The Longsword in D&D

[@abracadabruh5718]

I'd love to see a Sellsword Arts DnD game Everyone would be a Battlemaster fighter 😂

[@SellswordArts]

Sellsword Arts D&D coming soon....

[@abracadabruh5718]

@@SellswordArts ey YOOOOO Now that's content!

[@JamCie]

@@SellswordArts Pog!

[@hellod9013]

Yeah that would be awesome :)

[@benjaminholcomb9478]

Hear me out, for the sake of irony, all full casters.

[@glowstickofdestiny1290]

Given that spellcasters are already kinda OP compared to martials, I think we can safely let the good ol' sword swingers have this. Not like it's a crazy damage buff or anything, just a way to freely adapt to the situation without having to juggle different weapons.

[@Dyundu]

Hear hear!

[@claytonsmith3749]

I think this is right on; and honestly you could do this with almost any martial weapon; Spears, axes, polearms could all realistically deal multiple damage types that have different uses. One other buff to martials I'd like to see is using these alternate weapon modes to inflict "armor damage" that lowers the opponent's AC. This can make the fight about prying the enemy's defenses away, then going in for the big hits, rather than just burning down HP.

[@nephicus339]

@@claytonsmith3749 Stealing that armor damage idea. Thanks! (look, some of my players are cursed with low rolls, I gotta give them something!)

[@Ninjat126]

As a DM I love seeing players come up with interesting ways to use weapons, tools, spells and the environment. I'm not going to just "rule of cool" to let someone throw a longswor as effectively as a javelin, but I think "can I grab my sword by the blade & smack them in the head with the pommel" would be perfectly acceptable even if it WASN'T a historical technique! Especially if you're wearing gloves.

[@matthewwilliams5407]

Thank you for this vital information. It’ll be useful when I’m isekai’d to another world.

[@VoltocityGEL]

As a DM who is into armed martial arts, I allow stuff like this. The big problem I have is that in D&D, “versatile” means you can use it in one or two hands. While you could probably use a longsword in one hand, it really wouldn’t be as effective, nor was it intended. So if a player chose to one hand a longsword, I would not allow as many swaps between types of attacks, or something like that (were it to come up). Another interesting challenge is trying to balance it so that a weapon like the longsword with varied damage types isn’t just universally better than one that is more specialized.

[@GeoEmperor-]

With a weapon as versatile as a long sword I would encourage D&D players to use it as creatively as possible if they are proficient with it!

[@Dewkage]

Well has a dm everything you said about the longsword is correct you should be able to do all that with out a check. There are even rules for subdue dmg that says you switch dmg type to knock out the opponent. And switching dmg types is not going to break the game at all

[@starbrightmiore3234]

It's all about creativity really. If a player brings such knowledge to the game, I see no reason to deny it. Doing so wouldn't make sense because I'm a player that does a lot of out of the box things hehe. I'd nerf the bluedgeoning damage tho, 1d4 or 1d6 probably.

[@Wanderer24]

Yeah, I'd agree with that. Because a club still does lethal damage having a d4 so having a d4 of bludgeoning on the sword versatility would make sense as well

[@fallenangeldraco3778]

honestly, keeping it at a d8 wouldn't hurt

[@Wanderer24]

So as a dm, this is awesome to know. I will admit that there are definitely some limitations required for something like this. Considering it is techniques that allow for this extreme versatility I would try to balance it by having them seen as a more uncommon form that would require at least some training from someone who already knows how to do it. I understand that it would be something that aught to be passed around rather freely to benefit sword fighters all around but for the only reason of balancing it would have to be uncommon knowledge. I do agree that a check should not be required for the other forms to not hurt one's self, but if someone is untrained then I might require a check to use it properly but not to avoid hurting themselves. Otherwise I think this is great and should be available at any dm's discretion. Great content as always!

[@justinhudd1757]

Agree 100% I'd like to add that some other weapons can be versatile too.

