What's the point of using Versatile weapons 2H?

[Spectre9000]

If you can still cast spells with a greatsword you hold with two hands, why would you ever want to use a versatile weapon? If you're going to be doing 2H attacks, you'll use a better 2H weapon, and if you're just using 1H attacks, versatile is pointless. The only use I could see for Versatile weapons is for spellcasters who occasionally need a free hand, but apparently you can just haphazardly hold a 2H with only 1 hand at random, with no penalties. Don't believe I've ever seen any evidence of this happening in real life, but I know, this is D&D.

Would house ruling you always use two hands when wielding a 2H do anything other than make Versatile actually something to consider with weapon choice?

[GoodbyeSoberDay]

I wouldn't create that sort of limitation just to increase the importance of the versatile property. Versatile is mostly a corner-case ability. Examples:

1. Normally you S&B, but for some reason offense is far more important than defense right now.
2. Normally you use a better two hander like a greatsword, but you found a really awesome longsword, of which there are many in the DMG. (Seriously, way too many swords-only magic items; or rather, too few of the other types.)
3. Normally you S&B, but for some reason you can't use your shield right now.

In all of these cases you get a minor perk for the weapon being versatile; honestly, that's all it needs to be.

[Rixitichil]

Let us say you are a Mountain Dwarf Wizard or Sorcerer. Versatile allows you to attack with Two Hands with your Battleaxe which is more damage compared to your simple weapon alternative options. The same is true for Elves and longswords.
Also a Two Handed Fighter who finds a Magic Versatile weapon might use that over their usual Greatsword for the magical effect to bypass resistances.

[Spectre9000]

All things being equal a 2h is gonna be better than a versatile weapon. Sure, you can put your shield away, but does that every really happen, for just 1 more average damage? 2 AC for 1 Damage?

[Syll]

Don't believe I've ever seen any evidence of this happening in real life, but I know, this is D&D.

A RL greatsword weighs about 3lbs. You can absolutely hold it one handed. Even if it weighed 30lbs you could just as easily rest it point down on the ground and hold the hilt in one hand.

[The1exile]

Of course 2h swords are better as 2h weapons than versatile weapons. If not no one would be using them instead. But sometimes your sword and board fighter has his shield broken/dropped/thrown into the chasm of Moria and can't just get another one right now, and in that case, it's nice to let them have a smidgen more damage.

[RickAllison]

Not to mention that it gives it a slight edge over the rapier. Rapiers get the versatility of being able to use Dex, but the other weapons can get a little extra damage sometimes. Not big, but a tossed bone.

[ZenBear]

You can still attack with a Versatile weapon while grappling an enemy with your off hand or carrying something that would otherwise occupy it, like a torch or mcguffin.

[Icewraith]

It's an early damage boost for Monks. With a quarterstaff they can still attack with a 1d8 weapon using the versatile property instead of their lower unarmed damage (1d4, with which they can replace monk weapon damage dice - which are d4 or d6). As they level, the benefit of a Versatile quarterstaff erodes (1d6) and then disappears completely (1d8).

Incidentally, magic daggers are lovely for low-ish level monks, since their unarmed damage hasn't become magical yet but they can use a d6 instead of a d4 for the dagger.

Edit: Wielding the Versatile weapon one-handed leaves you able to use your reaction to either make an opportunity attack or cast a spell instead of one or the other, since I believe you can't declare the hand shenanigans that allow a spellcaster to freely use a 2h weapon off-turn.

With a 2h weapon, you're either using it 2h off turn and can't cast spells with somatic components or you're wielding it one-handed and can't use it to make attacks. I think either the War Caster feat or an Eldritch Knight class feature also addresses this. Shenanigans involving treating a two-handed weapon as an arcane focus probably also work, depending on the DM (as long as you pay the additional Gold cost).

[downlobot]

Also small creatures have trouble with heavy weapons.

[EscherEnigma]

Well, my pre-lvl-3 future-valor-bard attacked with a longsword two-handed because he didn't have martial weapon proficiencies and didn't have shield proficiencies yet.

When he was lvl 3, he mostly just uses sword and board, but last session I two-handed it briefly when the party was attacked at night while he was sleeping. So in the interest of getting into the fight sooner, he didn't pick up his shield and used the sword one-handed.

Was "versatile" the deciding factor on choosing a long sword? Nah. But it's a nice bonus every now and then.

[Steampunkette]

Halflings and Gnomes cannot use Greatswords or any other weapon with the Heavy Property.

But they can use Longswords and other versatile weapons 2 handed.

Though I still feel like there should be another fighting style that centers around using versatile weapons, with a bonus whether you're one handing or two handing it.

