Longsword VS Two-Hander

[Maahr]

I know i am playing a while now and thought they would change it might have said something earlier, but honestly why is the Longsword which is a one or dual wield become a Two-Hander? As the Bi-Handor or Bastardsword became a Two-Hander only they said it is because it is hard to program a Sword that can be Two-Handed, Dual-Wield and One-Handed and i could understand that, but if Longswords now get Two-Handed as well how long will it take till Daggers are Two-Handed? Honestly u really should fix that and give ua a Sword between Short and Two-Handed.

[Ghost]

'Longswords' in 5E are considered to be versatile - they can be used in 1 or 2 hands, with a difference in damage. They cannot be dual-wielded without the appropriate feat.

The bastard swords were excluded from the lists as the creators of 5E determined, rightfully or wrongfully, that 'bastard' or 'hand-and-a-half' swords are a type of longsword.

Greatswords are 2-hand only. Shortswords and daggers are 1-hand only.

[Heu, Iterum Id Feci]

Those distinctions come from the D&D5e ruleset.
The longsword closes the gap between two handers and the short sword. In more medieval terms I have sometimes heard this type called one and a half hander, though most fantasy ips aren't to close to historical martial arts anyway.
The long sword doesn't have the "Light" property, so while you can dual wield it, as much as you can any weapon in 5e, it really isn't that good. You won't get your proficiency modifier etc. unlike the Short sword for example, that has the "light" property. So while you can dual wield longswords, it in general isn't recommended.

[dulany67]

Originally posted by Ghost:

'Longswords' in 5E are considered to be versatile - they can be used in 1 or 2 hands, with a difference in damage. They cannot be dual-wielded without the appropriate feat.

The bastard swords were excluded from the lists as the creators of 5E determined, rightfully or wrongfully, that 'bastard' or 'hand-and-a-half' swords are a type of longsword.

Greatswords are 2-hand only. Shortswords and daggers are 1-hand only.

I would say rightfully. The one handed sword is generally considered an "arming sword."

But threads like this always generate a lot of debate.

[Pan Darius Cassandra]

All 'versatile' weapons can be used either one or two handed.

[Panic Fire]

Originally posted by maahr_krell:

I know i am playing a while now and thought they would change it might have said something earlier, but honestly why is the Longsword which is a one or dual wield become a Two-Hander? As the Bi-Handor or Bastardsword became a Two-Hander only they said it is because it is hard to program a Sword that can be Two-Handed, Dual-Wield and One-Handed and i could understand that, but if Longswords now get Two-Handed as well how long will it take till Daggers are Two-Handed? Honestly u really should fix that and give ua a Sword between Short and Two-Handed.

Longswords in DnD have been wrongfully characterized as one handed swords for decades. When 5e dropped they switched them to 1 or 2 handed as they are supposed to be. Short Swords are technically "Arming Swords" or the one handed swords that people used to use.

Bastard Swords no longer exist as longswords are now in fact bastard swords.

[Yojo0o]

Yeah, there are a lot of inaccuracies in DnD equipment stemming way back to Gary Gygax's incomplete understanding of medieval armaments when he made the game in the first place.

The most glaring example is probably Studded Leather, which just straight up never existed, and is thought to be Gygax's incorrect assumption of what Brigandine armor is (a type of armor that incidentally really should show up more in fantasy, but rarely does).

Longswords in real life were two-handed weapons, but longswords in DnD have always been either one-handed, or primarily one-handed with the option to be wielded in two hands.

[Pan Darius Cassandra]

'Versatile' is actually the most accurate description of a longsword.

[Tread]

My issue with the long sword is that its scale is wrong and needs to be shrunk down a bit. The hilt is like 2 feet long and the blade is close to 5. A long sword really shouldn't be more than 5 to 6 feet long (including the hilt) in total.

[Gaius]

Originally posted by Tread:

My issue with the long sword is that its scale is wrong and needs to be shrunk down a bit. The hilt is like 2 feet long and the blade is close to 5. A long sword really shouldn't be more than 5 to 6 feet long (including the hilt) in total.

I used to hate that, but after a lot of years I decided it's not only ok due to the rule of cool, but because fantasy settings have, well, monsters.