[@DiamondRoller37]

I'm going to be a DM for the first time in a couple months, I'll definitely be using some of these rules with my players

[@PandaKnightsFightingDragons]

I think the damage types is fine, that's in no way a balance issue as needing different damage types rarely comes up. If ppl are imposing penalties for cqc, that's homebrew. I think the grappling thing is fine if you say they use the D8 damage dice rather than D10 while doing it, which is completely within the rules since it's mechanically no different then using a free hand

[@CacophonyScamp]

Versatile in DnD means you can use it with one or 2 hands. The latter does more damage. From my extensive nerd knowledge of DnD the long sword doesn't take penalties for close combat, and in previous editions it did Piercing and Slashing. It's a really solid weapon in the game, in fact it's so solid it is the most common type of magic weapon. Range in DnD is oversimplified as well as damage types, and I absolutely have seen players flip around a longsword and use it like mace. Works well enough in a pinch. Just about the only thing it can't do is chop fire wood. Which you shouldn't use weapons for anyway.

[@FourthRulerEntity]

In combat, any additional rolling made up on the spot slows down combat. Combat is already super slow as it is. If the check is not necessary. Don’t. Do. It. If any of my players ever bring this up. For the Longsword: One handed: you choose slashing or piercing. Two handed: you choose any of the three melee damage types. Why just let them choose you ask? They’re proficient with the weapon that’s why. Plus it allows for player agency to make mistakes by attacking with a damage type that does not work or actually helps the enemy. Example: Oozes and slashing damage. Lastly. The damage die for the weapon doesn’t change. So I don’t see an issue. This also adds a certain new level to why proficiency with a weapon is valuable, not only is their roll to hit better but so is the weapons uses. Another example: Great axe: they choose between slashing (axe head) or bludgeoning (blunt end of axe head or the shoving motion if your great axe is double headed)

[@gloomyperson7747]

For bludgeoning Damage the Improvised weapons rule are appropriate and already exist in 5e

[@justreapsgaming4347]

I honestly when ever my players reach the blacksmith to upgrade weapons and add some martial skills such as using a bonus action to attack with the pummel of the sword also adding a property to the longsword in dnd "Special". And I also know the the Special property is for lances and net's but I like adding more options

[@anomalydestroyer3901]

Well I’m a bit late to the party, but here’s my piece as a DM; The only true reason you wouldn’t allow someone to do that is because of the purposes of resistances and immunities. Say something was resistant to slashing but vulnerable to bludgeoning, a player could abuse it. It doesn’t mean that you can’t allow the weapon to have its versatility. It honestly depends on the situation, but I would never restrict it, just maybe something simple like the switch from slashing to bludgeoning would be a bonus action or vice versa. In the end, as long as you have fun I say (and do in the majority of things I run) let the longsword remain the way it is in real life; an effective weapon. Sorry for the mouthful, you’re work is great and I truly appreciate you and your crew. You have given me a great deal of inspiration for my writings and have helped me make them more realistic and less absurd with the combat. Much love my friends.

[@roymuerlunos2426]

The group this guy is in has to have some pretty gnarly How-Do-You-Want-To-Do-This moments... DM: Your seemless cut into thrust fells the foe to the point you recognize the throws of a creature dying, HDYWTDT? Mordschlag into bec de corbin!!! DM: Alright!!!

[@Taako_Tuesday]

First, I really liked this video, especially the parts about switching between damage types. I do want to clarify, however, that with the RAW the longsword suffers no penalties at extreme close range. Secondly, if I were running this as a DM, I might ask a player who wanted to take this weapon to the next level to take a modified version of the polearm master feat, where they could attack as a bonus action with a hilt bludgeon and another more minor boost or two.

[@TivoDelNato]

IIRC, “Versatile” in the context of D&D means that it deals a higher damage die when two-handing (ie; it goes from dealing d8 damage to d10). Do you feel this is accurate?

[@Logoritmic]

It is accurate. Moving to a two-handed grip not only increases your strength output, but allows for making way faster moves. In PF it reflected by damage growing from x1 str mod to 1.5 str mod.

[@imugi-16]

I feel like at the very least, they should allow thrusting damage with longswords. It's a straight sword with a pointy end. Even a child would recognize that you can thrust really well with a longsword.

[@mkultraification]

I think there should be a check when transitioning to bludgeoning. Yes, there are a lot of videos showing that you can swing it that way without hurting yourself. However, no one has shown transitioning to it on the fly without hurting themselves. They always take a lot of time to make sure they have a good grip on the blade.

