Versatile weapons are designed to allow for an interesting trade-off: use them in one hand with less damage, or two hands with more damage.The current design of Fighting Styles disrupts that trade off, and makes it so that you should always wield your versatile weapons one-handed. Let me explain what I mean.
Let's say you have a fighting style, and want to wield your longsword one-handed and carry a shield. You can pick Dueling as your Fighting style, and get 3-10 damage (d8+2), alongside your +2 AC from the shield. So far so good. Let's say you want to instead wield your longsword two-handed.What Fighting Style can you pick? If we're trying to go for damage and AC, the only two real options for using the longsword two-handed are Defense and Great Weapon Fighting.
With Defense, you get 1-10 damage (d10) and +1 AC. This is worse in both damage and AC to using sword-and-board with Dueling. With Great Weapon Fighting, you get 3-10 damage (d10, 1 and 2 counts as 3), with a 30% chance to get a 3 and a 10% chance of each other result, and no AC bonus. This is also worse in both damage and AC to using sword-and-board with Dueling. The upshot is that as soon as the Fighter/Paladin gets their Fighting style, there is, mechanically, absolutely no reason to use any Versatile weapon one-handed. It's inferior in every respect. There's no tradeoff, no "I can get more damage but less AC." It's just plain worse.
This sucks. The introduction of Fighting Styles should not make any one choice about weapon use completely obsolete if it wasn't before.
To fix this, I propose this house rule: weapons held in both hands can benefit from the Dueling Fighting Style as long as they are Versatile weapons. It might be better to try to make a Fighting Style specifically for Versatile weapons, but that's a lot more difficult.
Would this proposal make GWF inferior to Versatile Weapon Fighter in every regard? Neither gain an AC bonus, but one grants a straight up +2 to damage.
Even with a weapon that has 2d6 damage using GWF, the math would be better with a +2 to damage.
I think GWF is balanced around the fact that most great weapons have access to Great Weapon Master. Versatile weapons don't, though, since they don't have the Heavy property. But yes, if Great Weapon Master isn't available, GWF is not a good option (that said, it wasn't a good option without GWM before, either).
I don't think this is actually a problem. A Fighting Style dictates, well, your style of fighting. If your style is dueling, you should never wield two-handed, and if your style is great weapons you should be carrying a great weapon. The fact that switching back and forth is not as effective as focusing in one is the price of versatility. Note also that using a shield is already a major hinder to versatility, because it takes an action to don or doff, so you're not likely to do it mid-combat, and if you're only switching between combats, you might as well switch weapon, too.
I don't think this is actually a problem. A Fighting Style dictates, well, your style of fighting. If your style is dueling, you should never wield two-handed, and if your style is great weapons you should be carrying a great weapon. The fact that switching back and forth is not as effective as focusing in one is the price of versatility. Note also that using a shield is already a major hinder to versatility, because it takes an action to don or doff, so you're not likely to do it mid-combat, and if you're only switching between combats, you might as well switch weapon, too.
So, to be clear: using a longsword two-handed is a style of fighting, it's just not one that the game makes mechanically viable compared to any other nearby option. That's my issue with it. I'm fine if one-handers get a fighting style for them, and if people using heavy weapons get a fighting style for them. But I really think that the most common way of using longswordshistoricallyshould have some mechanical support.
My issue isn't that people don't get a benefit for switching between one-handed and two-handed. My issue is that characters wielding weapons like longswords two-handed just have no fighting style that's actually good for them, period. They're just left completely in the cold.
I don't know anything about historical warfair, but look at it from a game design perspective. If wielding a longsword two-handed is as effective as wielding a greatsword, this is actually an advantage for the laongsword, because you get the versatility for free.
Obviously, if this works for your table you are welcomed to adopt any house rule you want. But I want to also point out that making a mechanically suboptimal choice for the right flavor is a valid way of playing the game.
