Default Longsword Model...

[Ambaryerno]

...is that thing just a placeholder? Because good god, that thing is just about as tall as my Human Fighter. I could see that model for the 2H Sword, but a longsword wouldn't be anywhere NEAR that big.

/minor quibble.

[jhorbach]

Yeah, I agree 100%. Give us a normal size Longsword, and an option to carry it besides the character, not on his back.

[Derf]

Yes. It was dissapointing to roll a human fighter and see that my 'longsword' is a freaking greatsword. I have not found a specificaly two handed sword yet, but I wonder what that will look like lol.

[The Respected Man]

Yeah the sword the character starts with should just be renamed to greatsword if it's gonna be that large. There should be smaller longswords, and bastard swords.

[dulany67]

The model is actually accurate, maybe not to D&D, but it is accurate. D&D long swords are arming swords.

[The Respected Man]

Originally posted by dulany67:

The model is actually accurate, maybe not to D&D, but it is accurate. D&D long swords are arming swords.

No one is trashing the model, the model is quite good, it's more a matter of classification.
Also if it is true that in D&D long swords are arming swords then that should be the case for this game and this sword should be renamed to greatsword.

[dulany67]

Originally posted by The Respected Man:

Originally posted by dulany67:

The model is actually accurate, maybe not to D&D, but it is accurate. D&D long swords are arming swords.

No one is trashing the model, the model is quite good, it's more a matter of classification.
Also if it is true that in D&D long swords are arming swords then that should be the case for this game and this sword should be renamed to greatsword.

I don't disagree, but I also don't have any experience with 5e so I don't know whether the long sword has changed or not.

[Hobocop]

I believe 5e longswords are closer to actual longswords since they have a grip to allow for two-handed use.

[Ambaryerno]

Originally posted by dulany67:

The model is actually accurate, maybe not to D&D, but it is accurate. D&D long swords are arming swords.

5th Ed has:

Short Sword - 1-handed, Finesse 2lbs
Longsword - Versatile, 3lbs
Greatsword - 2-Handed, 6lbs

This is more or less correct. D&D also FINALLY fixed the weights, too (my IRL longsword with a 40" blade and 12" hilt comes in a bit over 3lbs). The greatsword is a bit on the heavy end for a practical sword, but that's a HELL of a lot better than the old 12lb monstrosities. Seriously thank GOD D&D finally fixed it (Now if only we could get rid of the Studded Leather WHICH NEVER @$%ING EXISTED).

So the Short Sword is actually closest to the arming sword.

I would argue that even under the current system longsword ought to be finesseable 2H (it'd also offer a reason to 2H a longsword over a greatsword other than because of proficiencies). These are very light and highly maneuverable swords in two-hands, though are more awkward to wield one-handed because of their size.

Now, if you really, REALLY wanted to be accurate, the European-style swords SHOULD look something like this...

Arming Sword - 1-handed, Slash/Pierce, Finesse, 2lbs
Bastard Sword - Versatile, Slash/Pierce, Finesse, (2H Only) 2.5lbs
Longsword - 2-handed, Slash/Pierce, Finesse, 3lbs
Greatsword - 2-handed, Slash, 3lbs
Estoc - 2-handed, Pierce, Finesse, 3lbs
Zweihander - 2-handed, Slash, 6lbs

This is my reasoning:

1) You can slash with an arming sword. Very few swords that would fall under this category under Oakeshott lack a cutting edge.

2) The bastard sword as a unique type of sword was a relatively late development. Historically, the term was first used to denote a sword of uncertain origin (IE, literally a bastard) rather than a specific TYPE. Eventually, it came to be adopted as a synonym for the longsword, particularly among the French and English. Later, it referred to a sword BETWEEN the arming sword and longsword in length, featuring a slightly longer blade, and a hilt that could be used both one and two-handed. This is the definition I use here, which would serve as a transitional sword: It can't be finessed one handed because of its size, but can be when used two-handed. Being an oversized arming sword, it naturally would be able to both cut and thrust.