[@primeemperor9196]

So, really quick: The versatile property for a weapon means it can be wielded either in 1 hand or 2. That being said, I do agree that the longsword can be used for bludgeoning, piercing and slashing damage, and if a player asked if they could switch damage types, I'd allow it. DnD 5e seems to try to keep it simple, however, giving each weapon a single damage type, even though anyone who's seen a shortsword or longsword can easily go "Yeah, I can cut and stab with that" even if they have no experience with the weapon.

[@twinklingjoiner]

I think it be interesting to have it all bc when I dm I will allow it but not a lot of people think about it.

[@paradoxlaboratories7524]

This is great I'd love to see a series of this

[@SellswordArts]

It's coming!

[@twinkiemonster4412]

Awesome vid, and I'll definitely be talking to my DMs, since we do more homebrew anyway, and hopefully get this added into my games!

[@BlueStamp_]

For the most part, Bludgeoning, Piercing, and Slashing damage types have no need to be distinct (unless a monster has resistances, vulnerabilities, etc.) so I usually let my players flavor their weapon attacks as they want. Especially if they’re trying to do non-lethal damage. Plus, rule of cool, if you want to mordschlag your opponent, the name alone makes it cool enough to do.

[@TLSaphireWolf]

generally if a player describes how they want to attack i adjust accordingly. i dnt make them do any checks unless there's any real risks to certain maneuvers.

[@unfortunatesun]

More or less reposting my previous comment. You nailed it in the head with this one. I get why 5e weapon mechanics are simplified, but I want crunchier weapons in my gaming and am working on tasty homebrew to that effect.

[@Wanderer24]

I love the use if crunch here, it is... An excellent use of such an interesting word

[@jimbannister6217]

Slashing and piercing make sense, but I think I’d consider it an improvised bludgeoning weapon when switching to the murder stroke or pommel striking.

[@kyleevans5806]

Yes, allow its versatility. As a DM I would not have any issue with a PC utilizing their weapon in an unexpected way as long as they can explain what they're trying to do.

[@WillRennar]

One thing the "you'll cut your hands open" crowd forget about: _Gloves._ Even some basic leather gloves would probably stop mordschlag from becoming fingerschlag.

[@RealZeratul]

Right, gloves are a game changer there. However, leather gloves were not that common for soldiers unless we talking about inner gloves of plate gauntlets. With regards to hurting the hands with Mordschlag, check out Matt Easton's relatively recent video about this (and I believe Skallagrim did one as well and came to the same conclusion): If you do it with a realistically sharp sword and hit a hard target, you will hurt yourself without gloves. Is it worth it if you have nothing else and can't wrestle? Maybe. Should you prefer it over a mace? Never.

[@nephicus339]

First off, as a DM, I am logic based in my games. If it makes sense, I'll allow it. I'm also a swordsman myself, so all these points would totally be fine with me. As for 'versatility,' mechanics of the game, it just means it can be used one handed (1d8 dmg) or two-handed (1d10 dmg). I've also never heard of a close range penalty for using the sword, as it is melee, it is meant for close range. Most combat takes part in 5 ft squares, so in side-by-side melee, on a battle map, the two fighters would be in a 10 ft length of space; and you have skirting; where you can skirt around the enemy's 5 ft square along 3x3 square space, if that makes sense. So, in essence, two melee fighters are able to occupy about a 15 ft cubed. (this is just the scale we use in the games I have played) Some people set the character token on the intersecting grid line, or each square is 1 ft instead of 5 ft, and that will affect the "rules." The "rules" aren't really rules; they're guidelines. With experience, you will tweak and refine to suit your own games and playstyles. In the end, just use what you like and have fun with. Talk it out with your group. My games have typically used 5 ft squares on a square grid map, which makes movement easier than counting 1 ft square 30 times to move once. We found it speeds things up, and melee is adjacent for 5 ft reach weapons, two squares for pole arms with 10 ft reach. It also speeds up the square count of AoE and line spells. But we also don't use encumberence or rations (unless in a survival situation; like days from a town, or deep deep in a dungeon).

