Crimson Longinus
Legend
How is longsword ahistorical?
Last edited:
D&D 5E So Is The Dex Based Fighter Just Strictly Better?
- Thread starter Zardnaar
- Start date
I don't disagree. We used to have the "bastard sword" which was the step up from the "longsword". The longsword was basically a Viking/Carolingian/Norman sword that could only be used 1 handed doing 1d8 and the bastard sword was effectively versatile IIRC that did 1d10 if used 2-handed. There were rapiers as well, but they were 1d6, same as short swords.
Of course historically the names of swords are all over the place anyway, a longsword was just a sword longer than had been typical in that region and era for example. Swords were always morphing and changing based on capabilities of the smiths, the quality of materials and the target market.
EzekielRaiden
Follower of the Way
Such "whataboutism" arguments no longer really work on me. That the game is not as bad as it has previously been is not an excuse. If anything,I consider making such an argument a point in my favor: it means you have to compare it to the sometimes horrible design of yesteryear in order to get a positive comparison. That's not a good thing.
EzekielRaiden
Follower of the Way
AIUI, "long sword" referred mostly to what we call bastard swords or "greatsword" today (with "greatsword" mostly being a pure invention of D&D), and the vast majority of European swords were either bastard sword "hand-and-a-half" type, fully two-handed claymore-type, or fully one-handed gladius-type, unless they were rapiers and other duelling-type swords.
AbdulAlhazred
Legend
In 1e STR adds to both attack and damage bonus with melee weapons, and thrown weapons, and DEX does the same for missile weapons. DEX also adds to AC if it is high enough. There is no 'heavy' or 'light' armor in classic D&D, DEX always adds to your AC, even in field plate. Basically you want a high value in BOTH, but since attack and damage bonuses are hard to get, and melee is neigh unavoidable at some point (and ranged attacks have a LOT of ugly restrictions on them, like if you fire into melee you hit some random target, like it could be your own guys).
The upshot being, you CAN be a 'bow expert', but it is unlikely a D&D fighter will be deliberately built with DEX primary in most cases, at least in core 1e. Once you add in dual wielding and weapon specialization, then it might be more attractive to with DEX, as it removes dual wielding penalties and being a specialized dual wielding shortsword buzz saw is not such a bad way to go! OTOH there is a rule that allows you to make unusually high pull 'strength bows' that get a damage bonus from STR, which kinda balances things.
Overall, your fighter can be effective with just a high DEX, OR just a high STR. The STR guy is maybe the more solid choice (great weapons with high STR vs large monsters basically rules). Of course GoOP are a thing, if your DEX fighter can get those, or a girdle, yikes. There are also magic bracers that grant fixed ACs. Not as good as armor, but presumably DEX bonus piles on top of that, and gives you some nice mobility, etc. A STR fighter might use that plus a strength bow, for instance if you REALLY want to be a STR archer!
Crimson Longinus
Legend
Yes. A sword that is typically a tad larger than an arming sword but smaller than a great sword and can be wielded either by one or two hands.
No (and no.)
Sure. But 5e longsword is a sword that is can effectively be used either with one or two hands. AKA bastard sword, AKA hand and a half sword. It is correct terminology for such a sword (sure, it is probably not what medieval people would have called it, but almost none of the terminology is period accurate, it is modern terminology.) Weirdness is that 5e doesn't have separate arming sword AKA knightly sword AKA just plain old sword, and that certainly is a bit weird, but if such existed it would rules-wise end up being just longsword without versatile. But longsword actually does what one would expect a longsword to do.
AbdulAlhazred
Legend
The term 'long sword' was used to refer to a two-handed sword, universally. Actually one-handed swords were almost entirely personal defense weapons designed for easy carrying as a supplementary weapon, or when NOT otherwise 'armed' (hence their name, 'arming sword'). There was really not much in the way of purely one-handed blades longer than about 30", which ARGUABLY could be classified as 'short swords' by D&D's parlance (another term that is ahistorical, but at least it was not used for something else at any time in history). I mean, Roman 'hispanica' and similar were in this range, and apparently D&D's short sword is meant to model them.
So, names like dagger, arming sword, bastard sword, and long sword would be pretty accurate historical labels that would cover the range of actual sword-weapons pretty effectively. In the earlier periods, or as military issued weapons, you see something in the 'arming sword' range pretty often, combined with a shield, but even then such warriors almost universally carry spears, javelin-like dart weapons, and often some form of axe, as either a primary or backup to the sword. Later, when heavier armor comes into fashion most of your professional warriors (IE like knights) often dropped the shield and if they wielded a sword in battle it would be two-handed (a true long sword).
Mostly the division of one-handed swords into 2 separate length/weight categories is not justified, and the nomenclature used by D&D is way off.
AbdulAlhazred
Legend
Well, at some point someone added a rule (which didn't exist in older editions) that you could kind of gimpily 'hand-and-a-half' your D&D longsword. There has always STILL been an explicit 'bastard sword'. There's no justification for such a split really. You have daggers/knives, one-handed swords (aka arming or knightly sword), bastard-swords, and 'great' swords (which have a wide variety of names, including long sword). I agree that terms are pretty fungible though and I'm sure its arguable that many people called their 'bastard sword' a 'long sword', or simply referred to ALL larger swords as 'long'. I mean, your basically talking about a period of 1000 years or more just covered by Medieval Europe, and dozens of common languages, so...
The real point is, the idea of subdividing single-handed swords into different classes of weapon is questionable, at best. An 11th Century arming sword might have a slightly longer and thinner blade than a Legionary Hispanica of the 2nd Century, but they are generally very close in size and weight and would be used the same way (though the reasons for carrying them and who used them are radically different, as is their 'furniture').
Crimson Longinus
Legend
I don't think you're correct. There is a pretty big difference between a longsword/bastard sword/hand and a half sword that was usually used with two hands but could be still used with one, and a true greatsword and zweihänders that were as long as their wielders were tall. And sure, it is a continuum, and there is no clear cut-off point, but same is true for any classification based on blade length. But it is distinction that is often made outside of D&D too.
John R Davis
Hero
Dex. By some distance.
Next Question
Next Question