3) The longsword was a fully two-handed sword. These were also very quick and agile weapons which tended to be well-balanced between the cut and thrust. One of the most popular longsword designs in Germany, the Type XVIIIb, is a particularly good example of this, with an awl-shaped blade that's quite broad through the center of percussion, yet tapers to a very acute point. Longswords tended to get around armor by targeting the gaps.

4) The earliest sword described as the "greatsword" dates to the late-12th century. Essentially, it was an arming sword of the day that had a longer blade and two-handed grip developed in response to increasingly heavily armor, and make them better-suited to smashing through mail. The greatsword was the ancestor of the true longswords, and while there are some exceptions, generally the main difference is that a longsword is balanced between the cut and thrust, while the greatsword focuses more heavily on delivery powerful shearing blows.

5) The Estoc was a form of longsword that was almost totally dedicated to the thrust. They were used for thrusting into the gaps in plate armor.

6) What most games call the "greatsword" is more properly the Zweihander. These were the BIG German and Swiss two-handed swords, ranging as much as six feet in length. Popularly said to have been designed to break up pike formations, there's some debate about this. They were certainly capable of delivering devastating cuts. However there are some types, such as the Oakeshott Type XVIIIe, which have formidable awl-like points well-suited to thrusting.

I haven't thought much about damage dice for this, mostly because the swords are already so tightly-packed. Ideally, the Longsword, Greatsword, and Estoc would all have the same damage dice, however with the latter two perhaps having an advantage of using 2d for their damage rolls to reflect their specialization to one damage type, whereas the Longsword would be 1d for its better balance.

But all this is sort of on a tangent. The main point is that the current Longsword 3D model is FAR better suited for the Greatsword instead.

[Northern]

Longsword is literally basic 2h sword.

Early dnd calling basic 1h sword longsword born long history of misconception among gamers.

That being said since you can use it as 1hander its rather bastard than longsword but w/e

[Gearhart]

Originally posted by Ambaryerno:

Originally posted by dulany67:

The model is actually accurate, maybe not to D&D, but it is accurate. D&D long swords are arming swords.

5th Ed has:

Short Sword - 1-handed, Finesse 2lbs
Longsword - Versatile, 3lbs
Greatsword - 2-Handed, 6lbs

This is more or less correct. D&D also FINALLY fixed the weights, too (my IRL longsword with a 40" blade and 12" hilt comes in a bit over 3lbs). The greatsword is a bit on the heavy end for a practical sword, but that's a HELL of a lot better than the old 12lb monstrosities. Seriously thank GOD D&D finally fixed it (Now if only we could get rid of the Studded Leather WHICH NEVER @$%ING EXISTED).

So the Short Sword is actually closest to the arming sword.

I would argue that even under the current system longsword ought to be finesseable 2H (it'd also offer a reason to 2H a longsword over a greatsword other than because of proficiencies). These are very light and highly maneuverable swords in two-hands, though are more awkward to wield one-handed because of their size.

Now, if you really, REALLY wanted to be accurate, the European-style swords SHOULD look something like this...

Arming Sword - 1-handed, Slash/Pierce, Finesse, 2lbs
Bastard Sword - Versatile, Slash/Pierce, Finesse, (2H Only) 2.5lbs
Longsword - 2-handed, Slash/Pierce, Finesse, 3lbs
Greatsword - 2-handed, Slash, 3lbs
Estoc - 2-handed, Pierce, Finesse, 3lbs
Zweihander - 2-handed, Slash, 6lbs

This is my reasoning:

1) You can slash with an arming sword. Very few swords that would fall under this category under Oakeshott lack a cutting edge.

2) The bastard sword as a unique type of sword was a relatively late development. Historically, the term was first used to denote a sword of uncertain origin (IE, literally a bastard) rather than a specific TYPE. Eventually, it came to be adopted as a synonym for the longsword, particularly among the French and English. Later, it referred to a sword BETWEEN the arming sword and longsword in length, featuring a slightly longer blade, and a hilt that could be used both one and two-handed. This is the definition I use here, which would serve as a transitional sword: It can't be finessed one handed because of its size, but can be when used two-handed. Being an oversized arming sword, it naturally would be able to both cut and thrust.

