Thoughts on Elven Curve Blade in 5th?

[Wolfsraine]

Was thinking of asking my DM to allow me the use of an Elven Curveblade.

Original stats for it that I was able to find are:

1d10 damage
Two-Handed
18-20 crit
Finessable

Do you guys think having this weapon, excluding the expanded crit range of course, is balanced?

[Madfellow]

No; finesse weapons cap out at a 1d8 for damage. I'd make it versatile instead, make it mechanically identical to a longsword. Not exactly flashy, but sure to be balanced.

[Demonic Spoon]

Was thinking of asking my DM to allow me the use of an Elven Curveblade.

Original stats for it that I was able to find are:

1d10 damage
Two-Handed
18-20 crit
Finessable

Do you guys think having this weapon, excluding the expanded crit range of course, is balanced?
You shouldn't try to port stuff from other editions directly into 5e - it doesn't work too well.

Anyway, weapons no longer have crit ranges. An 18-20 crit range would be ludicrously overpowered, so just drop that entirely.

Aside from that, the stats sort of fall into the normal "formula" for weapon stats, but currently no two-handed finesse weapon exists. Adding this would allow great weapon fighting with DEX, which a DM might not want to allow, but might.


So, on the whole, I'd say: If you're content to remove the threat range increase entirely, it may or may not be allowed, depending on DM.

It's highly unlikely that any DM would (or at least, should) allow the weapon into the game with the expanded crit range, except (maybe) as a very rare 'magic' item.

[Naanomi]

Finessable two-handed opens up some potentially overpowered options with a fighter/rogue... GWF and style stack perhaps too well with sneak attack

[calebrus]

No; finesse weapons cap out at a 1d8 for damage. I'd make it versatile instead, make it mechanically identical to a longsword. Not exactly flashy, but sure to be balanced.

Finesse weapons cap at 1d6 as a rule, and the sole exception is the rapier at 1d8 (and I believe that this sole exception exists so that rogues have a single 1d8 damage melee weapon to use for sneak attacks, rather than forcing them to use 1d6 weapon in every circumstance).

More on topic, our world uses a wakizashi for this purpose. Basically it's a short sword, as is, that does slashing damage instead of piercing, and has the versatile property.
Wakizashi: martial weapon (prof with short sword), 50gp, 1d6 slashing, finesse, light, versatile

[Madfellow]

Alternatively, you could lower the damage die to a 1d8 and remove the two-handed property, making it mechanically identical to a rapier. Again, not as flashy, but balanced.

[Wolfsraine]

You shouldn't try to port stuff from other editions directly into 5e - it doesn't work too well.

Anyway, weapons no longer have crit ranges. An 18-20 crit range would be ludicrously overpowered, so just drop that entirely.

Aside from that, the stats sort of fall into the normal "formula" for weapon stats, but currently no two-handed finesse weapon exists. Adding this would allow great weapon fighting with DEX, which a DM might not want to allow, but might.


So, on the whole, I'd say: If you're content to remove the threat range increase entirely, it may or may not be allowed, depending on DM.

It's highly unlikely that any DM would (or at least, should) allow the weapon into the game with the expanded crit range, except (maybe) as a very rare 'magic' item.

I put the disclaimer in there that the expanded crit ranged would not be included


Alternatively, you could lower the damage die to a 1d8 and remove the two-handed property, making it mechanically identical to a rapier. Again, not as flashy, but balanced.

The character is actually a multiclass barb, ranger, rogue atm. I wanted a way to use Great Weapon Master and still get sneak attack, I didn't think it would be overpowered considering I can already use sharpshooter to get +10 damage and sneak attack.

[calebrus]

I didn't think it would be overpowered considering I can already use sharpshooter to get +10 damage and sneak attack.

I absolutely disagree.
There is a reason that no two-handed finesse weapons exist, and I don't think it's a good idea to disregard that reasoning.

[Wolfsraine]

I absolutely disagree.
There is a reason that no two-handed finesse weapons exist, and I don't think it's a good idea to disregard that reasoning.

What's the reasoning? I can already do d8 + mod + 10 + sneak attack very reliably. How is it any different if I do it with a 2 hander?

[Naanomi]

Dipping fighter to reroll all the 1s and 2s on your sneak attack pool with Great Weapon Fighting Style might be one place to look at for imbalance. Just straight up being 10-12 points of damage above other melee builds (and still 1-6 higher than sharpshooters) is another

[Magic Myrmidon]

It annoys me that there's no dex two handed weapon. Why can't a make a fighter who dances with his greatsword as his partner? It's not like the use of two hands means that no dexterity is required or desirable. I think it'd be the opposite, honestly.

As far as mechanics, I dunno, I don't think this is crazy. I mean, without the crit range. Seems more than reasonable, actually.

[Galen]

I honestly wouldn't mind a two-handed 1d10 finessable weapon. Not gonna break anything.

The crit range increase, I'd say no to. Crit range is supposed to be the Champion's province.


Dipping fighter to reroll all the 1s and 2s on your sneak attack pool with Great Weapon Fighting Style might be one place to look at for imbalance. Just straight up being 10-12 points of damage above other melee builds (and still 1-6 higher than sharpshooters) is anotherThat's a good point, though. If 2-handed finesse is allowed, I'd keep an eye on the possibility to restrict GWF style to STR-based weapons.

[Ralanr]

Would making versatile with 1d8 for one handed make it broken or balanced?

[Easy_Lee]

Finesse weapons cap at 1d6 as a rule, and the sole exception is the rapier at 1d8 (and I believe that this sole exception exists so that rogues have a single 1d8 damage melee weapon to use for sneak attacks, rather than forcing them to use 1d6 weapon in every circumstance).

More on topic, our world uses a wakizashi for this purpose. Basically it's a short sword, as is, that does slashing damage instead of piercing, and has the versatile property.
Wakizashi: martial weapon (prof with short sword), 50gp, 1d6 slashing, finesse, light, versatile


I absolutely disagree.
There is a reason that no two-handed finesse weapons exist, and I don't think it's a good idea to disregard that reasoning.


Finessable two-handed opens up some potentially overpowered options with a fighter/rogue... GWF and style stack perhaps too well with sneak attack

Alright, going to address every single one of these at once.

The reason we don't have any finesse two-handed weapons is because rogues have never used them before. It's always been the tradition in D&D for roguish types to reflect a swashbuckling french duelist, or dagger-wielding assassin, or those kinds of tropes. The mechanics have always been designed to reflect this, making sure rogues favor the weapons that WoTC wants them to favor. Furthermore, WoTC even went far as to take finesse away from quarterstaves, even though they did the same damage as a rapier but were two-handed, specifically so that rogues could not use them.

In other words, the only reason there are no finesse two-handed weapons is WoTC's bias.

People always talk about how it's supposedly broken for rogues to use a two-handed weapon. Guess what people, it's not. At all. In any way, shape, or form. You know how much damage a two-handed weapon adds over a rapier? 2.5 per hit, maximum. In a rogue's hands, that's 2.5 more damage that entire round. And you know what? We already have two-handed weapons that can be used two-handed; they're called bows, and the strongest one is 1d10.

I can recognize that finesse is a useful quality, that a weapon with finesse is better than one without. I address this in my weapon logic thread. There is simple math we can use to determine what a weapon's damage should be based on its attributes. Short answer: if you want to add finesse to a weapon, reduce its die size by one. Simple. Finesse a lance and it's 1d10. Finesse a greatsword and it's 1d10, or 2d5/2d4 if you like (these all work out close to the same average damage).

And no, before anyone says it, there is absolutely nothing about dexterity that makes it inherently better than strength. It's useful to more classes, but that doesn't make it superior any more than it makes constitution superior to everything. Strength has benefits in better and more armor, shoving/grappling, and athletics being one extremely useful and versatile skill that's easy to pick up. Dexterity works armorless, has better ranged weapons, and allows you to go first more often. They each do different things, having different benefits, and thus one is not better.

And finesse two-handers don't make fighter/rogue any better because the best form of fighter-rogue, DPR-wise, is either a crossbow expert or a dual wielder. Rogues benefit heavily from crossbow expert and dual wield because of the extra attack, which is an extra chance to land sneak attack. Rogues want to maximize their number of attacks to make sure they get the most opportunities to land sneak attack. Further, rogues don't benefit from polearm mastery since rogues can't pull off the dueling quarterstaff polearm mastery combo due to quarterstaves not being finesse (they should have been finesse 1d8 and two-handed only, but WoTC flashed their bias against rogues with two-handers and screwed up quarterstaves, producing the dueling combo that many DMs hate). Further, since static bonuses are not doubled on crits, and since rogues (particularly assassins) crit often due to hunting for advantage, they have one more reason not to pursue dueling. Because of the rogue mechanics, and because the deepest fighter dip only provides two extra attacks (fighter 11), rogues will always do the most DPR by getting the most attacks, meaning crossbow expert or dual wield.

