That depends on the construction of the weapon. It's possible to build something that requires two hands to use but is based on being light, flexible, and precise.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
Or more specifically, two hands potentially means more control rather than less. Hence proper driving involves both hands on the wheel.
Hold my beer....
I figure since we're doing katanas and going in the other direction now with automobiles being discussed as finesse weapons, I will say back when I was first playing, I knew a player who if the system allowed it, would declare "car" as their melee weapon of choice. I guess you could say they were the tank, we weren't calling them tanks back then though.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
This may just be a personal thing but a finesses weapon that can be wielded with two hands feels weird to me. A finesse weapon is more about precision and if you're swinging it around with two hands, and still using 'finesse' that just doesn't feel right IMO.
That depends on the construction of the weapon. It's possible to build something that requires two hands to use but is based on being light, flexible, and precise.
Or more specifically, two hands potentially means more control rather than less. Hence proper driving involves both hands on the wheel.
Slashing long blades are much more maneuverable and faster when wielded using two hands, essentially by turning the grip into a lever. The same applies to spears as well, though the bigger advantage in that case is being able to maximize the reach advantage better.
From a gaming point of view I'd say none of this matters more than in-game balance though, which is why rapiers as they are statted out are a mistake.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
This may just be a personal thing but a finesses weapon that can be wielded with two hands feels weird to me. A finesse weapon is more about precision and if you're swinging it around with two hands, and still using 'finesse' that just doesn't feel right IMO.
That depends on the construction of the weapon. It's possible to build something that requires two hands to use but is based on being light, flexible, and precise.
Or more specifically, two hands potentially means more control rather than less. Hence proper driving involves both hands on the wheel.
Slashing long blades are much more maneuverable and faster when wielded using two hands, essentially by turning the grip into a lever. The same applies to spears as well, though the bigger advantage in that case is being able to maximize the reach advantage better.
From a gaming point of view I'd say none of this matters more than in-game balance though, which is why rapiers as they are statted out are a mistake.
Two hands on a blade limits it’s mobility (it can only go where two arms both can reach, rather than one). It does increase power, and it can increase precision depending on techniques used (halfswording, etc). It also provides strong defense against attacks from the front. However, against multiple opponents the swordsman has to reposition the body to address each attacker, leaving himself vulnerable to the others.
Two hands on a spear does increase mobility due to leverage, but this grip is far different than the sword.
This may just be a personal thing but a finesses weapon that can be wielded with two hands feels weird to me. A finesse weapon is more about precision and if you're swinging it around with two hands, and still using 'finesse' that just doesn't feel right IMO.
That depends on the construction of the weapon. It's possible to build something that requires two hands to use but is based on being light, flexible, and precise.
Or more specifically, two hands potentially means more control rather than less. Hence proper driving involves both hands on the wheel.
Slashing long blades are much more maneuverable and faster when wielded using two hands, essentially by turning the grip into a lever. The same applies to spears as well, though the bigger advantage in that case is being able to maximize the reach advantage better.
From a gaming point of view I'd say none of this matters more than in-game balance though, which is why rapiers as they are statted out are a mistake.
Two hands on a blade limits it’s mobility (it can only go where two arms both can reach, rather than one).
It does increase power, and it can increase precision depending on techniques used (halfswording, etc).
Here Musashi switches between one and two hands. One is used against multiple opponents attacking from multiple angles, two are used against a single threat or when a powerful attack is needed.
This may just be a personal thing but a finesses weapon that can be wielded with two hands feels weird to me. A finesse weapon is more about precision and if you're swinging it around with two hands, and still using 'finesse' that just doesn't feel right IMO.
That depends on the construction of the weapon. It's possible to build something that requires two hands to use but is based on being light, flexible, and precise.
Or more specifically, two hands potentially means more control rather than less. Hence proper driving involves both hands on the wheel.
Slashing long blades are much more maneuverable and faster when wielded using two hands, essentially by turning the grip into a lever. The same applies to spears as well, though the bigger advantage in that case is being able to maximize the reach advantage better.
From a gaming point of view I'd say none of this matters more than in-game balance though, which is why rapiers as they are statted out are a mistake.