While IRL larger weapons make no sense because they were designed to kill humans, in a fantasy setting not only they could be required to cut through a dragon but also the wielder could have superhuman strengh due to absurd stats or magical buffs.

TL:DR - in a world where some people can throw fireballs and stop time, not only using swords must be cooler but also requires more to defeat monsters.

[WeenerTuck813]

Originally posted by maahr_krell:

I know i am playing a while now and thought they would change it might have said something earlier, but honestly why is the Longsword which is a one or dual wield become a Two-Hander? As the Bi-Handor or Bastardsword became a Two-Hander only they said it is because it is hard to program a Sword that can be Two-Handed, Dual-Wield and One-Handed and i could understand that, but if Longswords now get Two-Handed as well how long will it take till Daggers are Two-Handed? Honestly u really should fix that and give ua a Sword between Short and Two-Handed.

What in the actual F does this even mean?

[Yojo0o]

Originally posted by Gaius:

Originally posted by Tread:

My issue with the long sword is that its scale is wrong and needs to be shrunk down a bit. The hilt is like 2 feet long and the blade is close to 5. A long sword really shouldn't be more than 5 to 6 feet long (including the hilt) in total.

I used to hate that, but after a lot of years I decided it's not only ok due to the rule of cool, but because fantasy settings have, well, monsters.

While IRL larger weapons make no sense because they were designed to kill humans, in a fantasy setting not only they could be required to cut through a dragon but also the wielder could have superhuman strengh due to absurd stats or magical buffs.

TL:DR - in a world where some people can throw fireballs and stop time, not only using swords must be cooler but also requires more to defeat monsters.

Kinda makes you wonder how weapons and armor would evolve in a world that actually had to deal with these obstacles, rather than DnD where most equipment is taken from the real world.

[Hobocop]

Originally posted by Yojo0o:

Originally posted by Gaius:

I used to hate that, but after a lot of years I decided it's not only ok due to the rule of cool, but because fantasy settings have, well, monsters.

While IRL larger weapons make no sense because they were designed to kill humans, in a fantasy setting not only they could be required to cut through a dragon but also the wielder could have superhuman strengh due to absurd stats or magical buffs.

TL:DR - in a world where some people can throw fireballs and stop time, not only using swords must be cooler but also requires more to defeat monsters.

Kinda makes you wonder how weapons and armor would evolve in a world that actually had to deal with these obstacles, rather than DnD where most equipment is taken from the real world.

I think the Monster Hunter games provide at least one potential perspective on that front.

[Tread]

Originally posted by Gaius:

Originally posted by Tread:

My issue with the long sword is that its scale is wrong and needs to be shrunk down a bit. The hilt is like 2 feet long and the blade is close to 5. A long sword really shouldn't be more than 5 to 6 feet long (including the hilt) in total.

I used to hate that, but after a lot of years I decided it's not only ok due to the rule of cool, but because fantasy settings have, well, monsters.

While IRL larger weapons make no sense because they were designed to kill humans, in a fantasy setting not only they could be required to cut through a dragon but also the wielder could have superhuman strengh due to absurd stats or magical buffs.

TL:DR - in a world where some people can throw fireballs and stop time, not only using swords must be cooler but also requires more to defeat monsters.

I hate comically over sized weapons, but the long sword in BG3 really doesn't meet that standard, it's just a little to big. Plus it's the only weapon I've come across that the scale feels wrong, so if they're making weapons bigger because of "monsters" then all the weapons should be over sized.

Side-note: The current long sword's size would be the perfect size for a bastard sword.

[RealDealBreaker]

Originally posted by Hobocop:

Originally posted by Yojo0o:

Kinda makes you wonder how weapons and armor would evolve in a world that actually had to deal with these obstacles, rather than DnD where most equipment is taken from the real world.

I think the Monster Hunter games provide at least one potential perspective on that front.

Except that the weapons in MH make absolutely no sense. They are (in general) far too large to be useable by even the strongest people and making weapons out of some of those materials (like bone) simply do not work especially on the hides of enemies that are described as hard or thick.

[zeeb]

If it's true to 5e, it's good enough for me.