Xeviat
Dungeon Mistress, she/her
What do you believe is better about doing it in reverse?
-
NOW LIVE! Into the Woods--new character species, eerie monsters, and haunting villains to populate the woodlands of your D&D games.
D&D 5E Theorycrafting Versatile
- Thread starter Quartz
- Start date
What do you believe is better about doing it in reverse?
The Crimson Binome
Hero
Oh, okay. So it's just about changing the specific numbers involved? I thought you were looking for weird interactions with Reckless Attack, or GWM, or some ability that was restricted to use with two-handed weapons.
If it's just a numbers thing, then I would go out of my way to avoid using a versatile weapon in one hand, because (1d10-2) is significantly more prone to low rolls than 1d8 is. I mean, even if it was (1d10-1), so the average didn't change, I would still prefer rolling 1d8. Rolling poorly feels hugely disappointing. I'd probably go with a flail. Using a flail in two hands, for (1d8+1), is way better than using a longsword in two hands for 1d10.
ccs
41st lv DM
Your idea is bad.
Here's why:
For no benefit you punish the iconic sword & board type characters AND the people who play them.
Consider;
1) This character, wielding a long sword & shield, is now always rolling a d10. Well whoopde-doo! You can not roll max damage. "But a 1 handed longsword should only deal a d8s worth of damage & this maintains that cap" you say.... Which misses the point that it's generally not fun to roll a die & not be able to achieve the highest # on it. Your change would drain fun out of the game every single time a player of such a character rolled an attack.
2) But wait! It get's worse! So not only can't the sword & board character roll max damage, their odds of doing minimal damage go up. Way up. Like 30% of the time. To do better than a dagger wielder the player would have to roll a 7! on a d10. Talk about being un-fun....
3) More math! It's a minor thing, but throwing a piece of subtraction into the equation also erodes the fun.
4) You're change will only further the popularity of finesse weapons.
Or you could just avoid all this negative fun by reaching for that larger dice in the rare instance where versatile comes into play....
Here's why:
For no benefit you punish the iconic sword & board type characters AND the people who play them.
Consider;
1) This character, wielding a long sword & shield, is now always rolling a d10. Well whoopde-doo! You can not roll max damage. "But a 1 handed longsword should only deal a d8s worth of damage & this maintains that cap" you say.... Which misses the point that it's generally not fun to roll a die & not be able to achieve the highest # on it. Your change would drain fun out of the game every single time a player of such a character rolled an attack.
2) But wait! It get's worse! So not only can't the sword & board character roll max damage, their odds of doing minimal damage go up. Way up. Like 30% of the time. To do better than a dagger wielder the player would have to roll a 7! on a d10. Talk about being un-fun....
3) More math! It's a minor thing, but throwing a piece of subtraction into the equation also erodes the fun.
4) You're change will only further the popularity of finesse weapons.
Or you could just avoid all this negative fun by reaching for that larger dice in the rare instance where versatile comes into play....
Quartz
Hero
No such luck!
Well yes, but the theorycraft is that the versatile weapon is ordinarily two-handed and the situation may arise that the PC does not have both hands available - e.g. holding on to something, maybe a cliff face, maybe a comrade, maybe a rope - so is still able to use something pointy against attackers.
I disagree. The Roman Legionary still gets sword & shield. The Greek hoplite and Zulu warrior still get spear and shield. And so on.
A longsword is a two-handed weapon. It's just about wieldable in one hand. Have you actually ever held one?
Both of you are missing the fundamental shift: a versatile weapon in current 5E is a one-handed weapon and can be used as a two-handed weapon for increased damage. This theorycrafting changes that default: a versatile weapon is a two-handed weapon that can be used - with reduced damage - one-handed.