Rogues needed a decent weapon. Spears should be better than they are, though. Other two handed weapons are already good enough. The longsword (or arming sword or whatever you want to call it) is the weapon that loses out to two handers and rapiers. And one handed blunt weapons lose out, too, which no one even seems to talk about at all.
I mean, sure - but the difference between a rapier and a shortsword is just one point of damage on average. Probably about 10% on a sneak attack for the first two levels, almost certainly less than 10% past lvl 3 and it only gets more reduced from there. Other than the principle of the matter “decent” seems like a non-issue, shortswords are certainly not bad. I don’t think the longsword loses out to twohanders, by the grace of the Dueling fighting style. If anything, twohanders lose out to most everything else unless they have reach, since 5E doesn’t have the 1.5x Str mod to damage for twohanded weapons.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
This may just be a personal thing but a finesses weapon that can be wielded with two hands feels weird to me. A finesse weapon is more about precision and if you're swinging it around with two hands, and still using 'finesse' that just doesn't feel right IMO.
That depends on the construction of the weapon. It's possible to build something that requires two hands to use but is based on being light, flexible, and precise.
Or more specifically, two hands potentially means more control rather than less. Hence proper driving involves both hands on the wheel.
Slashing long blades are much more maneuverable and faster when wielded using two hands, essentially by turning the grip into a lever. The same applies to spears as well, though the bigger advantage in that case is being able to maximize the reach advantage better.
From a gaming point of view I'd say none of this matters more than in-game balance though, which is why rapiers as they are statted out are a mistake.
Rogues needed a decent weapon. Spears should be better than they are, though. Other two handed weapons are already good enough. The longsword (or arming sword or whatever you want to call it) is the weapon that loses out to two handers and rapiers. And one handed blunt weapons lose out, too, which no one even seems to talk about at all.
I mean, sure - but the difference between a rapier and a shortsword is just one point of damage on average. Probably about 10% on a sneak attack for the first two levels, almost certainly less than 10% past lvl 3 and it only gets more reduced from there. Other than the principle of the matter “decent” seems like a non-issue, shortswords are certainly not bad. I don’t think the longsword loses out to twohanders, by the grace of the Dueling fighting style. If anything, twohanders lose out to most everything else unless they have reach, since 5E doesn’t have the 1.5x Str mod to damage for twohanded weapons.
You need to make up your mind there, don't you? If the difference between a shortsword and rapier is so small, what is the problem with the rapier? And dueling style works with rapiers too.
It’s the principle of the matter. The rapier sticks out, that’s all. Not by a lot, but it does. From a gamist POV, to me, that’s a design mistake.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
Rapier seems generally fine to me because it gives up the light property.
Dagger is only 1d4 but can be thrown.
Whip only deals 1d4 and doesn't get light as a tradeoff for having reach.
Scimtar and short sword get 1d6 with finesse and light, doing more damage but not having reach or throwable.
And rapier gets the highest damage die of a finesse weapon at the expense of losing light, so it can't be used with TWF unless you invest in a feat.
So rapier doesn't really seem that off to me. It's the go to for a finesses weapon if you prioritize single attack damage over twf, or having thrown/reach properties.
A versatile 1d8/1d10 finesses and versatile weapon though, just kind of feels like int invalidates the rapier entirely. There are still situations where you might want a dagger you can throw or the ability to TWF over a rapier. But the existence of this weapon as a base weapon would completely invalidate the rapier. It's an intentional design choice to not give finesse weapons access to d10 and d12 and 2d6 damage dice on weapons. Going for dex is intended to mean a bit less melee damage output compared to STR.
Now it's not a game breaking thing, I don't think giving a dex melee class a 1d10 damage option is going to make you overpowered exactly, but it is an extra benefit with no tradeoff if it's made into a standard weapon. It won'g break the game but it does just feel slightly off to me design wise. Maybe a tradeoff would be to make it a 1d6/1d8 versatile finesse weapon instead, so that you get that katana with a two handed version that equals the rapier's output instead of surpassing it. Especially if it's a starting weapon for flavor and not a special magic weapon you get later.
Or just go for a longsword with finesse slapped on. As I said, it feels weird to me from a design standpoint with how they handled the weapons in the PHB but it's not going to break the game if you do this.
Thread Necromancy 2.0 for this zombified corpse of a discussion. Yaaaay. Thought you couldn't cast Animate Dead on a target that had already been affected by Animate Dead.
