handed sword. One might even make the argument that since the short-sword can be wielded one handed in this situation, it's potentially more manuevarable than the two-handed sword (even when wielded in a half-sword manner). However, I'm more of the mind that it's a wash. But my previou statement still holds true.

Effective: Yes.

More Effective: No.

A standard two-handed sword's blade is often over 4 and a half feet long with a 10 to 12 inch grip. When wielded at half-sword the blade is gripped at a point between 1/3(18") and 1/2(27") of its length leaving somewhere between 27" and 36" of usable blade length. What D&D classifies as a "shortsword" (and what weapon experts traditionally classify as a longknife") is a blade with a 12" to 24" blade. Comparing the half-sworded two-handed sword's usable blade lengths with a shortsword's blade length gives the two-handed sword an advantage of 3" to 24" of length and reach. Having a greater reach is often considered a decisive advantage in fights between combatants of equal skill.

Also someone wielding a weapon in two hands usually has greater control and leverage with their weapon than someone wielding a weapon in one hand.

Is that a good explanation for why it could be potentially more effective?

Nope. No confusion.

But I never said a two-handed sword should do more damage in D&D because of it being more effective, and I said "potentially more" because effectiveness can vary depending on how you are measuring it and in this case I think that if properly used a half-sworded two-handed sword would be a potentially more effective weapon than a shortsword in slightly cramped conditions due to its superior reach if it can take advantage of that reach.

 

[El Mahdi]

But I never said a two-handed sword should do more damage in D&D because of it being more effective,...

Nor did I say that was what you said...

...and I said "potentially more" because effectiveness can vary depending on how you are measuring it and in this case I think that if properly used a half-sworded two-handed sword would be a potentially more effective weapon than a shortsword in slightly cramped conditions due to its superior reach if it can take advantage of that reach.

Ahhh...

So what you meant to say was:

At that point every weapon starts having problems, and a half-sworded two-handed sword would still be potentially more effective than a shortsword if it can take advantage of its reach.

Why didn't you just say so then...

Yes, a conditional statement makes much more sense there, rather than just a blanket statement. It all makes sense now.

 

[Ultimatecalibur]

Nor did I say that was what you said...

You did a good job of implying that I said that with a reply like this:

Since D&D uses an abstract quantification for things like attack, defense, and Hit Points, making a blanket mechanic that makes one weapon more effective than another has no grounding in reality. If one wants to do so for game balance or game color, then so be it (and I'm fine with that). But don't say it's done because it more closely models real world effectiveness, when it simply does not.

Why didn't you just say so then...

Yes, a conditional statement makes much more sense there, rather than just a blanket statement. It all makes sense now.

Because I thought that is forum had highly knowledgeable gamers who could deduce implicit information without needing to be explicit because I used a word that means "with a possibility of becoming actual" and imply that one or more conditionals exist.

 

[El Mahdi]

Because I thought that is forum had highly knowledgeable gamers who could deduce implicit information without needing to be explicit because I used a word that means "with a possibility of becoming actual" and imply that one or more conditionals exist.

Like I'm now deducing, and quite accurately so, that you're saying I'm not a knowledgable gamer or unable to understand your implied meaning...?

This conversation is now officially over.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Because I thought that is forum had highly knowledgeable gamers who could deduce implicit information without needing to be explicit

Quick reminder that keeping it civil is part of the board rules, and that personal digs veiled in mock-shock are really not very civil at all. Lets please not do the thing where we are too busy dorking out about how polyhedral dice can represent medieval weaponry for our imaginary gumdrop elves that we forget to treat others well. ~ KM

 

[Manbearcat]

The above last sentence may be the greatest (most amusing + insightful) line in the history of moderation anywhere in the known universe. I'm going to type it again; "Lets please not do the thing where we are too busy dorking out about how polyhedral dice can represent medieval weaponry for our imaginary gumdrop elves that we forget to treat each other well." It kind of deserves a "His name is Robert Paulson" treatment.

 

[Nellisir]

Licorice elves. Gumdrop gnomes. Chocolate dwarves. Now I'm hungry.