I mean, in theory a traditional european long sword could be used for:

• Slashing
• thrusting
• half swording (using it like a spear)
• murder striking (holding the sword by the blade and trying to bash your opponents head in with the hilt and/or pommel)
• Ending them rightly: 

   

Quote from Ashla_Mason >>

I mean, in theory a traditional european long sword could be used for:

• Slashing
• thrusting
• half swording (using it like a spear)
• murder striking (holding the sword by the blade and trying to bash your opponents head in with the hilt and/or pommel)
• Ending them rightly: 

   

You're right, as video games are 100% factual and real.

Half Swording wasn't using it like a spear, it was used for leverage on thrusts verses plate armor opponents, as strokes(slashing) attacks were virtually useless against opponents in plate armor. Even this technique was improvisation to try compensating for the mail and plate armors developed in that time. Still not very effecting, which led to variant sword designs like the estoc and rapier, but plate armor proved superior still and did not see any real decline in use until the advent of firearms.

Murder Striking..... that would be using the longsword as an improvised weapon. Hope you don't bend or break it in the process.

Ending them rightly..... and yes, the hand thrown rock at the back of an opponents plate helmeted head is the most lethal attack ever devised... instant kill... HEADSHOT!... LOL

 The problem with weapon damage in 5E is that aside from the feats in Tasha's Cauldron and skeletons, there's very little that actually cares whether you're dealing 1d8 slashing or 1d8 piercing.  The size of the damage die matters far more than the type of damage being dealt by your +1 Chunk of Metal.

Quote from 6thLyranGuard >>

 The problem with weapon damage in 5E is that aside from the feats in Tasha's Cauldron and skeletons, there's very little that actually cares whether you're dealing 1d8 slashing or 1d8 piercing.  The size of the damage die matters far more than the type of damage being dealt by your +1 Chunk of Metal.

 Oozes as well. At least Ochre Jelly is affected differently - if you hit it with bludgeoning or piercing, it reacts normally, but if it's medium or larger and you hit it with slashing, it splits in two.

But yeah, it just makes very little difference on the whole. I like the idea of it mattering more...but I'm not sure I want to have to have all the complications that will likely come with it. I've seen the THAC0 tables...no thanks.

Quote from Linklite >>

Quote from 6thLyranGuard >>

 The problem with weapon damage in 5E is that aside from the feats in Tasha's Cauldron and skeletons, there's very little that actually cares whether you're dealing 1d8 slashing or 1d8 piercing.  The size of the damage die matters far more than the type of damage being dealt by your +1 Chunk of Metal.

 Oozes as well. At least Ochre Jelly is affected differently - if you hit it with bludgeoning or piercing, it reacts normally, but if it's medium or larger and you hit it with slashing, it splits in two.

But yeah, it just makes very little difference on the whole. I like the idea of it mattering more...but I'm not sure I want to have to have all the complications that will likely come with it. I've seen the THAC0 tables...no thanks.

 
And animated and awakened trees. They’re both resistant to bludgeoning and piercing damage.

How do you get the tooltips to show as different to what it links to? Like there, you've got animated trees showing as "animated", when normally it would present at as "animated trees"?

Sorry it took so long to get back to you, I must have missed your post when I checked before. The normal tooltip would read as animated tree, to get it to read differently you insert a semicolon at the end of the tooltip before the bracket and then type whatever you want it to display as after that. So, for example, I could make it read as “Polly Wolly Doodle All the Day” by inserting “;Polly Wolly Doodle All the Day” after the word “tree” so it would read like this [_monster]animated tree;Polly Wolly Doodle All the Day[/monster_] and when you take out the underscores you get: Polly Wolly Doodle All the Day. That’s how you can turn wolf into wolves.

Ah, much appreciated, thank you! The whole pluralising thing was annoying, I'd have to rewrite the entire sentence to avoid it. And no worries, there was no urgency.

Agreed, verY helpful.

I fence Fiore longsword... please give your DM a hug for me.

Quote from DMGorani >>

I love historical accuracy for arms & armour in my RPGs, but I have played during those AD&D days with different weapon types and ... I think trying to match weapon types with armour types will slow down combat & make it too complicated to shuffle all the mods and possibilities.

My DM rewards "historical" fighting and combat descriptions with a situation bonus like +1 or an attack roll with advantage.
e.g. "Seeing my enemy wearing plate armour, I use my longsword with a half-swording technique, trying to stab the point between the plates of his cuirass and right pauldron." => He did not expect that move, take advantage on that attack."

 Be still my little HEMA heart.... 

I wouldn't use a cross reference table for weapon type vs armor but you could say add more damage vulnerabilities, resistances and immunities to creatures based on specific weapon types. All too often the three physical damage types are just lumped together. You don't tend to see creatures say resistant to piercing but vulnerable to bludgeoning. 

Quote from Nyr_Ventus >>

You don't tend to see creatures say resistant to piercing but vulnerable to bludgeoning. 

 Funny, that was exactly the way skeletons used to work. 

I'd have no issue allowing a player to choose slashing or piercing with his/her longsword.  It's reasonable IMO, but I certainly wouldn't be adjusting AC or chance to hit, I'd allow them to choose Piercing or Slashing, for the same damage die and to hit for both.  Not game breaking, or even changing, really, so it wouldn't matter in the long run.  As a few have stated, there are select monsters where this would allow you to use the longsword differently to avoid a penalty to damage if the foe is resistant to slashing but not piercing.  Also for the ones that multiply as you slash 'em up.  Mind you I would let the player know that unless they stated prior to rolling damage, it would be Slashing, as that's the default for a longsword.

I'd have no issue allowing a player to choose slashing or piercing with his/her longsword.  It's reasonable IMO, but I certainly wouldn't be adjusting AC or chance to hit, I'd allow them to choose Piercing or Slashing, for the same damage die and to hit for both.  Not game breaking, or even changing, really, so it wouldn't matter in the long run.  As a few have stated, there are select monsters where this would allow you to use the longsword differently to avoid a penalty to damage if the foe is resistant to slashing but not piercing.  Also for the ones that multiply as you slash 'em up.  Mind you I would let the player know that unless they stated prior to rolling damage, it would be Slashing, as that's the default for a longsword.