[@milobroth9212]

In old d&d computer games using 2h sword has always thrust animation, but just wasn't caunting as cut damage 🤔

[@viscountsb7140]

I agree but most all the other weapons get the same treatment. I think there just needs to be a HEMA style update for the game or of course the DM can make they're own adjustments.

[@TheLord0Ice0Wind]

I'd run it as an exotic weapon feat to unlock all the other attacks with it and then they can do all those types of damage with it..... in fact, I'm going to go write that in in a few minutes

[@soagentc7122]

As a DM I've added more weapons and given all of them more properties to fit the weapon they use. I feel like it really helps make martials more unique and give them a little more power and options so they aren't completely left in the dust by overpowered casters and such.

[@GoblinLord]

I always called the longsword a two handed finesse weapon, because first of all, we don't have any of those, and two, katana and longsword were equally fast, and people already consider katana to be finesse. I think a good way to limit effectiveness is to make it specialize, d8 in Slashing, d6 in Bludgeoning and piercing. Then you know that the other two types of damage are improvised types (aka using a weapon in a way that isn't conventionally intuitive, but works fine). So Finesse Longsword, d8 Slash, d6 Pierce and Bludgeon when used like that, then just go ahead and make damage types matter (aka don't make every magic monster immune to all 3 core damage types) and you should be good

[@Dyundu]

My one problem with longswords in contemporary D&D is the Versatile keyword, actually-that the default expectation is that they’re used _one-handed_ with a shield, which, I mean, I guess you could . . . thus the actual historical use is presumed to be an extra option-and one that no one takes, because greatswords are statistically better in-game, and if you’re using a two-handed weapon, why deal 1d10 when 2d6 is an option, especially with all the greatweapon feats and features? Older editions (e.g. BECMI) handled this by differentiating between “sword, normal” (i.e. arming sword), “sword, bastard,” and “sword, two-handed,” which they still didn’t get right, because they incurred initiative penalties to two-handed sword users due to “weight.” All of the editions (sans 4e, to a certain extent) also ignore the crucial nature of dexterity in swordplay as well-strength is important and all, but proper blade and point control come just as much from well-practiced fine motor movements as they do from arm, core, and leg strength. tl;dr: D&D’s never got it right ever, so let your players be creative, and just suspend disbelief and have fun with the fantasy.

[@razenburn]

I don't play 5th edition but in 3rd it did in fact do piercing and slashing damage.

[@SellswordArts]

I mostly played a 3.5 for the longest time. Or pathfinder. I felt like I had a lot more options.

[@SOLIDDave001]

On a mechanical level, the kill strike is awesome, the only thing I would do is give a slight damage reduction when you go into mordhau, like a minus 1 or 2, just so there’s still incentive if you want to pick up a mace as a weapon. That’s just to represent that while a longsword *can* do bludgeon damage a mace is better suited to it.

[@SellswordArts]

Well said!

[@lordgino2006]

Well the versatile variant of the longsword is 1 hand vs 2hand. If you go one handed it's a D8, two handed it's a D10. I would allow as a Dm to do the D8 as slashing only, because try to pierce with only one hand, the D10 as piercing or slashing, but I would add the bludgeonning only as a D6 or even a D4. Not because a weapon can be used another way it was crafted to be used that way. And let's be honest, the mordhau technique vs a warpick, wich one would be more damageful in term of bludgeonning?

[@GuardianofRoin]

As realistic as those changes would be, it would also be VERY overpowered. They already have the option to go from 1d8 with a shield to 1d10 by just dropping said shield. Add to that fact that enemies can have resistance to two of the three physical damage types and the longsword is just good for all of them. For example, when facing undead you can face a mix of skeletons which have resistance to piercing and slashing weapons with some zombies with resistance to piercing and bludgeoning damage. The fighter with the longsword would just go with normal grip for zombies and then flip to mordshlag when it's time to attack skeletons. Given a similar weapon, the Warhammer, is similar but only has bludgeoning damage this is just way too much for a single weapon to have.

[@MrJozeether]

I think in 3rd edition longswords could deal either slashing or piercing damage.

