Short Bow

[Stryyke]

Is there ever a reason to use short bow, rather than long bow? Mechanically, of course.

[kazaryu]

Is there ever a reason to use short bow, rather than long bow? Mechanically, of course.

well..if you don't have longbow proficiency (i.e. rogues) and you don't want to use crossbows.

[greenstone]

Is there ever a reason to use short bow, rather than long bow? Mechanically, of course.

From the rules:
You only have proficiency in simple weapons.
You are of size small or smaller.
You only have a shortbow.

An example, from my PotA game: the Dessarin Valley is rural. Almost everyone knows how to use a shortbow (a simple weapon) and there are many vendors who make them. Almost no-one, however, uses a longbow (a martial weapon) and no-one makes or sells them.

Non rules-supported situations, maybe:
You are on horseback.
You are halfway up a tree.

[Dame_Mechanus]

Is there ever a reason to use short bow, rather than long bow? Mechanically, of course.

Long bows might result in you being flat-footed when the royal vizier makes his play for the throne and sends in assassins to kill you all, because you're still bowing while other things are happening around you. Thus, it might sometimes be in your best interests to make a short and respectful bow rather than a long and groveling bow.

[JackPhoenix]

Non rules-supported situations, maybe:
You are on horseback.

Got a houserule myself that weapons with Heavy property have disadvantage when used while mounted.

[Gignere]

Got a houserule myself that weapons with Heavy property have disadvantage when used while mounted.

What you don’t allow a player to play the “Guts and his armor busting great sword solo charging an army of cavalry on horseback”?

[Leon]

well..if you don't have longbow proficiency (i.e. rogues) and you don't want to use crossbows.

That's the Long and short of it

[KorvinStarmast]

Got a houserule myself that weapons with Heavy property have disadvantage when used while mounted. Does a lance not have the heavy property? Hmm, need to check now ... well how about that, it doesn't.

[diplomancer]

Does a lance not have the heavy property? Hmm, need to check now ... well how about that, it doesn't.

I played a Halfling Paladin mounted on a Clawfoot Raptor and wielding a Lance if Warning; great fun, powerful, and hilarious visuals!

[Eldariel]

Yeah, Halfling Gloomstalker Sharpshooter in one of my games uses it as their primary weapon.

[RSP]

This thread reminds me why I hate how weapon proficiencies are done in 5e:

You know how to use a short bow.

But you don’t know how to use a long bow.

This has nothing to do with having or not having the Str to use a long bow compared to a short bow. You just have no idea how to nock an arrow on a long bow, no idea how to aim it, how to draw it, etc.

But a short bow, well obviously that’s simple (pun intended).

[Keltest]

This thread reminds me why I hate how weapon proficiencies are done in 5e:

You know how to use a short bow.

But you don’t know how to use a long bow.

This has nothing to do with having or not having the Str to use a long bow compared to a short bow. You just have no idea how to nock an arrow on a long bow, no idea how to aim it, how to draw it, etc.

But a short bow, well obviously that’s simple (pun intended).

Not being proficient doesnt mean you cant use the weapon, you just struggle to be accurate with it. You can shoot a longbow just fine if you arent proficient, but hitting something might be a challenge, especially at range.

[Psyren]

well..if you don't have longbow proficiency (i.e. rogues) and you don't want to use crossbows.

Monks too (non-kensei).



You know how to use a short bow.

But you don’t know how to use a long bow.


Proficiency isn't knowhow, it's proficiency. I know how to invest in the futures market, but I'm far from proficient at it, so relying on it for my livelihood is probably not a good idea.

[RSP]

Not being proficient doesnt mean you cant use the weapon, you just struggle to be accurate with it. You can shoot a longbow just fine if you arent proficient, but hitting something might be a challenge, especially at range.

Sure but is it a training issue to shoot a longbow vs a short bow?

A long bow works the same as a short bow in terms of how it functions. One is bigger than the other, but that’s not a training thing.

I don’t see a difference in training for a long bow vs a short bow (though a size/Str difference for sure - I imagine some long bows are bigger than gnomes).

From the basic rules:
“Martial weapons, including swords, axes, and polearms, require more specialized training to use effectively.”

You don’t use long bows and short bows differently in a training sense: that is, they operate the same.

[Dame_Mechanus]

Proficiency isn't knowhow, it's proficiency. I know how to invest in the futures market, but I'm far from proficient at it, so relying on it for my livelihood is probably not a good idea.