Y'all really want to get down to brass tacks? Finesse, itself, was a design mistake. Dexterity is arguably the most valuable save in D&D, it contributes to armor class, it contributes to initiative, it governs one of the most critical skills in 5e (Stealth), and it fuels ranged weapons. Allowing it to also fuel melee weapons at no additional penalty was a design error. Finesse, at most, should have allowed you to substitute Dexterity mod for the attack roll of a melee weapon attack, but not the damage roll. There are solid arguments to be made that Finesse shouldn't have happened at all and melee weapons should have been reliant on Strength.
"But Yurei!" outraged lemons are already shrieking "how would my ranger switch easily between bow and dual-wield?! How would my rogue accurately land Sneak Attacks?! How would my monk be able to punch stuff?!"
Easy, you citrus-flavored soggy fish sticks. The monk already has the answer - bake alternative abilities into class features, like Martial Arts basically being entirely new rules for unarmed strikes. Rather than Sneak Attack requiring "a finesse or ranged weapon", SA says "when you attack with a one-handed melee weapon lacking the Versatile or Heavy properties, you can use Dexterity for the attack roll. Also all the other SA stuff". Versatile Combatant could be a fighting style available to classes that allows them to use Dex for attack rolls on certain melee weapons, so characters with access to a fighting style can opt in and gain the ability to mainline Dex harder, but they have to give up other advantageous abilities for the chance to SAD up on Dex.
Finesse is just bad design. But also nobody cares because like I said a year ago the last time somebody cast Animate Dead on this thread, an increasing number of classes/subclasses allow for random autogishing as it is. Hexblades get to autogish on Charisma, Battlesmiths get to autogish on Intelligence. The game math is not so fragile and delicate as to care about this junk. Your encounter designs won't care or even really notice that you've given people a d8/d10 versatile finesse weapon. All you're really doing is ensuring no other melee weapon matters outside of special circumstances because the d10 versatile finesse weapon does everything you could ever want a Dexy melee weapon to do.
I really like the idea someone else mentioned a long time ago in this thread of expanding the Elf Weapon Training racial ability, allowing elves to treat longswords and spears as finesse weapons. This solves the issue that racial weapon proficiencies are wasted if you play a martial class that gives these proficiencies anyways, it allows elven warriors to actually feel different from warriors of other races. I might actually allow this as a DM, especially considering I had a similar idea for dwarves already, allowing them to wield versatile weapons with one hand while rolling damage as if wielding them with both hands.
Regarding the katana, I agree with reflavoring a longsword. With the change to Elf Weapon Training, dexterity-based samurais with longbow and katana still are possible, although they must be elves.
I also think a d8 slashing finesse weapon without finesse absolutely has a place in 5e as an "elven sword" or "saber".
As I practice fencing with the long sword myself, I agree with all the posters who say long swords, at least historically accurate ones, absolutely are finesse weapons while wieldes with both hands; although from a game balance perspective the "longsword" in 5e being a Strength weapon of course makes sense, especially as a catch-all for all swords that are too big to be shortswords or scimitars (meaning bastard sword, long sword, messer, cutlass, katana, macuahuitl, khopesh...) but too small to be considered greatswords.
One of the things I think that hasn't been implemented as well as it could have is damage resistance, and the effect that it would have on weapon choice. For example in Pathfinder 1e a skeleton had resistance to piercing damage, vulnerability to bludgeoning and normal damage from slashing. So your average rogue could go with a mace or light hammer for the extra vulnerability damage bonus but lose sneak, or stay with short swords and get sneak. Zombies on the other hand had resistance to bludgeoning, vulnerability to slashing and normal damage from piercing. It made you think about what weapons you might carry and how you would fight with them. It evened things out a fair bit - 1d8 halved using a rapier is now worse than the 1d6 from a short sword, Obviously these are just examples but there were many more, and it would also depend on the campaign being played but it was more interesting. There was more variability in character builds and load outs etc. It also encouraged more tactical play and scouting or gathering intel. If you geared up for a necromancer lair full of skeleton's and you discover once you are in the thick of it that 90 are zombies then you were in for a tough time of it.