Like a +2 AC when you Einhand (no weapon or shield in the offhand) and a +1 damage when you grab it with both hands (bringing it to 1d10+1, average of 6.5 max of 11).

[JumboWheat01]

Halflings and Gnomes cannot use Greatswords or any other weapon with the Heavy Property.

They CAN use it, but with all the time disadvantage while doing so. This is a marked difference from 3rd and 4th editions, where they couldn't use "large" weapons, and had to use medium and/or versatile weapons with both hands. And in 4th edition, they didn't even get the benefit for using a versatile weapon with two hands despite having to do so.

[Rhaegar]

If you normally use a shield, you'd probably have it stowed while traveling on horseback. It takes an action to equip a shield so if you're ambushed you may not want to take the turn to equip it. You're also not going to sleep with a shield equipped, so having a versatile weapon for night attacks would be worthwhile, if you don't want to bother having a second weapon.

If you want to specialize in grappling, you'd probably want a versatile weapon, you could swing it with two hands when not grappling, but could still stab people in the side while maintaining a grapple, which you couldn't do with a 2h weapon.

Of you found a +1 versatile weapon, which ends up being better than your non-magic 2h weapon for average damage.

Granted the 2h weapon will be better a lot of the time, but not in every occasion.

[MeeposFire]

Of course 2h swords are better as 2h weapons than versatile weapons. If not no one would be using them instead. But sometimes your sword and board fighter has his shield broken/dropped/thrown into the chasm of Moria and can't just get another one right now, and in that case, it's nice to let them have a smidgen more damage.

Unless you have duelist in which case it is actually less damage in general. That highlights the actual problem which is that versatile weapons can't effectively use both of the weapon styles that it is associated with while its benefit is switching between the two when it is best. The weapon needs a style that gives it a bonus for being versatile rather than penalizing you for using it one way and promoting using it in only one way. Right now defensive is the best choice for this weapon type of the styles in the PHB due to this issue. If you pick either dueling or GWF then you are deciding to use the weapon as that one way and not to take advantage of the fact you can use it both ways.

[Edenbeast]

If you can still cast spells with a greatsword you hold with two hands, why would you ever want to use a versatile weapon? If you're going to be doing 2H attacks, you'll use a better 2H weapon, and if you're just using 1H attacks, versatile is pointless. The only use I could see for Versatile weapons is for spellcasters who occasionally need a free hand, but apparently you can just haphazardly hold a 2H with only 1 hand at random, with no penalties. Don't believe I've ever seen any evidence of this happening in real life, but I know, this is D&D.

Would house ruling you always use two hands when wielding a 2H do anything other than make Versatile actually something to consider with weapon choice?

You'll need at least one hand to cast spells (somatic component), unless you have the warcaster feat. When you cast a spell using one hand, holding your 2hander in the other, you can't do attacks of opportunity until your next turn when you decide to use your 2hander. A versatile would still useable in one hand when you decide to cast a spell.
The other advantage is that you can easily switch between sword and board and wielding the weapon with 2 hands for more damage.

[dread05]

Most obvious reason is for a two handed weapon optimization of a small PC. Sure, in 5e small creatures CAN use heavy weapons with disadvantage, but lets be honest, nobody will make a halfling fighter with a Greatsword and have disadvantage on attacks in his entire carrier. (And yes there are ways to mitigate disadvantage but most often than not that means you will never have advantage on an attack roll).

[Spacehamster]

One and a half handed style:

When wielding a versatile weapon in two hands you gain +2 weapon damage, when wielding it in one hand, alone, dual wielding or with a shield you get +1 weapon damage.

Just on the top of my head what a versatile style would do. :)

[Addaran]

For small races mostly! Since there is no x1.5 str bonus for two-wielding, they needed a way to give a boost to 2-handing small fighters.
Plus all the other reasons enumerated.

[DanyBallon]

Versatil weapon is useful for spellcaster without Warcaster, as if you use a free hand to cast a spell, you can't swing a 2h weapon as a bonus action (in the case of EK) nor as a reaction. While when you still can swing your versatile weapon single handed if you already cast a spell. Also, if you used your action to attack while usinge 2h on your versatile or 2h weapon, you can't cast a spell as a reaction sine both hand were used this round.

[FabulousFizban]

flavor sauce. Get beyond the meta, and enjoy your game.

[Ruslan]

If you have the Dueling fighting style, there is absolutely no point using a Versatile weapon in two hands. You will literally deal less damage.

[Occasional Sage]

flavor sauce. Get beyond the meta, and enjoy your game.

All of the this. But to replace the meta:


All things being equal a 2h is gonna be better than a versatile weapon. Sure, you can put your shield away, but does that every really happen, for just 1 more average damage? 2 AC for 1 Damage?

