Making Versatile Worth It

[Easy_Lee]

In the title. Basically, versatile is almost never worth using. A longsword swung with two hands falls 1.5 average damage short of a greatsword (1d10 = 5.5, 2d6 = 7). If you use great weapon mastery, you'd prefer a great weapon. If you use dueling, you actually do better one handed damage than versatile (1d8 + 2 = 6.5).

To fix this issue, what do you guys think of this houserule? Dueling - when you wield a one handed or versatile weapon and no other weapons, you deal +2 damage. That way, average dueling damage of a versatile longsword is 7.5. That's slightly higher than a greatsword, but the longsword user doesn't get the great weapon fighting style for rerolling 1's and 2's. And the only real advantage the build has is an optional free hand for grappling. This produces an Aragorn-esque character, fighting with a longsword and alternating between 1h and 2h as needed without losing damage for going 2h.

[Teulisch]

counterpoint- that longsword is a free proficiency for every high elf and wood elf, regardless of class, and some magic items are only available in longsword. if your class lacks a shield proficiency, then the versatile 2-handed use is the best use every time. remember, some of these features will help the non-fighters who cant otherwise use the better weapons.

[Shadow]

counterpoint- that longsword is a free proficiency for every high elf and wood elf, regardless of class, and some magic items are only available in longsword. if your class lacks a shield proficiency, then the versatile 2-handed use is the best use every time. remember, some of these features will help the non-fighters who cant otherwise use the better weapons.

This.
The versatile property is much better than people give it credit for. Being able to use your two-handed weapon with only one hand opens up options that would otherwise be unavailable. It's basically free Monkey Grip on certain weapons.
It's especially relevant in the case of simple weapons such as the spear and staff, which (as simple weapons) are usually relegated to d6 damage dice.

[cobaltstarfire]

I always just thought that part of "Versatile" weapons were for small characters that want to wield a two handed weapon.

Although I guess if we're talking optimization doing such a thing would be considered silly.

[Easy_Lee]

counterpoint- that longsword is a free proficiency for every high elf and wood elf, regardless of class, and some magic items are only available in longsword. if your class lacks a shield proficiency, then the versatile 2-handed use is the best use every time. remember, some of these features will help the non-fighters who cant otherwise use the better weapons.

True, but this wouldn't make longsword any worse for those characters. It just makes versa longsword an option for fighters.

[MaxWilson]

Low-level Monks love Versatile quarterstaffs.

[Demonic Spoon]

Versatile is still good for the Defense and Protection fighting styles - I imagine that the Aragorn-esque character would use one of those.

How much additional expected damage would a GWF fighter using a greatsword have over a duelist using a 2H longsword? My concern is that the ability to swap to a shield for +2 AC is outright better than additional damage from GWF.

[MaxWilson]

Versatile is still good for the Defense and Protection fighting styles - I imagine that the Aragorn-esque character would use one of those.

How much additional expected damage would a GWF fighter using a greatsword have over a duelist using a 2H longsword? My concern is that the ability to swap to a shield for +2 AC is outright better than additional damage from GWF.

GWF greatsword is 8.33, duelist with longsword is 7.5, so expected damage increase is 0.83 per hit.

[Demonic Spoon]

I worry about giving Dueling will make it overshadow other fighting styles, especially Protection and Defense, which currently benefit from versatile weapons a fair bit.

[randomodo]

We should also think of the classes that don't get fighting styles; Valor bards could conceivably use versatile weapons (if they don't have Warcaster, and want to still be able to cast - thus not going sword and board).

Yes, I know that most valor bards are going to be dex-based, but if for some reason they're strength-based, using a vers weapon strikes me as a viable option.

[Demonicattorney]

Its also just free damage when you don't need the defense of a shield. Say someone gets stunned or held, or is attacking a party member instead of you. Its a worthwhile property, but you have to remember to use it.

I would houserule that the dueling style doesn't give less damage when two-handing, because that is actually just stupid.

[Shadow]

I would houserule that the dueling style doesn't give less damage when two-handing, because that is actually just stupid.

It's not just stupid, it flat out doesn't work.
The dueling style requires that you be wielding a melee weapon in one hand. Using a versatile weapon via the versatile property mandates two hands. Dueling doesn't apply.

[Demonic Spoon]

can you wield a weapon in two hands while also wielding a shield?

Donning a shield is a full action. If you need to spend a whole action to equip a shield to gain its benefit, the whole "swap between 2h and sword + board" strategy kind of falls apart.

[randomodo]

can you wield a weapon in two hands while also wielding a shield?

I don't believe you can, but simply not using a shield (until you get the warcaster feat) is an option for a valor bard.

Otherwise, yeah, trying to swap out between 1h/shield one round, 2h the next, and back to 1h/shield the round after is pretty much a total non-starter.

[MaxWilson]

Its also just free damage when you don't need the defense of a shield. Say someone gets stunned or held, or is attacking a party member instead of you. Its a worthwhile property, but you have to remember to use it.

It's not like you're going to take an action to doff your shield just because someone gets stunned (and then another one later to don it again). You can't just drop a shield.

[Shadow]

It's not like you're going to take an action to doff your shield just because someone gets stunned (and then another one later to don it again). You can't just drop a shield.