In conclusion, no there is absolutely nothing imbalanced about a finesse two-hander. The only reason why we don't have them is because WoTC wanted rogues to either dual wield, use a rapier, or use bows. They didn't want rogues to use two-handers specifically because of flavor. If you want to flavor your rogues to use two-handed weapons, that's completely your choice. There's nothing imbalancing about it, since you're only adding a slight amount of damage per round and may indeed be losing some due to the loss of dual wield / crossbow expert potential and making fewer attacks (or the same number if you allowed a polearm mastery build, which still wouldn't do much (if any) better damage than a dual wielder or crossbow expert unless the polearm was one-handed). Don't listen to the naysayers, just do the math.

[calebrus]

*lots of opinions*

As I said, and as you quoted, I disagree.

As to making it 1d8, finesse, versatile: Yes, I still think that's too much. 1d6 with those, sure. 1d8 with those breaks the system that was created wherein finesse weapons are capped at 1d6 with one singular exception.
This not only breaks that guideline, but it breaks it by two steps. 1d8 versatile becomes 1d10. That's two steps removed from the guidelines of the rest of the weapons. You shouldn't go further than one step removed.

Just give a scimitar or short sword the versatile property and call it an elven curveblade.

[Easy_Lee]

As I said, and as you quoted, I disagree.

As to making it 1d8, finesse, versatile: Yes, I still think that's too much. 1d6 with those, sure. 1d8 with those breaks the system that was created wherein finesse weapons are capped at 1d6 with one singular exception.
This not only breaks that guideline, but it breaks it by two steps. 1d8 versatile becomes 1d10. That's two steps removed from the guidelines of the rest of the weapons. You shouldn't go further than one step removed.

Just give a scimitar or short sword the versatile property and call it an elven curveblade.

You disagree, but you fail to state why. You say "we don't have this in the system," and use that as a reason for why we shouldn't. You are basically saying "it doesn't exist, therefore it shouldn't." I shouldn't have to point out what's wrong with that line of thinking.

As I've shown, via tangibles like math and mechanics, there's nothing imbalanced by a finesse two-hander. If anything, most two-handers would do less damage than dual wield or crossbow expert on a rogue due to the rogue's small number of attacks and lack of extra attack.

OP, as I said, do not listen to the naysayers. There is nothing imbalanced about it. We don't have any finesse two-handers because WoTC didn't want rogues to use two-handers purely for flavor reasons.

I invite anyone who thinks that they can to prove me wrong, from a gamist, mechanical perspective. Show me how a finesse two-hander breaks the game using an example of a character doing a huge amount of damage purely because they could finesse a two-hander, damage they couldn't do with dual wield or a bow.

[Gnomes2169]

Versatile and finness 1d8/1d10 would actually be wonderful IMO. Sure, you can potentially get a bit of a power boost with a rogue 19/ fighter 1 multiclass (about 6-7 extra damage on a sneak attack at level 20... 12-14 on a crit and 24-28 on the first round horrifyingly powerful deathblow with an assassin), but as far as the game is concerned that really isn't that big of a boost to... anything. Going from 43 damage on a hit to 49-50 isn't really world shattering, and it still isn't outdoing the DRP king (fighter). As well, this multiclass would force the rogue into melee, where its smaller HP pool and lower AC compared to a straight fighter (which deals more sustained damage) will betray it a bit.

I would also love (for the sake of flavor) to have a weapon OTHER than a rapier to use as a dexterity TWF in melee after getting the feat for it. As it is, being shoehorned into fighting with a single d8 piercing weapon or being forced to just use strength when I want to have the whole "walking whirling ginsu blades of death" feel to my character is... obnoxious. And I see no reason for it.

If you wanted to keep it strictly two-handed however, then hard cap it at d10. The finness trait is a boon, and should about even out with the d12 or 2d6 of the greataxe/ greatsword.

[calebrus]

*more opinions*

As I've shown, via tangibles like math and mechanics

*yet more opinions*

I still disagree.
And no, you haven't shown anything but your opinion.
And I still disagree with that opinion.

edit:
If you really want a game-ist reason why, then here it is.
Finesse weapons require such precision that larger/heavier weapons are too unwieldy to accommodate the style you're trying to use. Lighter, faster weapons are required. And those lighter, faster weapons are less deadly than their larger, heavier counterparts. Only a blow trained with pinpoint accuracy (like a vital area, like a sneak attack) are those weapons as fierce.
That's why finesse weapons are capped at 1d6 with a single exception.
And even that exception itself used to be a 1d6 weapon.
There's your game-ist answer.
And I still disagree with you.

[Magic Myrmidon]

I'm not gonna say that "gamist" arguments are the only valid ones, but that wasn't really a gamist argument. It's a narrative/fluff-based argument. Which is certainly a valid viewpoint to take. It is, however, more debatable then indisputable mechanics. And, it is one that I disagree with. An estoc should be wielded with grace and pinpoint accuracy, and I'll bet that it needs dex more than strength. And it can be used two handed. (I think. It's late and I should be getting to bed, so... I may be wrong.)

(Don't mean to harrass or anything, calebrus. Just trying to put my views out there, and placing them next to an opposing viewpoint is the easiest impetus to do so.)

[calebrus]

I'm not gonna say that "gamist" arguments are the only valid ones, but that wasn't really a gamist argument. It's a narrative/fluff-based argument. Which is certainly a valid viewpoint to take. It is, however, more debatable then indisputable mechanics. And, it is one that I disagree with. An estoc should be wielded with grace and pinpoint accuracy, and I'll bet that it needs dex more than strength. And it can be used two handed. (I think. It's late and I should be getting to bed, so... I may be wrong.)

(Don't mean to harrass or anything, calebrus. Just trying to put my views out there, and placing them next to an opposing viewpoint is the easiest impetus to do so.)

Fair enough. It's more of a Simulationist reason. But those are the G and the S in GNS Theory, so it's all part of the same concept Easy was trying to get at.

edit:
Anyway, I don't see why the weapon in question even *wants* an higher damage die.
If you add versatile onto a lower dice weapon, it creates an higher probability for rerolls with GWF. And that's the real purpose here. He wants to reroll 1s and 2s on sneak attack dice. Lower weapon damage dice means better chance to reroll. So they shouldn't even be arguing for higher dice. It's counterproductive to their purposes.
That's why a greatsword is better for GWF than a greataxe, after all.
They're arguing for higher dice, when they should really be begging the DM for lower dice.
Heck, I bet he wouldn't even care if it did ONE SINGLE point of damage, as long as it was versatile and finesse. That's really all he's after here, is those two properties on the same weapon. That's the only important factor.
There was a two-handed finesse weapon in the play test. It didn't make the cut.
So the designers decided they didn't want that weapon to exist.
He's trying to create a weapon that the designers decided shouldn't exist, so who cares what the damage dice are as long as he gets to use it to do something that the designers decided they didn't want players to be able to do.
So once again I say: add versatile onto a scimitar and call it an elven curveblade. :smallsmile:

[Ralanr]

You know what I'd like to see? A weapon with both versatile and heavy.

[Wolfsraine]

Fair enough. It's more of a Simulationist reason. But those are the G and the S in GNS Theory, so it's all part of the same concept Easy was trying to get at.

edit:
Anyway, I don't see why the weapon in question even *wants* an higher damage die.
If you add versatile onto a lower dice weapon, it creates an higher probability for rerolls with GWF. And that's the real purpose here. He wants to reroll 1s and 2s on sneak attack dice. Lower weapon damage dice means better chance to reroll. So they shouldn't even be arguing for higher dice. It's counterproductive to their purposes.
That's why a greatsword is better for GWF than a greataxe, after all.
They're arguing for higher dice, when they should really be begging the DM for lower dice.
Heck, I bet he wouldn't even care if it did ONE SINGLE point of damage, as long as it was versatile and finesse. That's really all he's after here, is those two properties on the same weapon. That's the only important factor.
There was a two-handed finesse weapon in the play test. It didn't make the cut.
So the designers decided they didn't want that weapon to exist.
He's trying to create a weapon that the designers decided shouldn't exist, so who cares what the damage dice are as long as he gets to use it to do something that the designers decided they didn't want players to be able to do.
So once again I say: add versatile onto a scimitar and call it an elven curveblade. :smallsmile:

I'm actually more concerned with wanting to be able to sneak attack and get the +10 damage than I am with re rolling 1's and 2's.