[@Atlittle104]

In 5e, unfortunately damage types rarely come up. Some skeletons, some types of oozes, and maybe a few others are vulnerable or react to a certain mundane damage type. This is a cool idea but just isn't really worth expanding and making more complicated for a system that doesn't support it very well. There are other systems besides dnd 5e that do have interesting damage type systems, like bludgeoning being better for armor and slashing weapons often having other traits that make them good against like beasts or lighter armored enemies or may have better range to compensate for not being able to pierce armor as well. I've seen systems do longswords justice and take into account their versatility and their ability to offer a lot of different answers to an enemies resistances, it's very cool to see.

[@skyrim996]

Honestly the swap between piercing and slashing is seamless enough, tho I might either tell my players with multiple attacks, that they loose one attack to swap to bludgeoning damage or the enemy gets an attack of opportunity.

[@Mosamania]

Based on the logic of dnd behind the dice for damage which also translates to real world use surprisingly well enough not to be unrealistic, I believe slashing damage fort he longsworx should be a d8, thrusting should be a d6, and blint should be a d4. Considering that the commoner hp is 4 hp, it means that which kills a normal person more easily should he assigned a higher damage dice, slashing in general does more superficial damage, but for stabs with a longsword to hit an instant kill spot is more rare so a d6, you can hit a guy with the pummel of the sword and there is a chance to kill them but the kill is not as guaranteed as say with a slash or with a slightly lucky stab. Using this logic I think you can make all weapons in dnd far more versatile and in general make the mele fighting classes much more fun to play, you can also translate that to rapiers and other weapons as well.

[@Mybeautifulmaddness]

I’m a dm and I allow this in my campaigns

[@aphelion0000]

Mordhau would be already allowed in current ruleset. You could use improvised weapon rules. It is 1d4 for objects that do not resemble a weapon, but since a reverse longsword resembles an actual mace, it would be 1d6 bludgeoning damage. Depends on DM's decision, i guess... Not sure about your proficiency bonuses though. i.e. if a character had Longsword proficiency, but not Mace proficiency: When you use your sword as a mace, do you still benefit from Longsword bonuses? (Most likely not, because that would be considered a mace for all intents and purposes) But still it would be useful against slash resistant monsters such as skeletons.

[@Dyundu]

Proficiency with a weapon means learning enough about all aspects of that weapon, so I’d allow prof. bonus, personally.

[@lordveznan3853]

Well, as far as i know, the longsword is a martial, and the mace is a simple weapon. Most of the time, if you have proficiency in martial weapons, then you have it in simple too (im not sure if there are any feats that bypass this). So i think if you are proficient with the longsword, then you are with the mace.

[@CrossWritesStories]

I don't see the harm as a DM. I just won't change the damage dice for it.

[@milanmilacic9311]

I think that adding additional types of damage to the longsword wouldn't make it any less bad than it already is because the situations where that would matter are so rare that you could dnd your entire life and not run into that type of problem. The real problem with the longsword is that it doesn't get any options when it's used two handed. Yes it gets a d10 damage die, but with dueling fighting style you could use a shield and deal d8+2 damage which is better than a straight d10.

[@KokorkoJr]

Here's my take as a player and occasional dm. Multie types of damage on a single weapon should be a thing in DND. It used to be, but it was removed in 5e to simplify the mechanics. If I am home-brewing it, I'd make it even more complex than it used to be. Previously you had the damage die and the types of damage. In my version you have different dice for different types of damage, giving each weapon more options and reducing some redundancies. For the long sword I wod go with D6/d8 slashing damage (as is; versatile), only d6 piercing damage (rapier is still a better piercing weapon) and D4 bludgeoning (you can use it to bludgeon, but it's definitely not as good as a mace). For a great sword I'd go with 2d6 slashing, 2d4 piercing and 1d6 bludgeoning

[@SellswordArts]

A very cool breakdown! I do want to point out that the long sword is actually just as efficient at thrusting as the Rapier.