Back in the day I played a versatile 3.5 character, and built a Excel character sheet which calculated average DPR when using Power Attack* based on observed AC of the opponent, and determined whether I should use my buckler or not based on my observed odds of being hit.


*The Power Attack feat in 3.5 (for those who never played it) allows you to take -X to hit rolls for +X to damage, with a floating cap to X.

[LordVonDerp]

When you cast a spell using one hand, holding your 2hander in the other, you can't do attacks of opportunity until your next turn when you decide to use your 2hander.
Only if the spell takes a whole round to cast.

[StorytellerHero]

So basically the big benefit is all the things one can do with a free hand while maintaining one's capacity to make attacks with the other.

There are lots of ways to change things up from round to round depending on how much variation the table squeezes out of the environment.

Imagine if you fall over a cliff, and barely catch yourself on a narrow ledge by your free hand. Then you start getting charged by flying carnivorous bats while hanging off the ledge. Having that versatility on the weapon becomes quite handy at that point.

[djreynolds]

In a game without feats, a versatile weapon is an okay. It qualifies for GWS when you use it two-handed and for duelist when you go S&B. It could be a good choice for a champion.

But the kicker is who loves losing an entire action to don and off their shield.

Same idea that a quarterstaff benefits from pole arm master and a spear does not.

No one has to defend a great sword or a rapier, but in game with feats and multiclassing versatile weapons used two-handed are diminished.

[ProphetSword]

I think a lot of good mechanical points have been made.

But, beyond mechanics, sometimes it's just a style thing. Sometimes when I play, I pick a weapon that I envision that the character would use. Perhaps there's some story to it. Maybe the long sword they use was passed down the generations in their family, has a history of being in several wars, and has engravings of the family crest on the blade. Wielding it two-handed is just what the character might do. If my character is a fighter, they certainly have the option to use a great sword or even a +2 magical long sword, if they found one. Would they? Nope. Because, sometimes, flavor is more important than numbers.

[Kane0]

My table has a fighting style for versatile weapons: +1 hit and damage when using them in two hands.
Makes them a fair and interesting choice, running the numbers makes them a good alternative to great weapons that small characters can make use of. It also makes them the most accurate malee option.

[Arkhios]

I believe that one reason, if not the main reason, why versatile weapon property exists, is to narrow down the weapon list, from where it was the most redundant;
dwarven waraxe was exotic one-handed, but martial two-handed weapon, which dealt 1d10 damage. Technically same than Battleaxe, but bigger die.
Or Bastard Sword, which was equally like a longer longsword which, for reasons unknown, required exotic weapon proficiency to be able to wield one-handed. Otherwise it would've been two-handed as a martial weapon.
Likewise I think I've seen a earlier version of maul being a two-handed martial bludgeoning weapon dealing 1d10 damage, which, again required exotic proficiency for one-handed use.

All in all, most now versatile weapons had their - rather silly - exotic equivalents in earlier versions. Now they would be redundant since exotic proficiency isn't a thing anymore, so introducing versatile property for weapons that are similar is much better, imho.

[Foxhound438]

I wouldn't create that sort of limitation just to increase the importance of the versatile property. Versatile is mostly a corner-case ability. Examples:

1. Normally you S&B, but for some reason offense is far more important than defense right now.
2. Normally you use a better two hander like a greatsword, but you found a really awesome longsword, of which there are many in the DMG. (Seriously, way too many swords-only magic items; or rather, too few of the other types.)
3. Normally you S&B, but for some reason you can't use your shield right now.

In all of these cases you get a minor perk for the weapon being versatile; honestly, that's all it needs to be.

in case 1 or 3 dueling fighting style makes you lose damage, case 2 is pretty pointless since longsword and greatsword are equally qualified as "any sword". If you're using a greatsword and your dm hands you a longsword then you're being intentionally nerfed.


All things being equal a 2h is gonna be better than a versatile weapon. Sure, you can put your shield away, but does that every really happen, for just 1 more average damage? 2 AC for 1 Damage?

as said above, if you're s&b you probably have dueling fs, so you're losing damage.


You can still attack with a Versatile weapon while grappling an enemy with your off hand or carrying something that would otherwise occupy it, like a torch or mcguffin.

the only legit reason i've ever seen to use a versatile 2 handed, with the qualification that it'd have to be a pure barbarian or else you dip fighter 1 for dueling.


It's an early damage boost for Monks. With a quarterstaff they can still attack with a 1d8 weapon using the versatile property instead of their lower unarmed damage (1d4, with which they can replace monk weapon damage dice - which are d4 or d6). As they level, the benefit of a Versatile quarterstaff erodes (1d6) and then disappears completely (1d8).