[Ralanr]

I'm actually more concerned with wanting to be able to sneak attack and get the +10 damage than I am with re rolling 1's and 2's.

Huh...well rogues don't get fighting styles anyway.

It's not an official weapon, so everyone would have to bring it up at their tables if they wanted to use it.

If your dm allows it and you grab the feat, go for it I guess. Better to have it in play as a test than just debate on electronic paper.

[eastmabl]

I'm in the camp that says that there is a good reason why a two handed, finessable weapon isn't in the game. Players who specialize in Dexterity already get the added benefit of a common saving throw and increased armor class. Giving all the high damage weapons to the Dex guys makes playing a Str-based player less optimal.

However, I don't think that precludes the elven curve blade from existing - rather, it should be a magic item built off of the chassis of the sword of warning. I don't have my DMG at work, but I imagine this something like:


Elven Curved Bladed

Uncommon magical weapon

1d8/1d10: slashing, versatile, finesse.

(Plus a bonus magic trigger, such as:) On a critical hit, the wielder can make an additional attack with the elven curved blade as a bonus action.

A rare version of the blade is a +1 version of the weapon and a very rare version is a +2 version of the weapon.

By making it a magic weapon, it's part of the game - but not every Thomas, Richard and Harold are running around with one.

[Mr.Moron]

I'm in the camp that says that there is a good reason why a two handed, finessable weapon isn't in the game. Players who specialize in Dexterity already get the added benefit of a common saving throw and increased armor class. Giving all the high damage weapons to the Dex guys makes playing a Str-based player less optimal.

However, I don't think that precludes the elven curve blade from existing - rather, it should be a magic item built off of the chassis of the sword of warning. I don't have my DMG at work, but I imagine this something like:



By making it a magic weapon, it's part of the game - but not every Thomas, Richard and Harold are running around with one.

I think this approach is the best one put forward so far. It's clean, elegant, and fits nicely into the existing design paradigm.

[Submortimer]

By making it a magic weapon, it's part of the game - but not every Thomas, Richard and Harold are running around with one.


That...isn't a bad idea. Actually, quite an elegant solution. That being said, there is the case of the katana: At the moment, mechanically, there isn't anything on the list that functions like it, and it's such a famous trope that there rightly SHOULD be something.

Longsword and bastard sword were merged into one weapon. Got it. Here's your one-hander that you can use two handed to power through whatever you're slicing. Scimitar is in there, but it's essentially just a short sword: I'm 1000% convinced that they statted it up that way so that, mechanically, Drizzt doesn't need any "optional" feats to exist. Rapier is a in there at a d8, and it's finesseable, but no options for two handed use.

I'm not one of those guys that goes all nutty over them, but Japanese swordplay is much more akin to European fencing than European longsword fighting, favoring speed and precision over raw power. What I'm getting at is I want the Great Scimitar from 3.5 Sandstorm back: a bigger scimitar that can be used two handed, and worked with finesse. That's what I used in my games to emulate the katana over the bastard sword model, and i felt it fit better. 1d6/1d8 Versatile, Finesse.

[Person_Man]

However, I don't think that precludes the elven curve blade from existing - rather, it should be a magic item built off of the chassis of the sword of warning.

I think that's a great idea.

I would just add that if the mechanical benefit is better then +1 to hit/damage, then it must also require Attunement, like every other +2ish or better weapon in the game.

[eastmabl]

I think that's a great idea.

I would just add that if the mechanical benefit is better then +1 to hit/damage, then it must also require Attunement, like every other +2ish or better weapon in the game.

I agree wholeheartedly that attunement should probably be required. That's why I try to homebrew as little as possible when I don't have access to the source material.

[Theodoxus]

Just throwing my two coppers in;

I DM'd a game where a player ported their elven curved blade into the 5th Ed conversion I was running. Pretty much exactly as the OP propositioned. As Easy mentioned, it wasn't game changing. It's a poorer version of the longbow, doing the same damage, yet having no range.

It was a magical weapon however, unique to the game world. While I don't think it would be disastrous to allow it in as a normal weapon, I would probably restrict it from Great Weapon Master and both Dueling and Great Weapon Fighting. Basically, there shouldn't be a mechanical reason for a rogue to dip Fighter to gain additional advantages with the weapon.

Limit it to non-versatile - it gets really wonky when ported to a one-handed weapon. Though I have no problem with creating a finesse versatile weapon, it should follow the general weapon rules as Calebrus suggests. It'd be fun to even have it do something more exotic than piercing... a wakasashi that does 1d6/1d8 slashing; a meteor hammer that does 1d6/1d8 bludgeoning...

[warty goblin]

That...isn't a bad idea. Actually, quite an elegant solution. That being said, there is the case of the katana: At the moment, mechanically, there isn't anything on the list that functions like it, and it's such a famous trope that there rightly SHOULD be something.

Longsword and bastard sword were merged into one weapon. Got it. Here's your one-hander that you can use two handed to power through whatever you're slicing. Scimitar is in there, but it's essentially just a short sword: I'm 1000% convinced that they statted it up that way so that, mechanically, Drizzt doesn't need any "optional" feats to exist. Rapier is a in there at a d8, and it's finesseable, but no options for two handed use.

I'm not one of those guys that goes all nutty over them, but Japanese swordplay is much more akin to European fencing than European longsword fighting, favoring speed and precision over raw power. What I'm getting at is I want the Great Scimitar from 3.5 Sandstorm back: a bigger scimitar that can be used two handed, and worked with finesse. That's what I used in my games to emulate the katana over the bastard sword model, and i felt it fit better. 1d6/1d8 Versatile, Finesse.

Longsword and katana styles are very similar; with a lot of the same guards and transitions. This is hardly surprising, they're about the same size, same weight, etc. Really at the end of the day the katana is a short, slightly curved and single edged longsword with a weeny little guard, and a long ways from the other finessible weapons like the rapier or short sword. It's obviously not a short sword, and katanas are often shorter than rapiers, lack the complex hand protection of a rapier, and are used in completely different styles.

[Oscredwin]

You know what I'd like to see? A weapon with both versatile and heavy.

Then you get a STR melee using GWM on top of duelling, and a shield. Just remember that.

[Ralanr]

Then you get a STR melee using GWM on top of duelling, and a shield. Just remember that.

Or even with Two-weapon fighting. That was kinda the point. Sounds broken right?

[Gnomes2169]

Then you get a STR melee using GWM on top of duelling, and a shield. Just remember that.

And this is a problem... why? Great weapon fighting will still deal more damage over all even if you allow dueling to use the power attack option (-5 accuracy/ +10 damage), it doesn't exactly change that dynamic and the balance between the styles would actually be a bit closer than before. Giving the great weapon fighters a buckler that grants +1 AC (but that can't be donned/ removed during combat due to it being attached solidly to the forearm instead of held in the hand and attached by a single strap) would also likely be for the best if you give a duelist a heavy versatile weapon, so that they have a minor defensive boost to make up for the minor DPS gap they lose in this case.

As for the two weapon fighter using this for the GWF feat... well, I don't see too much of a problem here either, for two reasons. The first (and most important) is that doing this will cost two different feats. This makes it a relatively late game option, and just barely brings the level 20 TWF damage of a fighter (96 assuming all hits no crits) barely past that of a GWF fighter (85.5 assuming all hits and no crits, 108.8 if they drop at least one enemy). At the cost of two feats and a fighting style to just one feat and one fighting style dedicated to just this purpose, one would think that the fighter who dedicates more of their resources to raw DRP should have higher consistent DPR at the very least, but they still do less if the two hander drops someone or gets a crit. Which brings up the second point. Great weapon master gives two benefits, the option to take -5 accuracy for +10 damage while wielding a heavy weapon, and a bonus action attack for getting a crit or dropping someone. The two weapon fighter cannot take advantage of half of the feat since they make a bonus action attack every single round to keep up as much as they do as is, meaning that half of GWF serves no purpose for them. Meanwhile, the GWF meanwhile gains only new bonuses and has a feat slot open (for something like, say, an additional stat bump or the feats alert, lucky and resilient), making them a bit more effective over all.