Xeviat
Dungeon Mistress, she/her
The 5E weapon system is really simplified. The "longsword" covers a wide range of weapons between the shortsword and the great sword. I'd be worried that changing the presentation from "one-handed that you gain a bonus when wielding two-handed" to "two-handed that you gain a penalty when wielding one-handed" would make it look worse next to a dedicated two-handed weapon. Penalties look worse to people than lacking a bonus.
I haven't yet seen anyone two-hand a versatile weapon except for small characters.
The Crimson Binome
Hero
That may be your plan, but I highly doubt that it would be the case in actual gameplay. If someone wants to wield a two-handed sword as a matter-of-course, then they'll still prefer the vastly superior greatsword, and just switch to a shortsword or dagger in the unlikely case that they need to hold onto something. Even if they didn't have any other weapon, so they ended up forfeiting a useful action in those situations, the benefit of 2d6 over 1d10 is significant enough that they'd still be better off with the greatsword unless those situations were extremely common.
But even if those situations were very common, and a character legitimately wanted to swap back and forth between one-handed and two-handed, they'd still be better off with a flail or morningstar. It's preferable to roll 1d8 instead of (1d10-2), and it's preferable to roll (1d8+1) instead of 1d10.
Is your goal to encourage players in using the longsword in two hands, with an occasional switch to one hand? Because I have suggestions for that which would be more likely to work.
Last edited:
Not to mention against regular two handed weapons. Using a versatile weapon is kinda between the two, when you're much better off doing one or the other. The only use for versatile I could figure out was for spellcasters, until they ruled that two handed weapons don't interfere with somatic/material components.
Cap'n Kobold
Hero
A one-handed longsword wielder with the appropriate fighting style does more damage than the equivalent fighter who uses the longsword in two hands. That's the problem even before you consider that the one-handed fighter has a better AC as well.
A "Versatile weapon" fighting style needs to compete with duellist style + Shield advantages.
The D&D Longsword and the actual historical longsword are two different things. Only the smallest historical longswords can be used effectively in one hand. Most would be considered two-handed swords.
The D&D longsword covers arming swords, viking swords, katana, sabres, "bastard swords", probably historical rapiers, and pretty much any other swordlike weapon between scimitar/shortswords and greatswords.
There is no practical difference between the two: The distinction lies purely in semantics and the numbers that you choose to assign to each mode of use.
Well, if you want to fix that, the obvious house rule would be to modify the Dueling style: "When you are wielding a melee weapon in one hand, or a versatile melee weapon in two hands, and no other weapons, you gain a +2 bonus to damage rolls with that weapon."
The average damage (7.5) is still lower than the average damage of a greatsword with Great Weapon Fighting (8.33), so it doesn't step on GWF's toes.
Last edited:
Just to make sure I'm understand where you are coming from here... the theorycraft is just meant to change the idea of the longsword in the fiction, correct? Make us narratively picture longswords and battleaxes as two-handed weapons? The game mechanics are a secondary concern?
If that's the case, then that's fine. If its purely about trying to change our default assumptions of the weapon's story, then if it works for you then go for it. I just confused originally as I read it as I thought there was a problem with the Versatile game mechanics that this idea was trying to fix and the resultant answer did not seem to be any better. But instead, the new mechanics are just there to help us re-think the narrative of the weapons.
Personally I don't put much of any concern into the narrative of the weapons within the story and making sure the mechanics match, so this change for me is unnecessary. But if it helps others, it probably won't matter much (other than the "never being able to roll max damage" thing that was mentioned above.)
If that's the case, then that's fine. If its purely about trying to change our default assumptions of the weapon's story, then if it works for you then go for it. I just confused originally as I read it as I thought there was a problem with the Versatile game mechanics that this idea was trying to fix and the resultant answer did not seem to be any better. But instead, the new mechanics are just there to help us re-think the narrative of the weapons.
Personally I don't put much of any concern into the narrative of the weapons within the story and making sure the mechanics match, so this change for me is unnecessary. But if it helps others, it probably won't matter much (other than the "never being able to roll max damage" thing that was mentioned above.)
