Weapon Finesse with longsword?

[Khorod]

No, mechanically it won't break anything.
But it does upset the flavor of the weapons. What's the point of including both a rapier and a longsword in the game if they're the same?

If you want lots of subtely different weapons around, you're forgetting to include the Broadsword, Claymore, and so on. The weapons in the DMG are more or less meant to represent all manner of different weapons, and I would question the inclusion of some of them if Weapon Finesse were opened up.

The only real need to do so is for people that want a high Dex, and to set aside strength. A high dex, swashbuckling campaign could certainly get away with it. When trying to keep a swashbuckler and a brawny barbarian in the same room, you should try to stick by the finesse line so the characters have some balanced, mechanical differences.

Of course, High Fantasy is the sort to disregard such things.

 

[Frostmarrow]

Really, if all you want is to finesse-wield a longsword, just limit the damage of the longsword (in this style) to 1d6. This marks that you are just using the longsword for flavor, not for the extra punch. (It still carries advantages though, as magical longswords are more common than any other magical ones.)

Just a suggestion.

 

[Azlan]

Really, if all you want is to finesse-wield a longsword, just limit the damage of the longsword (in this style) to 1d6. This marks that you are just using the longsword for flavor, not for the extra punch.

Myself, I don't think this is necessary.

A longsword has d8 damage, with a critical of 19-20/x2. A rapier has d6 damage, with a critical of 18-20/x2. Which is better, the longsword or the rapier?

I say they're fairly balanced, especially when you consider the possibilities of the Improved Criticals feat and the Keen enchantment for use with the rapier.

I've allowed Weapon Finesse to be used with longswords for the past two years, in my 3E D&D campaigns; and, really, it does not unbalance the campaign at all or give any unfair advantage.

 

[Mike Sullivan]

Myself, I don't think this is necessary.

A longsword has d8 damage, with a critical of 19-20/x2. A rapier has d6 damage, with a critical of 18-20/x3. Which is better, the longsword or the rapier?

I say they're fairly balanced, especially when you consider the possibilities of the Improved Criticals feat and the Keen enchantment for use with the rapier.

Average damage with a normal longsword with no damage bonus (including possibility of criticals): 4.95

Average damage with a normal rapier with no damage bonus (including possibility of criticals): 4.025

Average damage with a normal longsword with a +5 damage bonus (including possibility of criticals): 10.45

Average damage with a normal rapier with a +5 damage bonus (including possibility of criticals: 9.775

Average damage with a normal longsword with a +10 damage bonus (including possibility of criticals): 15.95

Average damage with a normal rapier with a +10 damage bonus (including possibility of criticals): 15.525

Average damage with a Keen, improved critical longsword with a +5 damage bonus: 12.35

Average damage with a Keen, improved critical rapier with a +5 damage bonus: 12.325

Average damage with a Keen, improved critical longsword with a +10 damage bonus: 18.85

Average damage with a Keen, improved critical rapier with a +10 damage bonus: 19.575

BUT

Average damage with an improved critical longsword with a +12 damage bonus: 19.8



What's all that come down to? Basically, there's not a whole lot of difference between a longsword and a rapier at reasonable levels -- the longsword is slightly superior. At high damage bonuses, a Keen rapier wielded by someone with Improved Critical will do more damage than a Keen longsword, but if you just take the +2 enhancement that Keen is supposedly worth, on the longsword, you come out miles ahead (especially when you factor in increased chance to hit as well, but even on pure damage). So only after you're already dealing with weapons that are +5 to hit and damage (perhaps due to GMW) do rapiers start to exceed the longsword -- and, of course, then only when the target is susceptible to critical hits, and assuming that your attack bonus is high enough that you don't "waste" any of the rapier's critical range (unlikely with your tertiary attack, by the way).

But the difference between 'em is pretty small. Longsword is a better weapon for people below around 15th level, but not an overwhelmingly better weapon.


EDIT: Oh, by the way, I assume you know this and just typoed, but the rapier is 18-20/x2, not 18-20/x3.

 

[nute]

Easy solution - have the character get a longsword made of mithril. Carries it and uses it for the better part of a level, at the next level he gains a feat, he's eligible to grab Weapon Finesse (mithril longsword).

 

[Anubis]

They were called hand-and-a-half swords. Broadswords were weapons with a single edge.

The claymore was one of the original "hand-and-a-half" swords. Neither the braodsword nor the longsword were.

Rapiers are significantly longer, as in a foot or two longer. And they could slash, too.

No, a real rapier is a piercing weapon only, one step above a foil and able to do real damage. You are thinking of the sabre, which is technically a slashing/piercing variant of the rapier.

Dealing with different periods, and different types of steel, stuff like this will vary. D&D is not about bothering with the mechanics of this type of thing.

That much is true. For the question at hand, I would say it's no allowed because the rules says so and because of realism. You wouldn't see someone "finesse" with a broadsword, so the same goes for a longsword. It's for light weapons only. A LARGE character could finesse a longsword, but not a Medium.