So... I don't see much of a problem with a heavy one-handed weapon, versatile or not. One-handed weapons cap out at a d8 of damage, and I don't see too much of a reason for a heavy weapon to do more. Heck, the biggest problem I see with making a heavy versatile weapon is that halflings and gnomes wouldn't even be able to use it properly, and that's just a sizeist issue. :smalltongue:

[Oscredwin]

And this is a problem... why? Great weapon fighting will still deal more damage over all even if you allow dueling to use the power attack option (-5 accuracy/ +10 damage), it doesn't exactly change that dynamic and the balance between the styles would actually be a bit closer than before. Giving the great weapon fighters a buckler that grants +1 AC (but that can't be donned/ removed during combat due to it being attached solidly to the forearm instead of held in the hand and attached by a single strap) would also likely be for the best if you give a duelist a heavy versatile weapon, so that they have a minor defensive boost to make up for the minor DPS gap they lose in this case.

As for the two weapon fighter using this for the GWF feat... well, I don't see too much of a problem here either, for two reasons. The first (and most important) is that doing this will cost two different feats. This makes it a relatively late game option, and just barely brings the level 20 TWF damage of a fighter (96 assuming all hits no crits) barely past that of a GWF fighter (85.5 assuming all hits and no crits, 108.8 if they drop at least one enemy). At the cost of two feats and a fighting style to just one feat and one fighting style dedicated to just this purpose, one would think that the fighter who dedicates more of their resources to raw DRP should have higher consistent DPR at the very least, but they still do less if the two hander drops someone or gets a crit. Which brings up the second point. Great weapon master gives two benefits, the option to take -5 accuracy for +10 damage while wielding a heavy weapon, and a bonus action attack for getting a crit or dropping someone. The two weapon fighter cannot take advantage of half of the feat since they make a bonus action attack every single round to keep up as much as they do as is, meaning that half of GWF serves no purpose for them. Meanwhile, the GWF meanwhile gains only new bonuses and has a feat slot open (for something like, say, an additional stat bump or the feats alert, lucky and resilient), making them a bit more effective over all.

So... I don't see much of a problem with a heavy one-handed weapon, versatile or not. One-handed weapons cap out at a d8 of damage, and I don't see too much of a reason for a heavy weapon to do more. Heck, the biggest problem I see with making a heavy versatile weapon is that halflings and gnomes wouldn't even be able to use it properly, and that's just a sizeist issue. :smalltongue:

Right now GWF does 2 damage per attack more than duelling (6.d vs 8.33) and has a much better feat (GWM vs defencive duelist), while duelling gets +2AC. Giving GWM to duelists means you're reducing the benefit of GWF to <10 damage per round vs 2AC. It really depends on what you think the ideal trade-off between offence and defence should be (not a trivial question to get right). I just know that a heavy one hander would really push any barbarian/fighter/paladin I was making into 1H and Shield with GWM and Shield master feats (bonus action to knock someone down, then -5/+10 with advantage on that round's worth of attacks).

[Grayson01]

That...isn't a bad idea. Actually, quite an elegant solution. That being said, there is the case of the katana: At the moment, mechanically, there isn't anything on the list that functions like it, and it's such a famous trope that there rightly SHOULD be something.

Longsword and bastard sword were merged into one weapon. Got it. Here's your one-hander that you can use two handed to power through whatever you're slicing. Scimitar is in there, but it's essentially just a short sword: I'm 1000% convinced that they statted it up that way so that, mechanically, Drizzt doesn't need any "optional" feats to exist. Rapier is a in there at a d8, and it's finesseable, but no options for two handed use.

I'm not one of those guys that goes all nutty over them, but Japanese swordplay is much more akin to European fencing than European longsword fighting, favoring speed and precision over raw power. What I'm getting at is I want the Great Scimitar from 3.5 Sandstorm back: a bigger scimitar that can be used two handed, and worked with finesse. That's what I used in my games to emulate the katana over the bastard sword model, and i felt it fit better. 1d6/1d8 Versatile, Finesse.

First off I just want to say I completely agree with you on the whole Scimitar and Drizzit.

As for the Katana you can ether use the Longsword and call it a Katana (like the describe in the monk section for the scythe/Kama) or if you want it to be Finesse use the rapier and call it a katana and use it "Two-handed" and not change anything of it mechanically, it's all theater of the mind.
Although I would like a d8 Finesse slashing weapon

[Morty]

There's nothing thematically or realistically wrong about a two-handed finesse weapon. Look up longsword fencing if you doubt, and you'll see that it's full of brutal grace and elegance. Now, whether or not it'd be balanced in the system as it is is another question, one I'm not qualified to answer.

[Ralanr]

There's nothing thematically or realistically wrong about a two-handed finesse weapon. Look up longsword fencing if you doubt, and you'll see that it's full of brutal grace and elegance. Now, whether or not it'd be balanced in the system as it is is another question, one I'm not qualified to answer.

I think turning it into a magical weapon answered it best. If an item needs to be made magical in a system that tried to lower magic use (in theory) to be balanced, then it probably isn't balanced otherwise.

[Easy_Lee]

There's nothing thematically or realistically wrong about a two-handed finesse weapon. Look up longsword fencing if you doubt, and you'll see that it's full of brutal grace and elegance. Now, whether or not it'd be balanced in the system as it is is another question, one I'm not qualified to answer.

Fewer attacks than dual wielding or crossbow expert allows, whilst d10 is equivalent to a heavy crossbow. One would trade range for the ability to opportunity attack with the weapon. And even if the finesse weapon were a d12, that's still only one more point of damage per attack, and is still lower than 2d6 from feat-less dual wielding.

So no, it's not mathematically imbalanced or thematically odd. Some people just don't like it.

[Garanvir]

Actually, there already is a 1d8/1d10 versatile, finesse weapon in the game (it's even usable by rogues without multi-classing)

Granted it's a legendary, race and alignment restricted, intelligent magic longsword... but on p217 of the DMG, "gains finesse" is one of the possibilities on the Moonblade Properties table.

So it is possible within the core rules already to combine the Great Weapon Fighting Style with Sneak Attack.

Moonblades don't gain the heavy property though, which would still preclude using one to gain the +10 damage from GWM (and more generally, it probably would be rather difficult to "finesse" something which was "heavy").

They can however also gain an enhanced critical range - so essentially they are magical elven curve blades (with the extra option to use them one handed for a smaller damage die)

But presumably WotC must not have thought the fighting style and sneak attack were a game breaking combination, so Easy Lee is probably correct that not including less rare, non-magical options for two handed finesse attacks is more of a flavor decision than one of concerns about game breaking mechanics.

[Kane0]

I was going to suggest 1d6/1d8 versatile finesse, but thats already been suggested so i'll second it.

[rollingForInit]

I see two-handed and finesse weapons as mutually exclusive. A finesse weapon indicates that the weapon requires two hands to use. A versatile weapon indicates that the weapon has an added benefit of being handled with two hands. If you look at the weapon list, all two-handed weapons are also heavy weapons. That it, it has something to do with weapon size. All finesse weapons except the rapier are also light weapons. There's a clear pattern where heavier weapons aren't finesse, and two-handed weapons or versatile weapons are those that are larger and have a benefit for wielding in two hands (or, if you will, a penalty for wielding in one one).

The only reason to want to have the two-handed property or the versatile property is to get mechanical benefits of things like rerolling 1s and 2s on sneak attacks.

If flavour is all you're after, there is absolutely nothing preventing you from having your character wield a scimitar with both hands. You just don't get the mechanical benefits from it. It's clearly intended that those features should not mix.

[Easy_Lee]

I see two-handed and finesse weapons as mutually exclusive. A finesse weapon indicates that the weapon requires two hands to use. A versatile weapon indicates that the weapon has an added benefit of being handled with two hands. If you look at the weapon list, all two-handed weapons are also heavy weapons. That it, it has something to do with weapon size. All finesse weapons except the rapier are also light weapons. There's a clear pattern where heavier weapons aren't finesse, and two-handed weapons or versatile weapons are those that are larger and have a benefit for wielding in two hands (or, if you will, a penalty for wielding in one one).

The only reason to want to have the two-handed property or the versatile property is to get mechanical benefits of things like rerolling 1s and 2s on sneak attacks.

Firstly, your interpretation of great weapon mastery allowing one to reroll 1's and 2's on sneak attacks is something I strongly suspect that no DM would allow. As-in, ever. If one adds common versatile or two-handed weapons with finesse, one would be crazy not to add a line (if necessary) preventing SA from being rerolled by great weapon fighting. Otherwise SA would be too strong.