I think the question is whether you want to support Versatile weapons using a feat or a fighting style. Because two-handed Versatile weapons also don't have any feat support (again a massive shame). I'd personally add the following:
Feat: Versatile Warrior
You gain the following benefits:
ASI. Increase your Strength by +1
Heavy Strike. When you attack with a Versatile weapon held in two-hands, you add your Strength modifier an additional time to the damage.
Quick Grab. When you attack with a weapon in one hand and your other hand is empty, you can use a bonus action to knock the target off balance granting you advantage on the attack.
Buckler. You can equip a Shield as a bonus action rather than an action. When you equip a Shield in this way, you also gain the benefits of the Disengage action.
Fighting Style Feat: Two-handed Fighting
While you are holding one weapon with both hands, you gain a +1 bonus to attacks and damage rolls with that weapon.
I don't think this is actually a problem. A Fighting Style dictates, well, your style of fighting. If your style is dueling, you should never wield two-handed, and if your style is great weapons you should be carrying a great weapon. The fact that switching back and forth is not as effective as focusing in one is the price of versatility. Note also that using a shield is already a major hinder to versatility, because it takes an action to don or doff, so you're not likely to do it mid-combat, and if you're only switching between combats, you might as well switch weapon, too.
I think you're confusing dueling with fencing. Dueling with a zwei-hander or other long sword variant is perfectly legitimate. Don't take the DnD name of the Fighting Style too seriously.
@OP: The more I think about it, the less against it I am. I started writing up why it shouldn't be allowed but I've come around. It's true that allowing Dueling for Versatile two-hand wielded weapons (10.5 avg. dmg) would overshadow Heavy weapons (10 avg. dmg for Greatsword/-maul). However that includes a Fighting Style. By the numbers, even though 2024-rules gutted the Fighting Style, you still get a +0.5 avg. dmg. bonus per d6 with FS: GWF. As such a Greatsword with FS: GWF would average 11 dmg at level 1.
And Heavy weapons still have GWM to boost their damage later on. In a way it is thematic that Great weapons or Heavy weapons are not as easily mastered and thus requiring additional Mastering to really overtake Versatile weapons as lead damage (per swing) - both slightly behind a full investment TWF (2x (1d6 + 3 MOD) ~ 13 avg. dmg.) and even at lvl 5 (4x (1d6 + 4 MOD) ~ 30 avg. dmg) versus GWM's (2x (2d6 + 4 MOD + 3 GWM) ~ 28 avg. dmg).
I think it's a shame that there are not a better Fighting Style to complement versatile weapons, but I completely agree with Agilemind that the true shame is the lack of feat support. There's GWM for Heavy weapons (both melee and ranged - tho ranged is iffy), there's Dual Wielder for TWF, there's Skulker for stealth-Archers, there's Sharpshooter and Crossbow Expert for those playstyles. Not all of them improve damage output directly though.
You can pick up Fighting Style: Interception as a Reaction to reduce incoming damage from an attack roll by 1d10 + Prof. Bonus (in 2024 you can use it for yourself). If you got nothing else to spend your Reaction on, that's still a fairly good way to spend it without a limited resource cost - at least in tier 1. You could go for FS: Blind Fighting and fight alongside your Warlock friend doing the Darkness+Devil's Sight combo. Still FS: Defense is great for just flat benefit and keeps being relevant - unlike Interception that falls off real fast in tier 2.
I'd say FS: GWF is not great either - I always prefer FS: Def. over FS: GWF. The mathematical benefit is worse in 2024, granting Greatsword's 2d6 a bonus of +0.5 per d6 for average damage. A d8 +0.38, a d10 +0.30, a d12 +0.25. In 2014-rules it would be: d6 +0.67, d8 +0.75, d10 +0.80, d12 +0.83. Greatsword's 2d6 always gets the most out of it, but at least the rerolls skewed better towards the higher die ranges and made it usable for the other Great weapons and even the Versatile ones. Still... between the choice of +1 damage on the Greatsword versus +1 AC... the AC wins for me.