3) The longsword was a fully two-handed sword. These were also very quick and agile weapons which tended to be well-balanced between the cut and thrust. One of the most popular longsword designs in Germany, the Type XVIIIb, is a particularly good example of this, with an awl-shaped blade that's quite broad through the center of percussion, yet tapers to a very acute point. Longswords tended to get around armor by targeting the gaps.

4) The earliest sword described as the "greatsword" dates to the late-12th century. Essentially, it was an arming sword of the day that had a longer blade and two-handed grip developed in response to increasingly heavily armor, and make them better-suited to smashing through mail. The greatsword was the ancestor of the true longswords, and while there are some exceptions, generally the main difference is that a longsword is balanced between the cut and thrust, while the greatsword focuses more heavily on delivery powerful shearing blows.

5) The Estoc was a form of longsword that was almost totally dedicated to the thrust. They were used for thrusting into the gaps in plate armor.

6) What most games call the "greatsword" is more properly the Zweihander. These were the BIG German and Swiss two-handed swords, ranging as much as six feet in length. Popularly said to have been designed to break up pike formations, there's some debate about this. They were certainly capable of delivering devastating cuts. However there are some types, such as the Oakeshott Type XVIIIe, which have formidable awl-like points well-suited to thrusting.

I haven't thought much about damage dice for this, mostly because the swords are already so tightly-packed. Ideally, the Longsword, Greatsword, and Estoc would all have the same damage dice, however with the latter two perhaps having an advantage of using 2d for their damage rolls to reflect their specialization to one damage type, whereas the Longsword would be 1d for its better balance.

But all this is sort of on a tangent. The main point is that the current Longsword 3D model is FAR better suited for the Greatsword instead.

so your gripe about a fantasy game that has mindflayers and dragons and magic is that they invented make believe armor?

Also great history lesson on swords.

[Ambaryerno]

Originally posted by Gearhart:

Originally posted by Ambaryerno:

5th Ed has:

Short Sword - 1-handed, Finesse 2lbs
Longsword - Versatile, 3lbs
Greatsword - 2-Handed, 6lbs

This is more or less correct. D&D also FINALLY fixed the weights, too (my IRL longsword with a 40" blade and 12" hilt comes in a bit over 3lbs). The greatsword is a bit on the heavy end for a practical sword, but that's a HELL of a lot better than the old 12lb monstrosities. Seriously thank GOD D&D finally fixed it (Now if only we could get rid of the Studded Leather WHICH NEVER @$%ING EXISTED).

So the Short Sword is actually closest to the arming sword.

I would argue that even under the current system longsword ought to be finesseable 2H (it'd also offer a reason to 2H a longsword over a greatsword other than because of proficiencies). These are very light and highly maneuverable swords in two-hands, though are more awkward to wield one-handed because of their size.

Now, if you really, REALLY wanted to be accurate, the European-style swords SHOULD look something like this...

Arming Sword - 1-handed, Slash/Pierce, Finesse, 2lbs
Bastard Sword - Versatile, Slash/Pierce, Finesse, (2H Only) 2.5lbs
Longsword - 2-handed, Slash/Pierce, Finesse, 3lbs
Greatsword - 2-handed, Slash, 3lbs
Estoc - 2-handed, Pierce, Finesse, 3lbs
Zweihander - 2-handed, Slash, 6lbs

This is my reasoning:

1) You can slash with an arming sword. Very few swords that would fall under this category under Oakeshott lack a cutting edge.

2) The bastard sword as a unique type of sword was a relatively late development. Historically, the term was first used to denote a sword of uncertain origin (IE, literally a bastard) rather than a specific TYPE. Eventually, it came to be adopted as a synonym for the longsword, particularly among the French and English. Later, it referred to a sword BETWEEN the arming sword and longsword in length, featuring a slightly longer blade, and a hilt that could be used both one and two-handed. This is the definition I use here, which would serve as a transitional sword: It can't be finessed one handed because of its size, but can be when used two-handed. Being an oversized arming sword, it naturally would be able to both cut and thrust.