As an aside, great weapon fighting is poorly worded. It lets you reroll any damage die for "an attack you make with a melee weapon that you are wielding with two hands." Does that include crits? Does that include effects like elemental weapon? Does that include potential poison damage caused by the attack hitting? The feature should say you may reroll 1's and 2's on your weapon die for two-handed attacks you make, else its effectiveness depends largely on how good one is at finding extra die. Guess that means that half-orcs make the best two-handed fighters.

Secondly, we have one-handed weapons which are not finesse. This suggests that finesse is not necessarily related to how many hands are used to hold a weapon.

Thirdly, we have weapons like quarterstaves and spears which can effectively be treated as finesse by monks.

Something doesn't add up regarding these mechanics. WotC did not want rogues, specifically, using spears or staves, or longswords, or greatswords, or any other weapons that can be wielded in two hands. Can we find any mechanical reason for this? Other than the potential (and easily remedied) great weapon fighting abuse, no. Both melee weapon feats (polearm mastery and great weapon mastery) have a nearly identical ranged feat (crossbow expert and sharpshooter). The archery fighting style, dual wield fighting style, and easier bonus attacks all benefit a rogue (who needs to land sneak attacks) more than great weapon fighting would (again, assuming the reroll 1's and 2's on SA thing is not allowed).

The only reason one would want a finesse two-hander or versatile weapon on a rogue is because one wants to play that kind of rogue. One wants to play a classic thief-acrobat with quarterstaff, or the red viper from game of thrones, or one of many similar kinds of characters.

And more character options makes the game better, I feel.

[eastmabl]

WotC did not want rogues, specifically, using spears or staves, or longswords, or greatswords, or any other weapons that can be wielded in two hands. Can we find any mechanical reason for this? Other than the potential (and easily remedied) great weapon fighting abuse, no. Other than the potential (and easily remedied) great weapon fighting abuse, no. Both melee weapon feats (polearm mastery and great weapon mastery) have a nearly identical ranged feat (crossbow expert and sharpshooter). The archery fighting style, dual wield fighting style, and easier bonus attacks all benefit a rogue (who needs to land sneak attacks) more than great weapon fighting would (again, assuming the reroll 1's and 2's on SA thing is not allowed).

The only reason one would want a finesse two-hander or versatile weapon on a rogue is because one wants to play that kind of rogue. One wants to play a classic thief-acrobat with quarterstaff, or the red viper from game of thrones, or one of many similar kinds of characters.

Aside from simulationist arguments...

Have you considered the fact that giving rogues/dex-based characters access to finessable, heavy weapons allows them to further ignore strength? The game designers most likely carved out this niche for the strength-based characters who get the best access to the biggest weapons.

Otherwise, the more you erode what makes the classes/roles unique, the further you slip in the 3.xpf tiering issues.


And more character options makes the game better, I feel.

Not necessarily true.

See: 3.xpf and 4e rules bloat. Additionally, more rules options can also make a higher barrier to entry for new players.

[Malifice]

Balance it with a feat.

Agile duelist
Prerequisite Dex 13+


You may treat all weapons that lack the heavy and two handed quality as if they had the finesse quality as long as you wield them.
If you are armed with a single finesse weapon in one hand and nothing in the other, you may add +1 to your AC


Thats from my homebrew. Makes one handed fighting a thing, and allows elven curve blades (longswords wielded in 2 hands) (and longsword wielding rogues)

[rollingForInit]

The only reason one would want a finesse two-hander or versatile weapon on a rogue is because one wants to play that kind of rogue. One wants to play a classic thief-acrobat with quarterstaff, or the red viper from game of thrones, or one of many similar kinds of characters.

And more character options makes the game better, I feel.

The Red Viper isn't really a finesse type of guy, though, is he? He looks pretty beefy to me. Striking quickly isn't really limited to "finesse" weapons. Strikes with longswords aren't slow and powerful, they can be quick and powerful as well.

But I agree that something is off with the mechanics. I we ignore all the rules and mechanics that exist, I see no reason for the whole finesse/non-finesse mechanics. I've no thematic issues at all with rogues being able to fight with a weapon two-handed and get sneak attack. I don't think allowing it in the system as it stands right now would be a great idea, though, because I do believe that finesse and two-handed weapons are meant to be mutually exclusive, because of the damage dice and other features associated to it. That's what I meant.

And I don't see why a rogue couldn't sneak attack with a club or something, either. To me, sneak attack just represents good aim for vital or vulnerable parts of the body. Whether that's done with a mace with Str or a rapier with Dex shouldn't matter, really. But the mechanics are very arbitrary with this, I agree.

I do think that it makes perfect sense to disallow sneak attack for certain weapons, though, that are really more about brute force than precision. Mauls, greatswords, etc. Maybe it would just have been easier to allow/disallow sneak attack for specific weapon types. Anything with a damage die above 1d8, I guess, shouldn't be able to use sneak attack because the extra damage represents the brute force. Or something.

[Dhavaer]

Not getting into the balance argument but: the 3.5 weapon is an Elven Courtblade.

[Theodoxus]

What, you mean not everyone switched to PF from 3.5?


Back to the topic, I don't think the strength argument really works; yes, a strength rogue is less optimal than a dexterity rogue, but finesse weapons can still sneak when using strength.

I'd be curious if a lack of a finesse two hander is actually purposeful or simple oversight.

[Easy_Lee]

Aside from simulationist arguments...

Have you considered the fact that giving rogues/dex-based characters access to finessable, heavy weapons allows them to further ignore strength? The game designers most likely carved out this niche for the strength-based characters who get the best access to the biggest weapons.

Otherwise, the more you erode what makes the classes/roles unique, the further you slip in the 3.xpf tiering issues.



Not necessarily true.

See: 3.xpf and 4e rules bloat. Additionally, more rules options can also make a higher barrier to entry for new players.

Firstly, all rogues who don't take athletics expertise will already ignore strength in every way. No rogue is using a non-finesse, non-ranged weapon unless he wants to be sub-optimal. Finesse versions of two-handed weapons does nothing to change that balance.

Secondly, I've already suggested reducing the damage die of finesse weapons since that's an added capability of the weapon. I wouldn't make a finesse weapon go over d10 without further drawbacks that reduce its effectiveness. That said, I can and have shown exactly why a d10 finesse weapon is balanced; after all, we already have one: the heavy crossbow.

Thirdly, using two-handed weapons is not what makes anyone unique. Take a look at the modifying classes (http://dnd.wizards.com/articles/features/modifying-classes) article. The main point of fighters is that they: "gain most of their combat prowess from three characteristics of the class: being able to make up to four attacks per round; using Action Surge to grant quick bursts of combat potency; and having the highest number of Ability Score Improvement features, which allows fighters to strengthen their attacks and saving throws, or, if the DM allows it, select feats." No part of that is threatened by rogues with two-handed weapons.

Fourthly, we aren't adding more rules to the game. We're adding more options. Know what the difference is between a rule and an option? A rule is something you have to know, while an option is something you can use if you want. The only problem options present is when they are poorly balanced, and so knowing of and choosing the good options is the only way to make your character good. This is the problem you're referring to, and it's not a problem that would be caused by rogues with two-handers.

[calebrus]

I'd be curious if a lack of a finesse two hander is actually purposeful or simple oversight.
Pretty sure it's intentional. There was one single two handed finesse weapon in the play test. That weapon didn't make the cut, and got changed to versatile and lost finesse for the final version.


Finesse versions of two-handed weapons does nothing to change that balance.
Does it alter balance to allow any weapon to have the heavy property? Does it alter balance to allow any weapon to have the versatile property? Does it alter balance to allow an y weapon to have the finesse property?
The answer to all three of those questions is Yes.
You may disagree with that, but apparently the designers don't.


That said, I can and have shown exactly why a d10 finesse weapon is balanced; after all, we already have one: the heavy crossbow.
No, we don't have one. Ranged weapons are not finesse weapons. Finesse weapons are melee weapons.
You can't even compare the two. Just because there exists a ranged d10 weapon which uses Dex to attack doesn't mean that two-handed and/or d10 melee finesse weapons somehow already exist.