Edit: Wielding the Versatile weapon one-handed leaves you able to use your reaction to either make an opportunity attack or cast a spell instead of one or the other, since I believe you can't declare the hand shenanigans that allow a spellcaster to freely use a 2h weapon off-turn.

With a 2h weapon, you're either using it 2h off turn and can't cast spells with somatic components or you're wielding it one-handed and can't use it to make attacks. I think either the War Caster feat or an Eldritch Knight class feature also addresses this. Shenanigans involving treating a two-handed weapon as an arcane focus probably also work, depending on the DM (as long as you pay the additional Gold cost).

Monks are kind of irrelevant to the discussion since they're the ONE nice case where versatile actually does something useful. They don't, however, answer why you would ever use a longsword 2h instead of a greatsword.

As for the second point you make... does your dm require your object interaction to draw every arrow from your quiver, limiting bows to one shot per turn? because if not then your games are being ran inconsistently.

[Arkhios]

I came up with a two possible fairly constant case when one might prefer a versatile weapon over a two-handed weapon.

Firstly, from historical point of view, greatswords, mauls and greataxes were actually really unwieldy, and quite rare. In medieval battle might see someone swing a greatsword once, then drop it and draw a shorter sword, which is easier to control in the thick of battle. A DM might rule that such massive twohanded weapons simply didn't exist, due to their rarity.

The other possible scenario is aboard a ship. Sailors, or more specifically Pirates, might have to take a hold of something when the ship keeps rocking on the waves, but still be able to attack every round. And at times when the deck is stable enough, one might prefer a heavier hit instead of a normal swing.

[eastmabl]

With mundane items, you can carry around a golf bag of weapons and switch in and out to your heart's content. You want to duel wield with shortswords? Longsword and board? Topically apply greataxe to bugbear? Just reach into the golf bag.

However, magic items throw a kink in the works. When you only have one weapon that's magical and the monster has resistance/immunity to non-magical weapons, you will sometimes need to use the longsword when you really want a greatsword. (Immunity to non-silvered non-magical weapons shows up as early as the jackalwere - a CR 1/2 monster).

[gfishfunk]

Someone mentioned corner cases, and its worthwhile to consider racial proficiencies.

- High Elves get longsword proficiency.
- Dwarves get battleaxes and Warhammers proficiencies.

If either are used to build a character that does not have martial weapon proficiency (nor shield proficiency), using their racial proficiency to weld the weapon 2H while in melee is a perfectly valid bump to melee damage, however minor.

Definitely a corner case. Don't come in on 'why not just use a cantrip?' I know, but it is still a valid approach.

[Joe the Rat]

If you have the Dueling fighting style, there is absolutely no point using a Versatile weapon in two hands. You will literally deal less damage.

This is the pity. That low damage reroll for GWF almost balances the higher flat damage from duelling, if you were doing a Versatile Champion. And Battle Master? If someone should be utilizing Versatile, you'd think the fiddly weapon trick Fighter would have it.

A style that gives +1 damage on 2-handed Versatile balances average damage with Duelist, but gives no benefit for open hand. Honestly, I'm okay with that. Champs can grab a second style and weigh the benefit of the larger damage die for crits (and adding GWF) vs. better AC and more reliable damage via dueling.

What I'd love to see is a Versatile Weapon Master feat, to provide some specific benefit to the open hand - have the tavern brawler bonus action grapple when using "a one-handed weapon (and nothing in the other)", and some other boost for " a weapon wielded in two hands." Useful to almost anyone, but the full benefit comes from being able to do switch freely - whether Versatile, or with Discard and Draw tactics.

[Foxhound438]

What I'd love to see is a Versatile Weapon Master feat, to provide some specific benefit to the open hand - have the tavern brawler bonus action grapple when using "a one-handed weapon (and nothing in the other)", and some other boost for " a weapon wielded in two hands." Useful to almost anyone, but the full benefit comes from being able to do switch freely - whether Versatile, or with Discard and Draw tactics.

it'd be neat to have a feat that gave you a bonus for going from one handed to two, ie "when you attack with a weapon in one hand and no weapon in the other, your next attack gets [something] if it uses the same weapon with both hands", probably a hit chance improvement or maybe a bit of damage.

[Biggstick]

You can still attack with a Versatile weapon while grappling an enemy with your off hand or carrying something that would otherwise occupy it, like a torch or mcguffin.


This is probably the best reason. Playing a barbarian post level 5 will allow you to grapple one target while smashing another over the head with your versatile weapon. It's a great way to play a control focused barbarian.