I am familiar with all of the mechanics of driving an 18-wheel truck because I am proficient in driving a regular automobile. That does not mean that I am proficient in driving one, nor does it mean that I will not struggle to make it do much of anything and probably slam it into a bunch of stuff in the process of figuring it out. Heck, you don't even want to know what it looks like when I try to drive a U-Haul which doesn't even require a CDL.

[Psyren]

From the basic rules:
“Martial weapons, including swords, axes, and polearms, require more specialized training to use effectively.”

You don’t use long bows and short bows differently in a training sense: that is, they operate the same.

Above is the part you should have bolded. "Effectively" is important here, and in game terms it means being able to add your proficiency bonus to attacks with it.

[BRC]

Sure but is it a training issue to shoot a longbow vs a short bow?

A long bow works the same as a short bow in terms of how it functions. One is bigger than the other, but that’s not a training thing.

I don’t see a difference in training for a long bow vs a short bow (though a size/Str difference for sure - I imagine some long bows are bigger than gnomes).

From the basic rules:
“Martial weapons, including swords, axes, and polearms, require more specialized training to use effectively.”

You don’t use long bows and short bows differently in a training sense: that is, they operate the same.

I'm not an archery expert, but my understanding is that firing a longbow well is very different than firing a shortbow. Similar to the difference between wielding a battleaxe in two hands vs wielding a greataxe. It's not just The Same Thing but Bigger

A Longbow is generally about 6ft tall. Firing a longbow at an archery range, yeah, pretty straightforward. Aiming and firing a shot in the heat of battle while trying to notch an arrow and pull back a string on bow about as tall as you are? That takes specialty training and experience.

So yes, "bigger than gnomes" is an understatement.

[sithlordnergal]

Does a lance not have the heavy property? Hmm, need to check now ... well how about that, it doesn't.

Yup, its actually one of the better weapons to dual wield. Just be a Small creature, that way your mount can fit everywhere, and charge in while dual wielding lances

[RSP]

I'm not an archery expert, but my understanding is that firing a longbow well is very different than firing a shortbow. Similar to the difference between wielding a battleaxe in two hands vs wielding a greataxe. It's not just The Same Thing but Bigger

A Longbow is generally about 6ft tall. Firing a longbow at an archery range, yeah, pretty straightforward. Aiming and firing a shot in the heat of battle while trying to notch an arrow and pull back a string on bow about as tall as you are? That takes specialty training and experience.

So yes, "bigger than gnomes" is an understatement.

So when using a short bow “heat of battle” doesn’t matter but it does with a long bow? I don’t see how that makes sense. And then does that mean if you use a long bow from range, with surprise, you get proficiency as you’re not firing from the “heat of battle”?

The rules don’t differentiate “heat of battle” or not with proficiency, so I’m not sure why that matters. Or, put another way, I imagine any weapon is more difficult to use in the “heat of battle” than not, because practicing with a weapon is very different than using it in a life-or-death situation.

Again, I’m all for Str/size being a factor in using the long bow, I just don’t think it’s a different proficiency in terms of training to use a long bow vs a short bow.

I think this same thing applies to a lot of weapons: I don’t think short swords and rapiers are different training, nor scimitars and what long swords qualify for (assuming one handed use), or great swords and two-handed long sword use.

I much prefer (I think it was 2nd Ed) where “swords” was a category of proficiency, etc. made more sense to me than 5e’s “I’m great with using this great sword, but am completely untrained with using a longsword in two hands”.

Just one of my pet peeves.

[Keltest]

So when using a short bow “heat of battle” doesn’t matter but it does with a long bow? I don’t see how that makes sense. And then does that mean if you use a long bow from range, with surprise, you get proficiency as you’re not firing from the “heat of battle”?

The rules don’t differentiate “heat of battle” or not with proficiency, so I’m not sure why that matters. Or, put another way, I imagine any weapon is more difficult to use in the “heat of battle” than not, because practicing with a weapon is very different than using it in a life-or-death situation.

Again, I’m all for Str/size being a factor in using the long bow, I just don’t think it’s a different proficiency in terms of training to use a long bow vs a short bow.

I think this same thing applies to a lot of weapons: I don’t think short swords and rapiers are different training, nor scimitars and what long swords qualify for (assuming one handed use), or great swords and two-handed long sword use.

I much prefer (I think it was 2nd Ed) where “swords” was a category of proficiency, etc. made more sense to me than 5e’s “I’m great with using this great sword, but am completely untrained with using a longsword in two hands”.