Finesse weapons are non-bludgeoning, one handed melee weapons with the light property, and cap at d6 (just like all light weapons).
The sickle is the only weapon which meets this criteria which is not also a finesse weapon.
There is one exception to that rule, and that exception is the rapier.
The rapier being an exception does not invalidate the rule. And I will once again remind us all that in 3e, this sole exception was indeed a d6 weapon. I believe they followed the 4e model to make the rapier a d8 weapon so that rogues have a single d8 melee weapon to sneak attack with, and they offset this by not making that weapon light, meaning a rogue needs an optional feat in order to dual wield at all while using it. They didn't want to screw rogues completely in the weapon choice department, but some restrictions were required.
And thus, the 5e rapier exists as it is.
So like I said, Theo, probably intentional.

[Easy_Lee]

It's absolutely intentional. Where calebrus is wrong is assuming there's a good reason for that.

There isn't. It's a flavor choice.

Until someone proves this wrong with math, showing numbers we can't hit without a d10 finesse melee weapon, then this debate is pretty much settled. Mathematically it's no different from a heavy crossbow, gives up range in exchange for opportunity attacks, and deals inferior damage to either crossbow expert or the dual wield, archery, or dueling fighting styles. The only exception would be rerolling 1's and 2's on sneak attack die, something no one would allow.

A note calebrus: I don't think anyone but you is talking about full-power heavy finesse weapons (heavy and finesse don't even sound like they go together). We're mostly talking about d10 and versatile finesse weapons. A rogue with a d10 finesse melee weapon? One more point of damage than a rapier. Oooh, scary! Until the rapier user switches to two shortswords, multiclass for dueling or dual wield fighting styles, or uses his bonus feat to pick up crossbow expert...

It's fun to hand an elvish rogue a finesse longsword, and it would be a decent choice of weapon aside from its rarity, and aside from the fact that you only get one chance per turn to land your sneak attack. That's about it.

[calebrus]

Until someone proves this wrong with math, showing numbers we can't hit without a d10 finesse melee weapon, then this debate is pretty much settled. Mathematically it's no different from a heavy crossbow, gives up range in exchange for opportunity attacks, and deals inferior damage to either crossbow expert or the dual wield, archery, or dueling fighting styles. The only exception would be rerolling 1's and 2's on sneak attack die, something no one would allow.
It's not about math. It's about the design philosophy.
You may not agree with their philosophy, but that doesn't invalidate that philosophy. That just means you disagree with it.


A note calebrus: I don't think anyone but you is talking about full-power heavy finesse weapons (heavy and finesse don't even sound like they go together). We're mostly talking about d10 and versatile finesse weapons. A rogue with a d10 finesse melee weapon? One more point of damage than a rapier. Oooh, scary! Until the rapier user switches to two shortswords, multiclass for dueling or dual wield fighting styles, or uses his bonus feat to pick up crossbow expert...
The OP is talking about exactly that.

I'm actually more concerned with wanting to be able to sneak attack and get the +10 damage than I am with re rolling 1's and 2's.


It's fun to hand an elvish rogue a finesse longsword, and it would be a decent choice of weapon aside from its rarity, and aside from the fact that you only get one chance per turn to land your sneak attack. That's about it.
We're not talking about fun. If it's fun you're after, then feel free to create a 1d500 finesse, heavy, versatile, thrown weapon and have all the fun you want.
We're talking about the design philosophy of finesse weapons.
Just because you can do some math doesn't mean that the weapon is balanced in a way that the designers intended, because anything outside of a one handed, non-B, light, d6 or lower weapon goes against design intentions.

Finesse = one handed, non-B, light, d6 or lower weapon
Anything outside of that is not intended. There is one singular exception, and that exception serves a very specific purpose and has very specific restrictions to accompany it.

edit:
One of the players at our table wanted to play a traditional kender with a hoopak, so we created an hoopak for him.
For anyone that isn't aware, an hoopak is a staff-like weapon with a copper shot point on the bottom, and a forked top, within rests a sling.
So it's a two-handed staff/spear/sling combo for a small creature.
But in 5e, that's amazingly powerful. So we made the following:
- Hoopak: simple weapon
-- Staff: 1d4 bludgeoning damage; versatile;
-- Spear: 1d4 piercing damage; finesse, versatile;
-- Sling: 1d4 bludgeoning damage; ammunition, two-handed, range 30/120
--- Special: The hoopak cannot benefit from any feature or ability requiring the use of a versatile or two handed weapon other than the damage die increase from d4 to d6 in melee.

[Easy_Lee]

It's not about math. It's about the design philosophy.
You may not agree with their philosophy, but that doesn't invalidate that philosophy. That just means you disagree with it.


The OP is talking about exactly that.



We're not talking about fun. If it's fun you're after, then feel free to create a 1d500 finesse, heavy, versatile, thrown weapon and have all the fun you want.
We're talking about the design philosophy of finesse weapons.
Just because you can do some math doesn't mean that the weapon is balanced in a way that the designers intended, because anything outside of a one handed, non-B, light, d6 or lower weapon goes against design intentions.

Finesse = one handed, non-B, light, d6 or lower weapon
Anything outside of that is not intended. There is one singular exception, and that exception serves a very specific purpose and has very specific restrictions to accompany it.

What are these design intentions and the reasoning behind them that you claim to know so well? I would truly be interested to know your source.

Me personally, willing suspension of disbelief (RP, realism, etc.) and game balance are largely the only two things that I care about. Finesse two handers fit fine within both of those, while the fact that one cannot finesse a spear or quarterstaff (or longsword, for that matter) strikes me as beyond odd.

And for the record, OP said:


1d10 damage
Two-Handed
18-20 crit
Finessable


"Heavy" is not in there, and the 18-20 crit range thing is not valid in 5e and he specifically said that it would not be included. So he's talking about a d10 finesse, just like I said.

[calebrus]

What are these design intentions and the reasoning behind them that you claim to know so well? I would truly be interested to know your source.
My source is the empirical evidence of data from other examples. There is a pattern, and that pattern can be used to divine the design philosophy.
That design philosophy is crystal clear when approached in this manner.


So he's talking about a d10 finesse, just like I said.
Nope.
He later amended that by stating that the +10 damage was what he was looking for, which requires heavy.

edit:
I did answer, both him and you.
You just ignored it.

[Galen]

Just because you can do some math doesn't mean that the weapon is balanced in a way that the designers intended, because anything outside of a one handed, non-B, light, d6 or lower weapon goes against design intentions.I don't believe that for a weapon to be balanced in the way that the designers intended (as opposed to just balanced) is some kind of virtue.

[Easy_Lee]

Nope.
He later amended that by stating that the +10 damage was what he was looking for, which requires heavy.

Only if his DM cares more about rules lawyering than game balance. And I noticed he asked you the same before, your reasoning as to why GWM on a rogue would be imbalanced. From what I can tell, you never answered him either.

Saying it shouldn't exist because it doesn't exist is not exactly a bulletproof argument, that's all I'm saying. Mechanically, it's no different from Sharpshooter and has no balance reason not to exist.

[calebrus]

{scrubbed}

[Easy_Lee]

LOL @ Easy talking about game balance in favor of Rules Lawyering.
That's friggin comedy gold right there.

I'm actually arguing against rules lawyering. I think it would be rules lawyering to deny a versatile or two-handed weapon the benefit of GWM or similar considering it exists for archery. Mechanically, it's no different.

Thanks for making it personal, though.

[Galen]

So, here's my takeaway from this:

Two-handed? Yes.
1d10 damage? Yes.
Finesse? Heck yes.
Crit-range increase? No, that's way too much.
Damage type? Eh, let's set to slashing. You know, Katana-like. Although I can see piercing as appropriate for a spear-type weapon.
Light? Nope.
Heavy? No. +10 from GWM may be too much, and doesn't fit thematically.
Combo with GWF combat style? Eh, why not. Rerolling those 1's and 2's on Sneak Attack may appear lucrative, but it's only +0.67 damage per die (+6.7 damage max). And requires dipping a Fighter level, ie. misses out on the Rogue capstone. So it's +6.7 damage 1/round, barely a tickle on level 20, it's situational, and it's at a heavy cost.

[calebrus]

In opposition, here's my takeaway from this:

Two-handed? No.
Versatile? Sure.
1d10 damage? No way. D6 max, following the normal finesse guidelines. D8 with versatile. Absolutely no more.
Finesse? This was the point, so yes.
Crit-range increase? No, that's way too much.
Damage type? Slashing
Light? Nope.
Heavy? No friggin way!
Combo with GWF combat style? Eh, why not. Rerolling those 1's and 2's on Sneak Attack may appear lucrative, but it's only +0.67 damage per die (+6.7 damage max). And requires dipping a Fighter level, ie. misses out on the Rogue capstone. So it's +6.7 damage 1/round, barely a tickle on level 20, it's situational, and it's at a heavy cost.