This is where DM fiat comes into play.
I'd be perfectly fine with allowing a buckler type shield which only applies the shield bonus to melee attacks while wielding an one-handed weapon, granting nothing on ranged attacks, and allowing the use of a versatile weapon at the cost of the shield's bonus and a -1 to attack.

edit:
But I should add that in my game, a shield doesn't offer a bonus to AC on ranged attacks and instead applies disadvantage to ranged attacks against the shield bearer.
The buckler would remove that benefit in exchange for the ability to switch between one-handed and versatile styles.

[Demonic Spoon]

This is where DM fiat comes into play.
I'd be perfectly fine with allowing a buckler type shield which only applies the shield bonus to melee attacks while wielding an one-handed weapon, granting nothing on ranged attacks, and allowing the use of a versatile weapon at the cost of the shield's bonus and a -1 to attack.

That's cool, but that's not RAW or even RAI. This thread is discussing ways to make versatile better and if it is needed.

By RAW, the inability to swap between 2H/1H effectively in combat neuters versatile, which is problematic. Thus, houserules to fix it.

[Shadow]

That's cool, but that's not RAW or even RAI.
<snip>
Thus, houserules to fix it.

Thus, me beginning my statement with "this is where DM fiat comes into play" and me explaining my houserules on the matter.
Telling me that my houserules on the matter are neither RAW nor RAI in a thread entirely devoted to houseruling the versatile property seems a bit redundant.

[bloodshed343]

Allow versatile weapons to add twice your strength modifier to damage when wielded two handed.

That makes the long sword only slightly worse than great sword. It also gives small characters a viable two-handed option.

[Shadow]

Allow versatile weapons to add twice your strength modifier to damage when wielded two handed.

That makes the long sword only slightly worse than great sword. It also gives small characters a viable two-handed option.

How is 1d10+10 (avg 15.5) "only slightly worse than" 2d6+5 (avg 12)....?
Double Str on versatile weapons would be so OP as to render every single two-handed weapon in the game obsolete.

[bloodshed343]

That would be 2d6+15 with GWM.

Also, I meant the double strength instead of increased weapon die.

But, thinking about it, it should be 1.5 x strength. That would put the long sword at 11.5.

[Shadow]

That would be 2d6+15 with GWM.

I think you're forgetting about the massive -5 to hit in that circumstance.
So OK, let's assume you're using GWM. -5 to hit is essentially equivalent to disadvantage on attacks.

So you're looking at:
1d10+10, min 11, avg 15.5, max 20
vs.
2d6+5, min 7, avg 12, max 17
vs.
2d6+15, min 17, avg 22, max 27, with effective disadvantage on attacks

The versatile weapon is hands down the best of those three options.

edit for your edit:

Also, I meant the double strength instead of increased weapon die.

But, thinking about it, it should be 1.5 x strength. That would put the long sword at 11.5.

1.5 Str, at max 20 (+5) Str, rounded down as everything does, adds exactly +2 damage, which is essentially the exact same thing that the versatile property already potentially does. The average on the weapon as is being 1 point lower, but the potential is exactly the same, and it is now actually worse on crits than it was before.
1d8+7+8 (16/19.5/23) vs. 1d10+5+10 (16/20.5/25)

[odigity]

This produces an Aragorn-esque character, fighting with a longsword and alternating between 1h and 2h as needed without losing damage for going 2h.

I'm confused. I thought putting taking your second hand off your weapon and putting it back on is essentially a free action, not an object interaction. What's to stop you from doing that with a greatsword, such as when opening a door?

The main benefit of having a versatile weapon is that you can still wield it when one hand has to be continuously occupied, such as when grappling or carrying the magical olympic torch mcguffin.

[Easy_Lee]

The main benefit of having a versatile weapon is that you can still wield it when one hand has to be continuously occupied, such as when grappling or carrying the magical olympic torch mcguffin.

That was my basic reasoning. Such an iconic character type ought to have some support, even if that support is limited to a fighting style. As-is, fighters with dueling deal more damage with one-handed strikes than with two-handed, which is why I focused on that fighting style to create a character type.

[bloodshed343]

Let's use a 5th Level fighter as the basis for our comparison.

We'll compare versatile with double strength vs GWM against various acs.

Against an ac of 12, the GWM fighter hits on a 10 and the versatile long sword fighter hits on a 5.

So average damage of 22 from GWM with a 45 percent to hit plus a 5 percent chance to crit gives us a dpr of:
[.45 (22)+.05 (34)] x 2 = 23.2

While the long sword has a 70 per cent chance to hit with a 5 per cent chance to hit for a dpr of:
[.7 (14.5)+.05 (22.5)] x 2 = 22.25.

And the greatsword by itself does:
[.7 (12)+.05 (24)] x 2 = 19.2

So I started this to show that a greatsword with GWM is significantly better than a double strength versatile weapon against low cr enemies, but it isnt. Let's say you increase your die size and add 1.5 x strength. That gives you a dpr of
[.7 (12.5) + .05 (22.5)] x 2 = 19.75.

This is only half a point different than the greatsword when swung regularly but much less than GWM.

I'm stopping because math is tedious to type out on my phone. Long story short, the value of GWM increases with number of attacks and decreases with enemy ac.

Also my calculations assumed a variant human with an 18 starting strength taking GWM as a bonus feat and bumping str at 4.

I know you can't get 18 by point buy, but I've already done it, so assume he rolled it.