Another thing I find a bit lackluster with Versatile is the awkward templating, but mainly a gripe when you can replace the damage die - aka Monk weapons.
To me Versatile weapons have the sweet-spot for... basically only Warlocks who can use CHA as attack stat (and expectedly also the Artificer's combat subclass and other such ilk). Bladesingers who can also replace their attack stat have the problem that they are not allowed to attack using two hands... so never really an option. Heavy Weapons have the STR-requirement, so they can get awkward to use with a build that substitutes the attack stat.
Otherwise yeah... versatile weapons are... not really made interesting as-is. Unless the DM really wants you to have a hand free to interact with gimmicks, or wield a torch. But then again FS: Dueling just completely negates that weapon property.
In my own little head cannon, I would really have loved if it was changed like this:
Versatile: A Versatile weapon can be used with one or two hands. If you make a melee weapon attack with two hands, you get a +1 bonus to the damage roll of that attack.
Fighting Style: Dueling: When you’re holding a Melee weapon that doesn't have the Heavy property nor the Light property, you gain a +2 bonus to damage rolls with that weapon.
Functionally it's very close to the same that you want. At least talking averages. This way Versatile is not locked to a damage die, so even if you have Monk's Martial Arts damage die or Shillelagh's increasing damage die, Versatile doesn't stop functioning, it always just adds a flat +1 to damage, and you'd gladly take it.
Changing Dueling to not work with Heavy nor Light property weapons is very similar to the current one, but it also allows you to wield multiple one-handed weapons (for utility, casting-charges or whatever) or do the Rapier + Hand Crossbow combo. You basically just don't want people to use Dueling with Heavy or Light weapons, so target those. Heavy due to GWM (too much damage spam), and Light due to TWF.
@Agilemind: Wouldn't FS: Two-handed Fighting just replace GWF as it is better in basically all aspects?
I think GWF is balanced around the fact that most great weapons have access to Great Weapon Master. Versatile weapons don't, though, since they don't have the Heavy property. But yes, if Great Weapon Master isn't available, GWF is not a good option (that said, it wasn't a good option without GWM before, either).
As an aside, the following weapons are Two-handed but not Heavy
Double-bladed Scimitar (Eberron: Rising From the Last War, not updated in Forge of the Artificer so it also doesn't have a Weapon Mastery)
Greatclub
Hoopak (Dragonlance: Shadow of the Dragon Queen, not updated for 2024 so it also doesn't have a Weapon Mastery)
A feat, like Agilemind's that targets weapons without the Heavy property when they are wielded in two hands may help Versatile weapons and also these outliers as well.
Hi everyone!
Versatile weapons are designed to allow for an interesting trade-off: use them in one hand with less damage, or two hands with more damage.The current design of Fighting Styles disrupts that trade off, and makes it so that you should always wield your versatile weapons one-handed. Let me explain what I mean.
Let's say you have a fighting style, and want to wield your longsword one-handed and carry a shield. You can pick Dueling as your Fighting style, and get 3-10 damage (d8+2), alongside your +2 AC from the shield. So far so good. Let's say you want to instead wield your longsword two-handed. What Fighting Style can you pick? If we're trying to go for damage and AC, the only two real options for using the longsword two-handed are Defense and Great Weapon Fighting.
With Defense, you get 1-10 damage (d10) and +1 AC. This is worse in both damage and AC to using sword-and-board with Dueling. With Great Weapon Fighting, you get 3-10 damage (d10, 1 and 2 counts as 3), with a 30% chance to get a 3 and a 10% chance of each other result, and no AC bonus. This is also worse in both damage and AC to using sword-and-board with Dueling. The upshot is that as soon as the Fighter/Paladin gets their Fighting style, there is, mechanically, absolutely no reason to use any Versatile weapon one-handed. It's inferior in every respect. There's no tradeoff, no "I can get more damage but less AC." It's just plain worse.