And this becomes the single best finesse weapon in the game. Better than a rapier because of versatile.
I still agree that a magic weapon is the best way to go here, and that making this a normal weapon is too good.

[JNAProductions]

So you give +6.7 damage at level 20, and +1.34 damage at level 4, but not +1 damage (as compared to rapier) at level 1? Just say it's a rare weapon and hold it from them until level 4, it's worse than GWF.

[Easy_Lee]

And this becomes the single best finesse weapon in the game. Better than a rapier because of versatile.
I still agree that a magic weapon is the best way to go here, and that making this a normal weapon is too good.

D6 / D8 versatile is better than a rapier? How? Explain. Say why. Please, give us one good explanation showing how a two handed weapon that does d8 is better than a one handed weapon that does d8.

Perhaps no one had told you, but versatile weapons get the shaft currently. GWM doesn't apply, and GWF only applies half the time. Dual wield is not viable, and dueling would only apply half the time. There is no feat like Sharpshooter or GWM to boost their damage, even though versatile weapons do no more damage and get no more attacks than bows, and do less damage and get the same number of attacks as great weapons. When wielded in one hand, versatile weapons do no more damage than a normal weapon in their class. When one applies dueling to one handed weapons, they out damage a versatile weapon wielded in two hands. Versatile weapons do not work with even defensive duelist right now since they are not finesse, though at least that could be remedied, and indeed have no feats or fighting styles dedicated to their use.

In short, versatile weapons are indisputably the worst, least supported weapon category.

And you think handing them to rogues would be imbalanced? You think that they should not have the same types of feats and fighting styles available as other weapons? You think it would be broken if we had a version of GWM that applied to versatile weapons, even though they would still do less damage?

How? Why? Please explain yourself, rather than just making statements.

[Galen]

So you give +6.7 damage at level 20, and +1.34 damage at level 4, but not +1 damage (as compared to rapier) at level 1? Just say it's a rare weapon and hold it from them until level 4, it's worse than GWF.There's no problem with +1 damage on level 1. Given that it denies the use of the offhand for dual-wielding, shield, or whatnot, +1 damage is not significant at all.

[calebrus]

indisputably the worst, least supported weapon category[/b].

Worst weapon category? Least supported weapon category?
They are the most versatile weapons in the game, allowing extra damage when you don't need a hand free. Allowing a free hand when you need one at a cost of one average damage per hit. They work with aspects of every single melee feat and fighting style in the game, save for DD and PM. And even PM works with one specific versatile weapon, and even DD works with the weapon in question.
Every single one.... and you say they're the least supported?
They don't have direct support specifically for versatile weapons, but they have the most support of any weapon category by virtue of their versatility.

Styles and feats which apply to melee weapons:
Dueling: check
Great Weapon Fighting: check
Protection: check
Two Weapon Fighting: check (with DW feat)
Defensive Duelist: check (for the weapon in question)
Dual Wielder: check
Great Weapon Master: check (for half of its benefits)
Mage Slayer: check
Polearm Master: Nope, finally found one that doesn't work here. But one versatile weapon, the qstaff, does.... so.... for the purposes of this list.... I guess I'll change that to: check
Savage Attacker: check
Sentinel: check

No other weapon group can say that they have this much feat and style support, and you're claiming they're the least supported?

A versatile finesse weapon is the single best non-polearm weapon in the game in many ways. You can literally use it to do absolutely anything you want, with the sole exception of using it with Polearm Master.

[Easy_Lee]

Worst weapon category? Least supported weapon category?
They are the most versatile weapons in the game, allowing extra damage when you don't need a hand free. Allowing a free hand when you need one at a cost of one average damage per hit. They work with aspects of every single melee feat and fighting style in the game.
Every single one.... and you say they're the least supported?
They don't have direct support specifically for versatile weapons, but they have the most support of any weapon category by virtue of their versatility.

Styles and feats which apply to melee weapons:
Dueling: check
Great Weapon Fighting: check
Protection: check
Two Weapon Fighting: check (with DW feat)
Defensive Duelist: check (for the weapon in question)
Dual Wielder: check
Great Weapon Master: check (for half of its benefits)
Mage Slayer: check
Polearm Master: Nope, finally found one that doesn't work here (but one versatile weapon, the qstaff, does....)
Savage Attacker: check
Sentinel: check

No other weapon group can say that they have this much feat and style support, and you're claiming they're the least supported?

I've already shown why all of those things are wrong. If one is a dual wielder, one does not use the versatile quality. If one is a duelist or uses a shield, one does not use the versatile quality. If one is a great weapon fighter, one does not use the versatile quality. And if one wants to do any of these things, there are superior weapons for it.

They half work with other fighting styles, meaning they fully work with none. And you saying they work with defensive duelist is a flat lie, because one has to use a Finesse weapon for that. If one is using a Finesse offhand, then one is dual wielding and is no longer using the versatile portion of the weapon. Further, since the weapon is versatile and not light (versatile weapons are not light) it would require another feat just to do this.

There is no optimal build that uses a versatile weapon. Getting the full benefit requires multiclassing and taking multiple feats and fighting styles, just to still come out inferior to a dedicated user of one type. This is immersion breaking considering hand and a half swords are some of the most practical in real life.

And don't even think about saying that builds don't have to be optimal. No duh, nobody ever said that they do. That does not mean that there should not be support to make versatile weapons competitive. There is none except for the dueling polearm mastery trick with quarterstaves, which actually uses their one-handed version rather than two-handed, defeating the purpose of having versatile. Indeed, someone with the dueling fighting style does more damage one-handed with a versatile weapon than swinging it with two hands. That's stupid.

And you still fail to provide any reason or justification for why you claim that versatile and two handed weapons would be imbalanced on a rogue, beyond repeatedly pointing out that they don't exist, and alluding to developer intent as though the developers are perfect.

[Asyrin]

D6 / D8 versatile is better than a rapier? How? Explain. Say why. Please, give us one good explanation showing how a two handed weapon that does d8 is better than a one handed weapon that does d8.

Perhaps no one had told you, but versatile weapons get the shaft currently. GWM doesn't apply, and GWF only applies half the time. Dual wield is not viable, and dueling would only apply half the time. There is no feat like Sharpshooter or GWM to boost their damage, even though versatile weapons do no more damage and get no more attacks than bows, and do less damage and get the same number of attacks as great weapons. When wielded in one hand, versatile weapons do no more damage than a normal weapon in their class. When one applies dueling to one handed weapons, they out damage a versatile weapon wielded in two hands. Versatile weapons do not work with even defensive duelist right now since they are not finesse, though at least that could be remedied, and indeed have no feats or fighting styles dedicated to their use.

In short, versatile weapons are indisputably the worst, least supported weapon category.

And you think handing them to rogues would be imbalanced? You think that they should not have the same types of feats and fighting styles available as other weapons? You think it would be broken if we had a version of GWM that applied to versatile weapons, even though they would still do less damage?

How? Why? Please explain yourself, rather than just making statements.

One reason?

It opens up a higher damage die for slashing than rogues currently possess. Perhaps this is why high damage piercing weapons are acceptable.

Rogues have more limitations in damage type than any other class. Perhaps this is intended.

At the end of the day, unless you're playing an AL game, what is said on this forum is meaningless. Your DM will make the call.

As a DM, I'd allow 1d6, 1d8 versatile at least to try with the caveat that if I determine that it's too much, we'll work together to respec your character.

[Galen]

Does anything in the MM actually has resistance to Piercing, but not Slashing? I am not aware of one.

[Easy_Lee]

Does anything in the MM actually has resistance to Piercing, but not Slashing? I am not aware of one.

No, damage type for melee weapons is meaningless.

[Asyrin]

Does anything in the MM actually has resistance to Piercing, but not Slashing? I am not aware of one.

Not sure.

The impact of the MM is dependent upon your campaign, however. In the game I run, only a third of the monsters are from the MM and most of those pretty heavily modified. For example, skeletons are resistant to pierce, neutral to slash, and weak to bludgeon in our campaign.

[calebrus]

They half work with other fighting styles, meaning they fully work with none.
So because only half of the benefits of one feat apply, that means it isn't supported? Umm, if ANY of the benefits apply, then that means it's supported.


