D&D (2024) Longsword finesse when used 2H

[Bill Zebub]

okay, so the staff should be finesse too right?

While I can see the appeal, I would avoid that because it's a straight-up buff for wizards and sorcerers with decent Dex.

 

[Bill Zebub]

Backsword is the general term for a single-edged cutting sword, which would include katanas, sabres, falschons, messers, hangers, cutlasses, shamshir, etc. But I wanted to further differentiate between one-handed and two-handed or “hand and a half” varieties, and “backsword” and “great backsword” didn’t sound right to me. Instead, I reached for “long knife” from the German Langmesser, literally meaning long knife, and “war knife” from the German Kriegsmesser (meaning war knife), which were a two-handed variety of messer.

And the feared Messerschmitt (literally "Knife-Blender"...schmitt is the German translation of the French word cuisinart), which is four full-size swords arranged radially around a powered shaft, spinning at several thousand RPMs, mounted to a flying platform.

(Which puts me in mind of the excellent joke that ends with the punchline, "Nein...zeese fokkers, they vere flying messerschmitts."

 

[Yaarel]

While I can see the appeal, I would avoid that because it's a straight-up buff for wizards and sorcerers with decent Dex.

I would rather the Wizard lacks any weapon proficiency.

The Wizard flavor fights with cantrips only.

But when creating a character, the Wizard class has the option to swap out a cantrip for a proficiency with one martial weapon or all simple weapons. Each time the Wizard gains a new cantrip, they can gain a new weapon proficiency instead.


For the Sorcerer, I see no problem with having the Staff weapon be worth using.

 

[Bill Zebub]

I would rather the Wizard lacks any weapon proficiency.

The Wizard flavor fights with cantrips only.

But when creating a character, the Wizard class has the option to swap out a cantrip for a proficiency with one martial weapon or all simple weapons. Each time the Wizard gains a new cantrip, they can gain a new weapon proficiency instead.


For the Sorcerer, I see no problem with having the Staff weapon be worth using.

Really I like how Shadowdark does it:
1) Wizards have two weapon proficiencies: staff and dagger
2) Both weapons do 1d4
3) One is finesse, the other is not
4) You roll straight 3d6x6 in order, so if you have any Str or Dex bonus at all it's just RNG
5) No cantrips

 

[Yaarel]

Really I like how Shadowdark does it:
1) Wizards have two weapon proficiencies: staff and dagger
2) Both weapons do 1d4
3) One is finesse, the other is not
4) You roll straight 3d6x6 in order, so if you have any Str or Dex bonus at all it's just RNG
5) No cantrips

That is the opposite of magic flavor. It wouldnt be for a game that I would enjoy.

Oppositely, to allow the player to swap out a cantrip for weapon proficiency makes it easy for old school players to emulate how the 1e Magic-User started out incompetent with magic.

Because of class balance, a 5e class can never be as incompetent as the 1e Magic-User was at the lowest tier. But at least when swapping cantrips and weapons, the player can decide if the character concept is either incompetent with weapons or else incompetent with magic.

 

[W'rkncacnter]

If you are familiar with a "claymore", that is what a reallife "longsword" looks like. A longsword is "long", with a blade length between 3 and 4 feet. One can wield a claymore one-handed, but it would never count as a "finesse" sword.

what? no. claymores are greatswords (literally - that's what the gaelic word translates to), with a total length about as tall as the user. you would not use a claymore one-handed - though you technically could, in the same way you could technically fire a rifle one-handed.

edit: mixed up claymores for other greatswords - claymores aren't quite as tall as the user.

 

[Bill Zebub]

That is the opposite of magic flavor. It wouldnt be for a game that I would enjoy.

It's a good thing the world has lots of different RPGs.

 

[Bill Zebub]

though you technically could, in the same way you could technically fire a rifle one-handed.

I dual-wield M50s.

P.S. And that's with one hand still free. I'd explain how, but this is a family site.

 

[Yaarel]

what? no. claymores are greatswords (literally - that's what the gaelic word translates to), with a total length about as tall as the user. you would not use a claymore one-handed - though you technically could, in the same way you could technically fire a rifle one-handed.

When archeologists and sword experts refer to "longswords", they include the claymore. The claymore classifies as such because of its long bladelength.

The historical longswords go by various names, including claymore.


A historical example for the "D&D Greatsword" (not a scientific terminology!) is arguably certain specimens of the German Zweihaender with bladelengths over 4 feet and sometimes around 5 feet. Some of the Japanese Odachi have bladelenghts that are much longer than 4 feet, even 7 feet. In various parts of the world, there were outsized swords that were used while riding a horse, but this isnt really what the D&D has in mind. There are also "buster swords" that are oversized nonhistorical fantasy weapons, and D&D illustrations sometimes have these buster swords in mind for a "Greatsword".

 

[W'rkncacnter]

When archeologists and sword experts refer to "longswords", they include the claymore. The claymore classifies as such because of its long bladelength.

i mean, if they include greatswords as a subset of longswords (they probably would), i wouldn't be surprised. but we're not talking about the archaeological definition of longsword or greatsword - we're talking about D&D. D&D longswords are more hand-and-a-halves then proper two-handed swords (although you can use particularly short two-handed swords - which would not be greatswords - in one hand fairly effectively). claymores are very much on the big end of two-handed sword (though not as far as, say, a zweihander).

that was more my point - claymores would fall more under greatsword then longsword in D&D. you are not effectively using it one-handed.

A historical example for the "D&D Greatsword" (not a scientific terminology!)

i fear any scientific term that includes "D&D".

is arguably certain specimens of the German Zweihaender with bladelengths over 4 feet and sometimes around 5 feet. Some of the Japanese Odachi have bladelenghts that are much longer than 4 feet, even 7 feet.

yeah, zweihanders and odachi would also fall under the greatsword - although doesn't that mean the greatsword should have reach (since their bladelengths get over 5 feet)? discussion for a different day, i suppose.

In various parts of the world, there were outsized swords that were used while riding a horse, but this isnt really what the D&D has in mind.

i have no idea what you're referring to here. sabres? i would not call a sabre a greatsword.

There are also "buster swords" that are oversized nonhistorical fantasy weapons, and D&D illustrations sometimes have these buster swords in mind for a "Greatsword".

D&D illustrations can get stupid, honestly.