This sucks. The introduction of Fighting Styles should not make any one choice about weapon use completely obsolete if it wasn't before.
To fix this, I propose this house rule: weapons held in both hands can benefit from the Dueling Fighting Style as long as they are Versatile weapons. It might be better to try to make a Fighting Style specifically for Versatile weapons, but that's a lot more difficult.
Would this proposal make GWF inferior to Versatile Weapon Fighter in every regard? Neither gain an AC bonus, but one grants a straight up +2 to damage.
Even with a weapon that has 2d6 damage using GWF, the math would be better with a +2 to damage.
I think GWF is balanced around the fact that most great weapons have access to Great Weapon Master. Versatile weapons don't, though, since they don't have the Heavy property. But yes, if Great Weapon Master isn't available, GWF is not a good option (that said, it wasn't a good option without GWM before, either).
I don't think this is actually a problem. A Fighting Style dictates, well, your style of fighting. If your style is dueling, you should never wield two-handed, and if your style is great weapons you should be carrying a great weapon. The fact that switching back and forth is not as effective as focusing in one is the price of versatility. Note also that using a shield is already a major hinder to versatility, because it takes an action to don or doff, so you're not likely to do it mid-combat, and if you're only switching between combats, you might as well switch weapon, too.
So, to be clear: using a longsword two-handed is a style of fighting, it's just not one that the game makes mechanically viable compared to any other nearby option. That's my issue with it. I'm fine if one-handers get a fighting style for them, and if people using heavy weapons get a fighting style for them. But I really think that the most common way of using longswords historically should have some mechanical support.
My issue isn't that people don't get a benefit for switching between one-handed and two-handed. My issue is that characters wielding weapons like longswords two-handed just have no fighting style that's actually good for them, period. They're just left completely in the cold.
I don't know anything about historical warfair, but look at it from a game design perspective. If wielding a longsword two-handed is as effective as wielding a greatsword, this is actually an advantage for the laongsword, because you get the versatility for free.
Obviously, if this works for your table you are welcomed to adopt any house rule you want. But I want to also point out that making a mechanically suboptimal choice for the right flavor is a valid way of playing the game.
I think the question is whether you want to support Versatile weapons using a feat or a fighting style. Because two-handed Versatile weapons also don't have any feat support (again a massive shame). I'd personally add the following:
Feat: Versatile Warrior
You gain the following benefits:
ASI. Increase your Strength by +1
Heavy Strike. When you attack with a Versatile weapon held in two-hands, you add your Strength modifier an additional time to the damage.
Quick Grab. When you attack with a weapon in one hand and your other hand is empty, you can use a bonus action to knock the target off balance granting you advantage on the attack.
Buckler. You can equip a Shield as a bonus action rather than an action. When you equip a Shield in this way, you also gain the benefits of the Disengage action.
Fighting Style Feat: Two-handed Fighting
While you are holding one weapon with both hands, you gain a +1 bonus to attacks and damage rolls with that weapon.
I think you're confusing dueling with fencing. Dueling with a zwei-hander or other long sword variant is perfectly legitimate. Don't take the DnD name of the Fighting Style too seriously.
@OP: The more I think about it, the less against it I am. I started writing up why it shouldn't be allowed but I've come around.
It's true that allowing Dueling for Versatile two-hand wielded weapons (10.5 avg. dmg) would overshadow Heavy weapons (10 avg. dmg for Greatsword/-maul). However that includes a Fighting Style. By the numbers, even though 2024-rules gutted the Fighting Style, you still get a +0.5 avg. dmg. bonus per d6 with FS: GWF. As such a Greatsword with FS: GWF would average 11 dmg at level 1.