And you saying they work with defensive duelist is a flat lie, because one has to use a Finesse weapon for that.
The weapon in question (the one from this thread) is a finesse weapon. So yes, it applies here. That's why I said "(for the weapon in question)"


If one is using a Finesse offhand, then one is dual wielding and is no longer using the versatile portion of the weapon.
So by this logic, a Str rogue is not using the finesse property of a weapon, an d can therefore not sneak attack with it when using Str.
I KNOW you're not going to agree with that, so you need to make up your mind here. If a weapon is not currently using an property that it has, then it either does or does not LOSE that property.
I think we can agree that it does not, so your entire argument here is invalid.
Q: Can you dual wield versatile weapons if you have the DW feat?
A: Yes, so this applies.
You don't HAVE to use every property of every weapon, and not using some of them doesn't immaculately render that property useless.

The fact is that versatile weapons have MORE feat and style support than any other weapon group in the game.
Because, versatile.
The Sun Blade and Moonblade (from the DMG) can quite literally work with ANY fighting style that ANYONE has, with the sole exception of Polearm Master.
That's the very definition of versatility.
Versatile weapons do no have the least support. They have the absolute most support.
It doesn't matter what kind of fighting style you use, if you have a versatile finesse weapon, you can almost certainly use that weapon with your style/feat choices.
So yes, in many ways, the weapon being discussed in this thread would be the single best non-magical, non-polearm weapon in the entire game.
And on top of all of that, you think it's fine to make it a d10 weapon?
{scrubbed}

[Asyrin]

No, damage type for melee weapons is meaningless.

Maybe in your game it is.

[Galen]

Actually, I found three monsters for whom the distinction is relevant. Awakened Shrub, Awakened Tree and Flameskull all resist Piercing damage, but not Slashing. Interesting. But I wouldn't say the ability to affect three more creatures really matters.

[Easy_Lee]

Actually, I found three monsters for whom the distinction is relevant. Awakened Shrub, Awakened Tree and Flameskull all resist Piercing damage, but not Slashing. Interesting. But I wouldn't say the ability to affect three more creatures really matters.

Ah, fair enough. Still, yeah, it's pretty much a wash. They took out most of the resistances to specific damage types we saw in previous editions, and I suspect that was mostly to keep players from having to carry around dozens of different bane weapons and the like. Anyone who ever played DDO, which was based on 3.5, knows what I'm talking about.

[Mara]

@OP

Sounds like you have a scimitar or a rapier that does slashing damage. You could wield it in two hands, for no additional benefit. Nothing actually stops you from two-handing a dagger.

Some character actions can just be thematic.

[Wolfsraine]

So all this back and forth aside. I spoke with my DM and he said I could sneak attack with my greatsword. I'm a ranger/rogue and wanted to be a switch hitter and have both feats, sharp shooter and great weapon master, open with ranged then close in with melee.

We played our first session with it and it was completely fine! I was not doing insane amounts of damage, I just had the same basic damage as my longbow on average, except that I could be good in melee and at ranged. This is of course at the expense of 2 ASI's. The paladin at the table was still king of damage. I just now had an option to fight in melee as well as I fight at range, which is exactly how I imagined the character. We all had a blast and no one was butt hurt.

[Wolfsraine]

Ah, fair enough. Still, yeah, it's pretty much a wash. They took out most of the resistances to specific damage types we saw in previous editions, and I suspect that was mostly to keep players from having to carry around dozens of different bane weapons and the like. Anyone who ever played DDO, which was based on 3.5, knows what I'm talking about.

Ah, DDO. The memories! I really miss that game, real shame what became of it.

[Easy_Lee]

We all had a blast and no one was butt hurt.

Well that's always a good thing.

[ruy343]

Building on the idea of a magic weapon, I'd write it like this (you are free to re-write as you see fit):

Elven two-handed blade (rare, requires attunement to an elf or half-elf)

This two-handed weapon is similar to a curved greatsword in many respects, but it's curved blade allows for a more sophisticated fighting style which is only taught to elven warriors. The sword itself can be wielded by anyone with two hands, and deals 2d6 damage on a hit (like a greatsword). An attuned individual may treat the weapon as though it had the finesse property. Additionally, it increases the critical threat range of the wielder by one (eg. if a character has a critical threat range of 20-20, it increases to 19-20).

To the naysayers: note that I did not grant the sword a +X enhancement bonus. In effect, I achieved the same thing by allowing it to deal 2d6 instead of 1d8 as was being discussed above, and the chance to hit increased by allowing a dex-based person to use that modifier to attack and damage rolls.

I would classify this magic item as either rare or very rare. What are your thoughts? This sword goes well with certain builds (fighter (champion) anyone?), certainly, but the purpose of this weapon is to give a more flavorful option for a magic weapon that you can find. I certainly don't expect any characters to start with it (unless they are at high level) because it's very easy to tailor your build to it (as you could with a bajillion other magic items).

[eastmabl]

Firstly, all rogues who don't take athletics expertise will already ignore strength in every way. No rogue is using a non-finesse, non-ranged weapon unless he wants to be sub-optimal. Finesse versions of two-handed weapons does nothing to change that balance.

Under present rules, ignoring Strength comes at a price - your melee weapon caps 1d8 base damage.

Giving 1d10+ base damage gives them access to these more powerful melee weapons, and further begs the question: why a fighting man would ever focus on Strength?

Giving Strength-based characters access to higher base damage is what encourages players to make the decision to specialize in Strength. Otherwise, there isn't enough of a reason there to justify doing so.


Secondly, I've already suggested reducing the damage die of finesse weapons since that's an added capability of the weapon. I wouldn't make a finesse weapon go over d10 without further drawbacks that reduce its effectiveness. That said, I can and have shown exactly why a d10 finesse weapon is balanced; after all, we already have one: the heavy crossbow.

And if you want to put an equivalent to the Loading property on the proposed weapon, I wouldn't disagree with you. Otherwise, the two weapons aren't analogous.

Something tells me that a restriction of one attack per round absent a Crossbow Expert-like feat will raise cries from the simulationist camp (he can attack more than once!) and the game design camp (feat tax!).


Thirdly, using two-handed weapons is not what makes anyone unique. Take a look at the modifying classes (http://dnd.wizards.com/articles/features/modifying-classes) article. The main point of fighters is that they: "gain most of their combat prowess from three characteristics of the class: being able to make up to four attacks per round; using Action Surge to grant quick bursts of combat potency; and having the highest number of Ability Score Improvement features, which allows fighters to strengthen their attacks and saving throws, or, if the DM allows it, select feats." No part of that is threatened by rogues with two-handed weapons.

You're entirely too granular in your analysis. Strength-based weapons, of which heavy weapons are a subset, are not the focus of any one class. Rather, it is the focus of any class which relies on its Strength-based attacks. See, for example, the rage ability for a Barbarian (Str-only attacks), which you conveniently ignore.

To say that any class is focused on using heavy weapons ignores the fact that options exist for all classes - sword and board, dueling, bludgeoning, and yes... even finesse weapons.


Fourthly, we aren't adding more rules to the game. We're adding more options. Know what the difference is between a rule and an option? A rule is something you have to know, while an option is something you can use if you want. The only problem options present is when they are poorly balanced, and so knowing of and choosing the good options is the only way to make your character good. This is the problem you're referring to, and it's not a problem that would be caused by rogues with two-handers.

Fine. You got me on a technicality. But what was/is the problem with 3.xpf? All of those options in the supplemental books from new classes, new feats, new spells and new prestige classes - which, mind you, existed in the core rules - are the rules option bloat.

It made 3.5 a difficult system to learn and still creates a high barrier to entry for Pathfinder players. It's what the designers wanted to avoid in 5e.

You're free to do what you like, but maybe you should be spending more time in the Homebrew section.

***

In the end, I think that my original suggestion is the best - if you want to break the existing core of rules, make it a magical weapon which creates a barrier to entry.

[Jame Rowe]

I had a similar question for my 5e group, as I'm playing an Elven Sword Mage in our run for Dragon Heist.
After looking at PF's Ultimate Equipment here's what I came up with:
Elven Curve Blade, martial, scimitar or elven weapons proficiency, light, finesse, versatile, d6 or d8, 80 gp.

That way neither the scimitar or the rapier get overpowered.

[JackPhoenix]

And that totally justifies posting to over 3 years old thread...

[Jame Rowe]

And that totally justifies posting to over 3 years old thread...

Yes, given your post.