[@sideswipe947]

Yayyyy

[@mushroomking8304]

Is the Piercing stronger than that of a spear? Is the Bludgeoning stronger than that of a mace? Is the Slashing stronger than that of a hand axe? To all of these I would say no, but swords in fantasy have been glorified heavily and still have relevance. All the three weapon types I mentioned above are all at a 1d6 damage and are considered simple weapons, but all lack the true versatility of a sword as mentioned in the video. Since swords are already strong in that they are a 1d8 or 1d10 (one handed like an arming sword, or two handed like an actual longsword) I would say that the weapon is already given a lot of strength, with piercing and bludgeoning damage not being consistent with all longswords. Note that two handing a European longsword to bludgeon will not have the same effect if attempted with a katana, a Japanese longsword. And both can pierce, but good luck trying to do that with a Falchion or a Sulthan (Executioner's sword) where the sword does not have a piercing point. As it is, I think it is fair to say that slashing damage is a good spot as it is consistent among all swords, but that doesn't mean that a DM can't allow a change in damage type. However, I think it would be relatively fair to say the damage not being a 1d8 or 1d10 would be the fairest to the other weapons. Having a 1d6 or 1d8 (if two handed) piercing, and a 1d6 (two handed) bludgeoning is the way that I would run it. In terms of damage, it is less, but it could be very effective to other enemies that may not be resistant to certain types of damage. For example, using the bludgeoning against a Skelton which is vulnerable to the damage type effectively makes the change in attack worth while, as vulnerable enemies take twice as much damage to an attack.

[@orionriftclan2727]

So Longsword as a finesse weapon

[@scootervantil]

Honestly the definition of Versatile always bothered me anyway, so I’m cool with changing it’s definitition to “all physical ddamage types”

[@Iruka1991]

YO THIS WOULD BE A FUN SERIES. Like, how to properly adapt weapons into fantasy games. Like. Do maces and spear have some flexibilty too or is it just the longsword?

[@SellswordArts]

Get ready, because we've already got more of these in the pipeline!

[@Dyundu]

The spear is simultaneously the most overused and underrated weapon in human history. Would love to see SSA’s take on the spear.

[@J0eMega]

Correct me if I’m wrong, but using a sword as a bludgeoning weapon would most likely not deal as much damage as a dedicated bludgeoning weapon, such as a war hammer. It would most likely just deal 1d4 bludgeoning damage, as with the polearm master feat, hitting a creature with the butt end of a polearm only does that much damage.

[@asa-punkatsouthvinland7145]

Personally when I have dm'd since the early 90s, but since the early 2000s I've allowed the longsword to be as versital as you described. However when looking at d&d artwork for swords... Well some of the fantasy long swords they show definitely wouldn't be as versatile

[@joshuacooley1417]

in my personal home-brew, I have never cared for the idea of differentiating weapons based on damage dice. Really, if you get substantially hit by any weapon, it's going to do enough damage that the difference is relatively negligent. What I try to do is differentiate weapons based on the role they play, or the function they serve. The primary advantages of a mace or warhammer is utility against heavy armor, cheap, and easy to use. Axes are good against armor, and favor offensive aggressive play styles, good in single combat, but can be problematic in formation based fighting. Spears provide great reach advantage, are cheap, and again can be used effectively by even untrained people. They are particularly good also against aggressive beasts/monsters that you want to keep at a distance. Swords, are the all purpose weapon. Better than maces and axes for personal defense, not as good against heavy armor, but usable in virtually any circumstance, and generally easier to carry than axes and spears. I realize in many/most DnD games a lot of that stuff is abstracted away, but I like to put it back in, and I think it provides a lot flavor to the world and the player experience.

[@project_bmo6320]

Hello, DM here. Don’t nerf your martials. Additionally, the Versatile property, though it does not apply different damage types, you’re able to wield it two-handed. This increases the damage dealt, which entirely makes sense.