A longsword analog (1d8, versatile) *strength-based *heavier (3 lbs) *look at how Ogami Itto [Lone Wolf and Cub or Babycart Assassin] explains his Dotanuki battle sword as heavier (thus able to do more damage)
A slashing rapier analog (1d8, finesse) *lighter and quicker (2 lbs)
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
That depends on the construction of the weapon. It's possible to build something that requires two hands to use but is based on being light, flexible, and precise.
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
Hold my beer....
I figure since we're doing katanas and going in the other direction now with automobiles being discussed as finesse weapons, I will say back when I was first playing, I knew a player who if the system allowed it, would declare "car" as their melee weapon of choice. I guess you could say they were the tank, we weren't calling them tanks back then though.
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
Slashing long blades are much more maneuverable and faster when wielded using two hands, essentially by turning the grip into a lever. The same applies to spears as well, though the bigger advantage in that case is being able to maximize the reach advantage better.
From a gaming point of view I'd say none of this matters more than in-game balance though, which is why rapiers as they are statted out are a mistake.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
Two hands on a blade limits it’s mobility (it can only go where two arms both can reach, rather than one). It does increase power, and it can increase precision depending on techniques used (halfswording, etc). It also provides strong defense against attacks from the front. However, against multiple opponents the swordsman has to reposition the body to address each attacker, leaving himself vulnerable to the others.
Two hands on a spear does increase mobility due to leverage, but this grip is far different than the sword.
Your first link is listed as unavailable and yours second is to a music video.
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
I mean, sure - but the difference between a rapier and a shortsword is just one point of damage on average. Probably about 10% on a sneak attack for the first two levels, almost certainly less than 10% past lvl 3 and it only gets more reduced from there. Other than the principle of the matter “decent” seems like a non-issue, shortswords are certainly not bad. I don’t think the longsword loses out to twohanders, by the grace of the Dueling fighting style. If anything, twohanders lose out to most everything else unless they have reach, since 5E doesn’t have the 1.5x Str mod to damage for twohanded weapons.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
It’s the principle of the matter. The rapier sticks out, that’s all. Not by a lot, but it does. From a gamist POV, to me, that’s a design mistake.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
Rapier seems generally fine to me because it gives up the light property.
Dagger is only 1d4 but can be thrown.
Whip only deals 1d4 and doesn't get light as a tradeoff for having reach.
Scimtar and short sword get 1d6 with finesse and light, doing more damage but not having reach or throwable.
And rapier gets the highest damage die of a finesse weapon at the expense of losing light, so it can't be used with TWF unless you invest in a feat.
So rapier doesn't really seem that off to me. It's the go to for a finesses weapon if you prioritize single attack damage over twf, or having thrown/reach properties.
A versatile 1d8/1d10 finesses and versatile weapon though, just kind of feels like int invalidates the rapier entirely. There are still situations where you might want a dagger you can throw or the ability to TWF over a rapier. But the existence of this weapon as a base weapon would completely invalidate the rapier. It's an intentional design choice to not give finesse weapons access to d10 and d12 and 2d6 damage dice on weapons. Going for dex is intended to mean a bit less melee damage output compared to STR.
Now it's not a game breaking thing, I don't think giving a dex melee class a 1d10 damage option is going to make you overpowered exactly, but it is an extra benefit with no tradeoff if it's made into a standard weapon. It won'g break the game but it does just feel slightly off to me design wise. Maybe a tradeoff would be to make it a 1d6/1d8 versatile finesse weapon instead, so that you get that katana with a two handed version that equals the rapier's output instead of surpassing it. Especially if it's a starting weapon for flavor and not a special magic weapon you get later.
Or just go for a longsword with finesse slapped on. As I said, it feels weird to me from a design standpoint with how they handled the weapons in the PHB but it's not going to break the game if you do this.
Pull a pathfinder and give it a deadly d10 trait.
When you crit with the Katana you roll an extra d10 instead of a d8.
Thread Necromancy 2.0 for this zombified corpse of a discussion. Yaaaay. Thought you couldn't cast Animate Dead on a target that had already been affected by Animate Dead.
