D&D 5E So Is The Dex Based Fighter Just Strictly Better?

[Crimson Longinus]

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.

There is no such split! There is no separate bastard sword in 5e, it is the longsword. Yes, I agree that in older editions the terminology was wrong, now it isn't any more regarding longswords.

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').

Then rename short sword arming sword and the matter is sorted. These categorisations are not clear in the real world either. But we must makes some cut-off points, or we might as well say that zweihänder is just a really big dagger so it is basically the same thing.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

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.

nobody outside of D&D or its influence would use the term 'long sword' to refer to an arming sword, though. Certainly no experts on ancient and medieval weapons have ever done so.

Obviously every length of blade has been forged by someone at some point in time, and most of them were in use throughout history in some fashion or other. Its really a question of where there are important differences in employment. A 24 to 34 inch blade are all really the same weapon in that sense, and all have very similar weights and such. I mean, you can obviously draw your lines at slightly different points, but how many hands are generally put on the weapon and the style of fighting it supports seem like the key points. Any differences in the above range though are pretty subtle and would mostly devolve down to reach vs another similar weapon (IE if someone with a 24" sword came along, you'd be happy to have the 34" variety, all other things being equal).

 

[Mannahnin]

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.

My (amateur) sword study is more in line with @AbdulAlhazred 's. Greatswords and zweihanders "as long as their wielders were tall" were pretty rare; the only historical example of one actually wielded on the battlefield I can think of off hand was the one some of the landsknechts used.

A historical longsword was principally a two-handed weapon and could be swung with one hand, but by that token you can swing a zweihander with one hand- it's just not really an effective or viable way to use it. HEMA sport leagues today primarily use longswords, they're wielded with two hands, and they're definitely bigger and heavier than the dimensions D&D has always given for a "longsword". The dimensions of D&D longswords correspond pretty closely with a few different historical single-handed swords, like the arming sword aka knightly sword, or the viking/carolingian swords which preceded it, or the spatha which preceded them.

The "versatile" trait from 4E and 5E giving you an extra +1 dmg for two-handing your single-handed weapon is just representing the better leverage and power you get for that; I don't think it's representing that this is actually a historical longsword.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

nobody outside of D&D or its influence would use the term 'long sword' to refer to an arming sword, though. Certainly no experts on ancient and medieval weapons have ever done so.

Sure. And neither does 5e. Weirdness is the lack of arming sword, not that longsword is named wrongly.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

My (amateur) sword study is more in line with @AbdulAlhazred 's. Greatswords and zweihanders "as long as their wielders were tall" were pretty rare; the only historical example of one actually wielded on the battlefield I can think of off hand was the one some of the landsknechts used.

Yet they existed, and I feel it would be weird to lump them in same category with longsword. It would be like lumping katana and ōdachi together.

A historical longsword was principally a two-handed weapon and could be swung with one hand, but by that token you can swing a zweihander with one hand- it's just not really an effective or viable way to use it.

There is a pretty big difference there. Many long/bastard swords had pretty comparable blade length than larger arming swords, they just had a longer hilt. It is not at all comparable to using zweihändr with one hand.

HEMA sport leagues today primarily use longswords, they're wielded with two hands, and they're definitely bigger and heavier than the dimensions D&D has always given for a "longsword". The dimensions of D&D longswords correspond pretty closely with a few different historical single-handed swords, like the arming sword aka knightly sword, or the viking/carolingian swords which preceded it, or the spatha which preceded them.

The "versatile" trait from 4E and 5E giving you an extra +1 dmg for two-handing your single-handed weapon is just representing the better leverage and power you get for that; I don't think it's representing that this is actually a historical longsword.

So if you feel 5e longsword rules better represent an arming sword, what sort of rules would you give to an actual long/bastard sword then?

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Sure. And neither does 5e. Weirdness is the lack of arming sword, not that longsword is named wrongly.

Fair enough, though I think that what D&D calls the 'short sword' really should have been the 'arming sword' in effect. I think a lot of this came about due to the sizes of dice available, you had d4 (dagger), and d8 was picked as sort of the 'standard assumed potency of a Chainmail weapon'), so a d6 'short sword' was wedged in there. Actually in the original rules ALL weapons just did d6 damage, with a couple of exceptions, so the differentiation happened at Greyhawk, but it seems like the above was the process that happened. Then the 'big weapons' were all called two-handed sword at that time, and 1e added the 'bastard-sword', which forced the 'longsword' down to being one-handed, etc. The other weird one, that has vanished and was really entirely random, was the 'broadsword' of 1e that did 2d4 damage, lol.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Yet they existed, and I feel it would be weird to lump them in same category with longsword. It would be like lumping katana and ōdachi together.


There is a pretty big difference there. Many long/bastard swords had pretty comparable blade length than larger arming swords, they just had a longer hilt. It is not at all comparable to using zweihändr with one hand.



So if you feel 5e longsword rules better represent an arming sword, what sort of rules would you give to an actual long/bastard sword then?

I just personally think the current rules split hairs too much. Daggers have a distinct use. One-handed swords have a distinct use, bastard-swords have a distinct use, and true two-handers have a distinct use. You can find descriptions of distinct fighting styles for each of these classes of weapon. In terms of basically straight bladed swords the above is really it, and that leads to a nice breakdown where each one gets a different sized damage die, and some unique properties.

Obviously you can invent more slight variations of weapon stats than this, but do they actually add anything material to play? I'd say its more the opposite when you consider each one has a proficiency, etc. I mean, in terms of actual existing 5e D&D, there's really no point to messing with what is there now, it is somewhat annoyingly inaccurate and a little silly, but its a fantasy game, so whatever.

 

[niklinna]

The other weird one, that has vanished and was really entirely random, was the 'broadsword' of 1e that did 2d4 damage, lol.

Well if it was broader, surely it deserved more damage dice.

Good thing we aren't arguing about "studded leather"....

 

[Crimson Longinus]

I just personally think the current rules split hairs too much. Daggers have a distinct use. One-handed swords have a distinct use, bastard-swords have a distinct use, and true two-handers have a distinct use. You can find descriptions of distinct fighting styles for each of these classes of weapon. In terms of basically straight bladed swords the above is really it, and that leads to a nice breakdown where each one gets a different sized damage die, and some unique properties.

Sure, I agree that those are sensible sword categories. But that's what 5e basically has. Sure, it is a bit weird that dedicated one handed swords are called short swords (which is too specific for a broader category) but still. And of course rapier just is too good and its rules shouldn't exist (to add something relating to the actual topic of the thread.)

Obviously you can invent more slight variations of weapon stats than this, but do they actually add anything material to play? I'd say its more the opposite when you consider each one has a proficiency, etc. I mean, in terms of actual existing 5e D&D, there's really no point to messing with what is there now, it is somewhat annoyingly inaccurate and a little silly, but its a fantasy game, so whatever.

Sure. And I don't really want inventing profiles for things just because a name for the weapon exists, if there isn't design space for it in the rules. That's how we end up with things like the trident.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Good thing we aren't arguing about "studded leather"....

Well, now that you mentioned it!

I really dislike when people suggest making things "more historically accurate" by renaming studded leather brigandine. No! Brigandine definitely is not a light armour, it would be a medium armour, probably best represented by scale (which is structurally very similar, small pieces of metal attached to supporting material.) Rename studded leather "reinforced leather" or something vague like that.