And Heavy weapons still have GWM to boost their damage later on. In a way it is thematic that Great weapons or Heavy weapons are not as easily mastered and thus requiring additional Mastering to really overtake Versatile weapons as lead damage (per swing) - both slightly behind a full investment TWF (2x (1d6 + 3 MOD) ~ 13 avg. dmg.) and even at lvl 5 (4x (1d6 + 4 MOD) ~ 30 avg. dmg) versus GWM's (2x (2d6 + 4 MOD + 3 GWM) ~ 28 avg. dmg).
I think it's a shame that there are not a better Fighting Style to complement versatile weapons, but I completely agree with Agilemind that the true shame is the lack of feat support. There's GWM for Heavy weapons (both melee and ranged - tho ranged is iffy), there's Dual Wielder for TWF, there's Skulker for stealth-Archers, there's Sharpshooter and Crossbow Expert for those playstyles. Not all of them improve damage output directly though.
You can pick up Fighting Style: Interception as a Reaction to reduce incoming damage from an attack roll by 1d10 + Prof. Bonus (in 2024 you can use it for yourself). If you got nothing else to spend your Reaction on, that's still a fairly good way to spend it without a limited resource cost - at least in tier 1. You could go for FS: Blind Fighting and fight alongside your Warlock friend doing the Darkness+Devil's Sight combo. Still FS: Defense is great for just flat benefit and keeps being relevant - unlike Interception that falls off real fast in tier 2.
I'd say FS: GWF is not great either - I always prefer FS: Def. over FS: GWF. The mathematical benefit is worse in 2024, granting Greatsword's 2d6 a bonus of +0.5 per d6 for average damage. A d8 +0.38, a d10 +0.30, a d12 +0.25. In 2014-rules it would be: d6 +0.67, d8 +0.75, d10 +0.80, d12 +0.83. Greatsword's 2d6 always gets the most out of it, but at least the rerolls skewed better towards the higher die ranges and made it usable for the other Great weapons and even the Versatile ones. Still... between the choice of +1 damage on the Greatsword versus +1 AC... the AC wins for me.
Another thing I find a bit lackluster with Versatile is the awkward templating, but mainly a gripe when you can replace the damage die - aka Monk weapons.
To me Versatile weapons have the sweet-spot for... basically only Warlocks who can use CHA as attack stat (and expectedly also the Artificer's combat subclass and other such ilk). Bladesingers who can also replace their attack stat have the problem that they are not allowed to attack using two hands... so never really an option.
Heavy Weapons have the STR-requirement, so they can get awkward to use with a build that substitutes the attack stat.
Otherwise yeah... versatile weapons are... not really made interesting as-is. Unless the DM really wants you to have a hand free to interact with gimmicks, or wield a torch. But then again FS: Dueling just completely negates that weapon property.
In my own little head cannon, I would really have loved if it was changed like this:
Versatile: A Versatile weapon can be used with one or two hands. If you make a melee weapon attack with two hands, you get a +1 bonus to the damage roll of that attack.
Fighting Style: Dueling: When you’re holding a Melee weapon that doesn't have the Heavy property nor the Light property, you gain a +2 bonus to damage rolls with that weapon.
Functionally it's very close to the same that you want. At least talking averages. This way Versatile is not locked to a damage die, so even if you have Monk's Martial Arts damage die or Shillelagh's increasing damage die, Versatile doesn't stop functioning, it always just adds a flat +1 to damage, and you'd gladly take it.
Changing Dueling to not work with Heavy nor Light property weapons is very similar to the current one, but it also allows you to wield multiple one-handed weapons (for utility, casting-charges or whatever) or do the Rapier + Hand Crossbow combo. You basically just don't want people to use Dueling with Heavy or Light weapons, so target those. Heavy due to GWM (too much damage spam), and Light due to TWF.
@Agilemind: Wouldn't FS: Two-handed Fighting just replace GWF as it is better in basically all aspects?
As an aside, the following weapons are Two-handed but not Heavy
A feat, like Agilemind's that targets weapons without the Heavy property when they are wielded in two hands may help Versatile weapons and also these outliers as well.
How to add Tooltips.
My houserulings.