[@BahamutDX]

So as a dm i would always allow Longswords to deal different kinds of damage, but I’ll argue against getting the full versatility of Longswords, because it can be pretty annoying to keep track of EVERYTHING thinking about how stupidly common Longswords are. People would also just use it in a „do-everything-for-me“ kind of way, which would be hilarious also because of how common it is. Nobody would even think about getting for example a Greatsword, because of how versatile a Longsword would be, unless you give every weapon some additional features (which sounds cool, but only when you play with reaaaally experienced guys, because it gets very complicated very fast)

[@szkox4000]

I would say that when switching from slashing to piercing notjing changes but when it comes to bludgeoning i wouldn't allow it when used one-handed

[@SellswordArts]

I don't consider the longsword a one-handed weapon. I realize that d&d does, but in reality it is a two-handed weapon. So I agree with you here

[@szkox4000]

@@SellswordArts i know its supposed to be two handed but for dnd versatile property means it can be used as either one or two handed (while used with two hands its damage is also increased) :) Ps. Love your videos man

[@jayjaytheairplane963]

i mean, im sure most DM will just allow you to do piercing damage if you say you would rather thrust

[@arjunheart5859]

That's not what versatile means in D&D... It means you can use it with one or two hands. That said, I like this other use for the keyword. And 5e doesn't penalize most melee weapons for being too close, but I don't know if older versions did.

[@SellswordArts]

That's very interesting. The longsword SHOULD be penalized for being used on one hand. It is a two handed weapon, so that's a werird way to use versatile

[@arjunheart5859]

@@SellswordArts in a way, you are. By wielding two-handed, the damage die becomes a d10. I suspect the "longsword" of d&d is smaller than mideval longswords.

[@lordveznan3853]

I think the only melee weapon that does that is the lance. Its a reach weapon (10 feet reach) and if you are within 5 feet of the target you get disadvantage.

[@guyfawkes8873]

It would only be op if dnd had robust weapon rules, and it doesn’t. Give it all damage types. Give it switching within a turn. Makes no difference to the power level. Unfortunately.

[@Papercut337]

In previous editions weapons had multiple types of damage. You’ll notice that EVERY weapon in 5e deals only one type of damage. 5e is VERY simplified, and while it would be realistic, multiple damage types would complicate the system.

[@WulfMek]

I always thought in D&D that weapons should just all be classified as weapon or physical damage and not separate them into piercing, slashing and bludgeoning damage. If I recall correctly weapon damage type only matters in the game for Skeletons and no other monster or spell.

[@chronomage4939]

they should treat it like persona 3 and have some things resist specific physical damage types. you can't exactly cut through armor easily, and a longsword won't be as good to bash shit as a hammer

[@shantoreywilkins651]

⚔️🗡

[@devonanselmomarnach6386]

As a dm I would add a rule saying that in order to switch from slashing/piercing to bludgeon damage it takes an attack action as you had said switching can easily fit in a normal attack. Furthermore I wouldn’t have the bludgeon deal the same 1d8 damage that the sword usually does for slashing/piercing I would instead test out 1d6 and 1d4 do you think that would be fair or should the back side of a long sword deal the same damage as say a Morningstar

[@SellswordArts]

I agree with you that the damage done by the bludgeoning side of the longsword should not be as high as a purpose-built bludgeoning weapon. Don't know about the switch time though, would need to test that out.

[@benjaminholcomb9478]

Wait a minute... He's just making the video to garner online support against his DM.

[@elshebactm6769]

🤠 👍🏿

[@arsamamjadibeygvand4905]

@SellSword Art My dungeon Master said that if you try to do any of the above your damage die go from 1 handed 1d8/2 handed 1d10 to 1 handed 1d3/2 handed 1d6. In your professional experience with a long sword is his assessment correct or is he being biased?

[@SellswordArts]

I don't agree with that. You could possibly Nerf the budgeting a little bit, because it's not going to be as good as something like a mace. But the Slash and piercing damage absolutely should stay at its normal rate. Seems kind of arbitrary to me

[@arsamamjadibeygvand4905]

@@SellswordArts Thanks for your response. I read another comment that said Slashing and Thrusting should remain 1h 1d8/2h 1d10 but bludgeoning should be 1h 1d6/2h 1d8. In D&D 5th Edition the second set of numbers are equivalent to a Mace(1d6) and a Warpick(1d8). In your experience is that equivalence correct in real life or should we go lower like Light Hammer(1d4) and Mace(1d6)?

[@AamruAzuan]

How about a big sword Mr.