Y'all really want to get down to brass tacks? Finesse, itself, was a design mistake. Dexterity is arguably the most valuable save in D&D, it contributes to armor class, it contributes to initiative, it governs one of the most critical skills in 5e (Stealth), and it fuels ranged weapons. Allowing it to also fuel melee weapons at no additional penalty was a design error. Finesse, at most, should have allowed you to substitute Dexterity mod for the attack roll of a melee weapon attack, but not the damage roll. There are solid arguments to be made that Finesse shouldn't have happened at all and melee weapons should have been reliant on Strength.
"But Yurei!" outraged lemons are already shrieking "how would my ranger switch easily between bow and dual-wield?! How would my rogue accurately land Sneak Attacks?! How would my monk be able to punch stuff?!"
Easy, you citrus-flavored soggy fish sticks. The monk already has the answer - bake alternative abilities into class features, like Martial Arts basically being entirely new rules for unarmed strikes. Rather than Sneak Attack requiring "a finesse or ranged weapon", SA says "when you attack with a one-handed melee weapon lacking the Versatile or Heavy properties, you can use Dexterity for the attack roll. Also all the other SA stuff". Versatile Combatant could be a fighting style available to classes that allows them to use Dex for attack rolls on certain melee weapons, so characters with access to a fighting style can opt in and gain the ability to mainline Dex harder, but they have to give up other advantageous abilities for the chance to SAD up on Dex.
Finesse is just bad design. But also nobody cares because like I said a year ago the last time somebody cast Animate Dead on this thread, an increasing number of classes/subclasses allow for random autogishing as it is. Hexblades get to autogish on Charisma, Battlesmiths get to autogish on Intelligence. The game math is not so fragile and delicate as to care about this junk. Your encounter designs won't care or even really notice that you've given people a d8/d10 versatile finesse weapon. All you're really doing is ensuring no other melee weapon matters outside of special circumstances because the d10 versatile finesse weapon does everything you could ever want a Dexy melee weapon to do.
If you don't care about that? Have at it.
Please do not contact or message me.
I really like the idea someone else mentioned a long time ago in this thread of expanding the Elf Weapon Training racial ability, allowing elves to treat longswords and spears as finesse weapons. This solves the issue that racial weapon proficiencies are wasted if you play a martial class that gives these proficiencies anyways, it allows elven warriors to actually feel different from warriors of other races. I might actually allow this as a DM, especially considering I had a similar idea for dwarves already, allowing them to wield versatile weapons with one hand while rolling damage as if wielding them with both hands.
Regarding the katana, I agree with reflavoring a longsword. With the change to Elf Weapon Training, dexterity-based samurais with longbow and katana still are possible, although they must be elves.
I also think a d8 slashing finesse weapon without finesse absolutely has a place in 5e as an "elven sword" or "saber".
As I practice fencing with the long sword myself, I agree with all the posters who say long swords, at least historically accurate ones, absolutely are finesse weapons while wieldes with both hands; although from a game balance perspective the "longsword" in 5e being a Strength weapon of course makes sense, especially as a catch-all for all swords that are too big to be shortswords or scimitars (meaning bastard sword, long sword, messer, cutlass, katana, macuahuitl, khopesh...) but too small to be considered greatswords.
One of the things I think that hasn't been implemented as well as it could have is damage resistance, and the effect that it would have on weapon choice. For example in Pathfinder 1e a skeleton had resistance to piercing damage, vulnerability to bludgeoning and normal damage from slashing. So your average rogue could go with a mace or light hammer for the extra vulnerability damage bonus but lose sneak, or stay with short swords and get sneak. Zombies on the other hand had resistance to bludgeoning, vulnerability to slashing and normal damage from piercing. It made you think about what weapons you might carry and how you would fight with them. It evened things out a fair bit - 1d8 halved using a rapier is now worse than the 1d6 from a short sword, Obviously these are just examples but there were many more, and it would also depend on the campaign being played but it was more interesting. There was more variability in character builds and load outs etc. It also encouraged more tactical play and scouting or gathering intel. If you geared up for a necromancer lair full of skeleton's and you discover once you are in the thick of it that 90 are zombies then you were in for a tough time of it.
You could have 2 types of katanas:
A longsword analog (1d8, versatile)
*strength-based
*heavier (3 lbs)
*look at how Ogami Itto [Lone Wolf and Cub or Babycart Assassin] explains his Dotanuki battle sword as heavier (thus able to do more damage)
A slashing rapier analog (1d8, finesse)
*lighter and quicker (2 lbs)