3) The longsword was a fully two-handed sword. These were also very quick and agile weapons which tended to be well-balanced between the cut and thrust. One of the most popular longsword designs in Germany, the Type XVIIIb, is a particularly good example of this, with an awl-shaped blade that's quite broad through the center of percussion, yet tapers to a very acute point. Longswords tended to get around armor by targeting the gaps.

4) The earliest sword described as the "greatsword" dates to the late-12th century. Essentially, it was an arming sword of the day that had a longer blade and two-handed grip developed in response to increasingly heavily armor, and make them better-suited to smashing through mail. The greatsword was the ancestor of the true longswords, and while there are some exceptions, generally the main difference is that a longsword is balanced between the cut and thrust, while the greatsword focuses more heavily on delivery powerful shearing blows.

5) The Estoc was a form of longsword that was almost totally dedicated to the thrust. They were used for thrusting into the gaps in plate armor.

6) What most games call the "greatsword" is more properly the Zweihander. These were the BIG German and Swiss two-handed swords, ranging as much as six feet in length. Popularly said to have been designed to break up pike formations, there's some debate about this. They were certainly capable of delivering devastating cuts. However there are some types, such as the Oakeshott Type XVIIIe, which have formidable awl-like points well-suited to thrusting.

I haven't thought much about damage dice for this, mostly because the swords are already so tightly-packed. Ideally, the Longsword, Greatsword, and Estoc would all have the same damage dice, however with the latter two perhaps having an advantage of using 2d for their damage rolls to reflect their specialization to one damage type, whereas the Longsword would be 1d for its better balance.

But all this is sort of on a tangent. The main point is that the current Longsword 3D model is FAR better suited for the Greatsword instead.

so your gripe about a fantasy game that has mindflayers and dragons and magic is that they invented make believe armor?

Also great history lesson on swords.

The problem is it's armor that would literally not be any sort of improvement so what is the point of it even EXISTING. The "studs" in studded leather are simply too small, too few, and too far apart to make any sort of meaningful contribution to the defense of the piece in question. No amount of "fantasy" (short of the studs being some sort of magical force field projectors in which case why even wear armor of any other type?) changes that.

Instead, D&D could call it brigandine (which is the ACTUAL armor that gave rise to the whole fallacy in the first place) and tweak some of its stats.

https://steel-mastery.com/image/catalog/products/BRG-05/main_Brigandine_arms_of_the_XV_century.jpg

Look familiar?

[Thew]

While we're complaining about this kind of stuff, I think smaller weapons should be worn on the hip. It's very strange to see a short sword on my back.

Also, it's always struck me as strange that wizards wear their staves on their back, but I guess that's a thing now and there's no going back.

[zero]

to no surprise: longswords are long, nearly 4.5 feet, they aren't shortswords (which are still fairly big, cause its a sword, but)

[Captain Darling]

The longsword in this game is inaccurate because the hilt is half the size of the damn blade. It's comically large.

[Ambaryerno]

Originally posted by Thew:

While we're complaining about this kind of stuff, I think smaller weapons should be worn on the hip. It's very strange to see a short sword on my back.

Also, it's always struck me as strange that wizards wear their staves on their back, but I guess that's a thing now and there's no going back.

The problem is developers don't want to take the time to actually animate weapons properly. It's much easier to stick them on the back since they don't have to worry about physics or clipping to the same extent. Especially for weapons that wouldn't be carried on a belt AT ALL (IE spears, large axes, and polearms would be transported in the hands in a "carry arms" position. Assuming they weren't just tossed in the baggage on a wagon or cart).

Originally posted by zero:

to no surprise: longswords are long, nearly 4.5 feet, they aren't shortswords

4.5 feet total length is the UPPER end for a longsword. There was some regional variation (German swords tended to be longer, as they often defined the sword as being as long as the height from the ground to the wielder's armpit. However the Italians, French, and English favored a shorter sword that was UNDER four feet long) but on average, longswords weren't that large.

However the game's model is even larger than THAT. The hilt alone looks to scale to about 18-20 inches, far longer than that of even the largest longswords.