[@dutchnamekian256]

Have u done a review of the warden on for honor are his moves viable

[@Althro]

Damn who here early af✋

[@brenodalleore2531]

I don't know if you people would be interested in making this type of contact but I want to share the idea... So I think would be cool to have comment gameplay but the comment would be more like a fantasy narration of the game mixed with role-play

[@chrishayes6359]

i do it by level

[@thedarkbard]

Ok, so from other videos, I know reverse grip bad, but what about a thanos style long sword. Obviously you’d need some special training, but is it actually viable? Also: new DM here, and I think the main reason why it isn’t as versatile in the base rules is just simplicity, the same reason why having an off handed weapon doesn’t do anything to AC.

[@floki479]

My sister nerfed it because I keep morgslagging her.

[@Interrobang212]

"Versatile" in 5th edition refers to the ability to use it single-handed, or to two-hand the weapon for extra damage. I'm not realllllly a fan of this here. CAN you use a longsword single-handed? Yeah kinda but I wouldnt call it full effectiveness. Longsword + Shield feels very awkward to me.

[@SellswordArts]

I agree with you. Using a longsword in one hand totally goes against the weapons purpose. It is a leverage weapon. You essentially Nerf all of its cool abilities

[@Dyundu]

Tried it with proper steel gear. It sucks. Longswords need two hands, hands-down. If you’re using a shield, one-handed arming swords (hammers, maces, etc as well) are there for a reason.

[@davidc9257]

Hello

[@kyubiultima5]

One thing I would ask is what is y'alls opinion in the dreaded duel wielding longswords. Considering the weight of a longsword I think its okay. Other than the ridiculous amount of skill required to effectively duel wield in real life.

[@SellswordArts]

We made a video about that a while ago. I think it's silly. But in fantasy when you can be stupid strong, I guess it's whatever

[@rosiefetorrecampo2692]

Maybe the Dnd community had not only a fantasy game series development problem, but also a historical weapon accuracy and realism problem. Got it.

[@austinl6748]

Hi

[@arjunheart5859]

Most of us DMs are not well versed in sword technique. Let alone our players. That said, D&D simplifies everything. From forgetting food and using the bathroom to giving weapons simple, single-purpose lack of utility, for the sake of the ignorant populace.

[@orionriftclan2727]

My friend who is DMing says everything minimus bludgeoning is fine so ya

[@CandleCat15]

Versatile doesn’t make sense because in dnd it mean u can one hand it. Which I don’t think is accurate because while you can one hand a long sword it is barely as effective as two handing

[@mr.frogguy3832]

Wait am I early?

[@lukedallor977]

In my personal opinion I’m just too lazy to deal with all that, also it is not at all balanced

[@nosrin1988]

isnt the longsword in dnd an arming sword in reality? since it's a one handed sword in game? And the great sword is the long sword since it's 2 handed.

[@mainoatmeal]

e chain

[@Dratan]

Music a bit too loud

[@Tupadre97]

the issue i have with videos like this is that people always assume that just because its called a "longsword" that it somehow *has* to be the same as the real world version of a longsword. clearly if the dnd version of a longsword only does slashing damage then going by the mechanics the "longsword" must really be some kind of dedicated slashing/chopping weapon like a falchion or a machete or something and not the same type of longsword we have in real life. i also take issue with the idea that we have to have everything available to us because dnd is "fantasy" but the thing is it's not. its a *GAME* first and foremost and no game designer would just give the player everything all at the start because then the game would just be boring. putting limitations on the players and the game and allowing them to become strong within that ruleset is what makes games fun and the same applies with dnd. so i disagree with the idea that the longsword has to be exactly the same as the real life counterpart since that totally ignores the fact that we're ultimately playing a game with its own in world physics and logic and should be roleplaying within that world aware of that fact.

[@SellswordArts]

Thanks for your opinion. I don't really agree with everything you said, but I appreciate you giving me your take on it.

[@jordanroberts7874]

Lol lol 3rd comment

[@ancientreddragon5617]

Hell yeah! I was arguing about this with my D&D group recently at the start of our new campaign, tho my DM was and is very much fine with it some of the other players say "it's op but it *is* realistic so meh" To which I replied, "Hey if you guys get to cast all these crazy spells why can't my longsword wielding mercenary be creative with his weapon?" Lol