D&D 5E The fall from grace of the longsword

[Grainger]

Is there any reason you can't, say, use a longsword with a half-sword grip and deal piercing damage? Or bash someone with the pommel/cross-guard and deal bludgeoning damage? (Or trip someone with the cross-guard for that matter.)

I don't think you can use a mace to deal piercing or bludgeoning damage in the same way. (Though a warhammer...)

Historically, swordsmen did sometimes (often? we don't know) grip the blade and use the hilt as a hammer - presumably when fighting armoured foes. However, I prefer that D&D doesn't go into tactical detail like this. We don't need to learn real historical fighting styles (or the details of movie/fantasy ones) to play. The attack roll represents your character's best attempt/s to hit the opponent that round. How they do it isn't really relevant, unless you want to run a much more detailed simulation of tactical combat (and there are probably other systems out there that do it already).

Edit: Marty Lund made much the same point first!

 

[DMZ2112]

I didn't play 4E from very long, but wasn't Longsword on the short list of weapons that had +3 to hit, and thus better than pretty much everything else?

It's been a long time since I did the math, but I think higher proficiency bonus than comparable weapons was the advantage of swords in general in D&D4? That said, A straight up +1 was good through heroic tier, but as level increased it became less and less relevant while the other weapon abilities scaled better.

Again, it's been forever since I've thought about this, and my memory is foggy, so please don't call me a liar (about this, anyway).

My guess is because 5e is going back to a more simpler system. Judging by the feedback, that's what most people wanted, so I wouldn't consider it a step back any more than I'd consider Coke taking a step back when they went back to Coke Classic.

Eh. We wanted simple, yes. But simple doesn't have to mean illogical or poorly balanced. The loss of D&D4 weapon balance is /not/ a feature of D&D5. Balance in general was the albatross of D&D4, but when it comes to something like weapons you want a little balance. Playing a knife fighter ought to be as mechanically valid as a greataxe fighter. Otherwise you're just eliminating character options from the table for no apparent reason.

I mean, seriously, in the last five combat encounters in your campaign, how many suits of plate mail were there?

Just to play devil's advocate: I use a lot of hobgoblins, and by the RAW, their rank and file are in chain and their captains are in half-plate.

I've just always felt that the best interpretation of the "Armor Class" system is armor is impenetrable /in general/ (perhaps with the exception of critical hits), and increasing value represents greater coverage. If you roll an attack, and your result is higher than your opponent's AC, you are hitting them in a place that is unprotected by their armor.

If I were going to base combat success on armor penetration I'd use damage reduction, hardness, armor HP, and yes, damage type effectiveness rules. But that is so much management for so little gain!

 

[The Crimson Binome]

Really? To an appreciable degree?

To an unacceptable degree. If you have two weapons that are identical in every way, except one has 85% accuracy and the other has 86% accuracy, then anyone who uses the inferior weapon in lieu of the superior one is just stupid and there is no exception to that.

What 3E gave us was conditionally superior weapons. A greatsword is superior to a maul, unless you are in a situation where the maul was superior. The scythe is a great weapon in very narrow circumstances. There was always a best weapon for any given situation, or a handful of weapon which were equally good, and most people focused on the weapon that would be best for them in a weighted selection of most-common scenarios.

If a player was aware of the differences, and consciously chose to use an inferior weapon, then it's because they care more about the specific roleplaying opportunities than about the likelihood that they would stay alive long enough to have those opportunities. In particular, they have to really want to roleplay a character who doesn't know about which weapons are better, or really doesn't care about staying alive.

 

[Jeff Carlsen]

For a sword, which primarily does slashing damage but can potentially do bludgeoning or piercing, I would allow a player to declare that they're specifically looking to do piercing damage, and the attack would have disadvantage to represent the inability to use the full range of the weapon's abilities.

 

[jayoungr]

All these battlefield comparisons are pretty moot for most campaigns anyway.

How often does your PC face someone in plate mail? Orcs and various other humanoids rarely have armour that expensive. Monsters don't wear armour by and large. Anything Large sized or bigger is almost never in plate mail.

I mean, seriously, in the last five combat encounters in your campaign, how many suits of plate mail were there?

Good point, and it's likely to be this way for most tables. One big reason why opponents don't usually have the best armor is because DMs know the PCs will take that armor for themselves once they defeat whatever-it-is.

 

[Sacrosanct]

Eh. We wanted simple, yes. But simple doesn't have to mean illogical or poorly balanced. The loss of D&D4 weapon balance is /not/ a feature of D&D5.

For you maybe. For me it is. Heck, I'd be happy if they went back to the way it originally was and every weapon did d6 for damage. That solves the problem right there. Choose whatever weapon you think is coolest and go with it.

 

[miniaturehoarder]

For a sword, which primarily does slashing damage but can potentially do bludgeoning or piercing, I would allow a player to declare that they're specifically looking to do piercing damage, and the attack would have disadvantage to represent the inability to use the full range of the weapon's abilities.

I think the PHB's improvising weapons rules should be fine without disadvantage. 1d4 damage for striking with the flat of the blade for bludgeoning sounds better than disadvantage since many folks have figured out stacking disadvantage is no big deal.

 

[Bayonet]

I like 5e's weapons tables the way they are. There's enough flavor for those who nerd out on tactics ( Me, largely) but there's enough simplicity to make it accessible to newbies.

Honestly, if a group would rather have more "realistic" weapons effects, they wouldn't be that hard to house-rule. Give plated enemies resistance to non-bludgeoning attacks or something, maybe demand higher strength bonuses to use certain weapons( longbow).

I think D&D does better as a simple base for individual groups to build on than it does as an complicated code that people need to crack before they are deemed worthy of playing the game.

 

[LostSoul]

Historically, swordsmen did sometimes (often? we don't know) grip the blade and use the hilt as a hammer - presumably when fighting armoured foes. However, I prefer that D&D doesn't go into tactical detail like this. We don't need to learn real historical fighting styles (or the details of movie/fantasy ones) to play. The attack roll represents your character's best attempt/s to hit the opponent that round. How they do it isn't really relevant, unless you want to run a much more detailed simulation of tactical combat (and there are probably other systems out there that do it already).

Edit: Marty Lund made much the same point first!

In that case, why do we have damage types at all? Or different damage dice?

 

[Jeff Carlsen]

I think the PHB's improvising weapons rules should be fine without disadvantage. 1d4 damage for striking with the flat of the blade for bludgeoning sounds better than disadvantage since many folks have figured out stacking disadvantage is no big deal.

That not a bad alternative, though I'm not concerned with players gaming disadvantage stacking.

One could also just alter the damage die as seems appropriate. A longsword may only do 1d4 bludgeoning, but could still do 1d6 piercing, as it has a really good point on it.