Just one of my pet peeves.

Shortbow proficiency is more common, but that doesnt mean an untrained wielder like a wizard wont struggle just as much as with a longbow. Theyre different weapons that work differently even if it is not superficially obvious how.

Also, I would suggest you go out and try and find a renissance fair or something where you might be able to see people use some of these weapons, or even handle some yourself. Its both fun and educational. A rapier is wildly different from a shortsword (which would probably be more accurately called an arming sword), a scimitar is wildly different from what D&D calls a longsword, etc..

[Psyren]

I much prefer (I think it was 2nd Ed) where “swords” was a category of proficiency, etc. made more sense to me than 5e’s “I’m great with using this great sword, but am completely untrained with using a longsword in two hands”.

Just one of my pet peeves.

I don't know about how it was in 2e, but in 3e, rogues weren't proficient with longbows there either despite having shortbow proficiency. So 5e isn't the edition to blame for splitting them up.

Similarly, 3e Monks weren't proficient with either kind of bow so 5e actually added that (on top of Dex to damage.)

[BRC]

So when using a short bow “heat of battle” doesn’t matter but it does with a long bow? I don’t see how that makes sense. And then does that mean if you use a long bow from range, with surprise, you get proficiency as you’re not firing from the “heat of battle”?

The rules don’t differentiate “heat of battle” or not with proficiency, so I’m not sure why that matters. Or, put another way, I imagine any weapon is more difficult to use in the “heat of battle” than not, because practicing with a weapon is very different than using it in a life-or-death situation.

Again, I’m all for Str/size being a factor in using the long bow, I just don’t think it’s a different proficiency in terms of training to use a long bow vs a short bow.

I think this same thing applies to a lot of weapons: I don’t think short swords and rapiers are different training, nor scimitars and what long swords qualify for (assuming one handed use), or great swords and two-handed long sword use.

I much prefer (I think it was 2nd Ed) where “swords” was a category of proficiency, etc. made more sense to me than 5e’s “I’m great with using this great sword, but am completely untrained with using a longsword in two hands”.

Just one of my pet peeves.

A big part of simple vs martial weapons isn't just weapon complexity, but also "Could somebody have learned to use this weapon outside military contexts". A Dagger isn't a simple weapon because knife-fighting is easy, but because Daggers are common, and even basic peasants have a decent reason to have a big 'ol knife around, and can learn how to use it.

A Shortbow is a simple weapon, not because it's easy to use, but because it's the weapon of choice for hunters the world over, so while not everybody COULD use a shortbow, it was far easier for any given person to learn. A Longbow on the other hand is basically exclusively used in military contexts. One of the simplifications of D&D is that characters are given a wide range of proficiency. In reality, finding somebody trained in using both a greatsword and a longbow would be basically unheard of, those were both specialist weapons. D&D doesn't want to make a big game about picking which weapons your fighter can use, so they just hand out "Simple" and "Martial" weapon proficiency, and rarely go into picking and choosing specific weapons.

But a Shortbow is something that civilians might use for hunting, Longbows mean somebody has taught you how to Fight.

Short Swords and Rapiers are wildly different weapons.


Some simple weapons, like Spears, are simple because they're pretty easy to use (The more unwieldy Pike is Martial because once you've got a 10+Ft wooden pole with a spike on the end, "Just stab 'em" is far less straighforward, and balance becomes a factor in using the weapon effectively).

[kazaryu]

This thread reminds me why I hate how weapon proficiencies are done in 5e:

You know how to use a short bow.

But you don’t know how to use a long bow.

This has nothing to do with having or not having the Str to use a long bow compared to a short bow. You just have no idea how to nock an arrow on a long bow, no idea how to aim it, how to draw it, etc.

But a short bow, well obviously that’s simple (pun intended).

why do you think this is true? this could be *exactly* the reason you're not proficient with a longbow. you've not trained with it, so you struggle to handle its draw weight. and yes, this is perfectly plausible even if you have a str of 20...or even 30. the primary thing that str affects is melee weapon damage and carry weight. neither of which necessitates you having developed all of the correct muscles to draw a bowstring steadily.

but even then..the reason you lack the proficiency doesn't have to be the same for each character, so even if you do have a str 20 character, and you feel it'd be unlikely that they'd struggle with the weight itself so you have to come up with a different justification. That doesn't mean that other characters can't lack the proficiency due to a lack of conditioning.

[JadedDM]

I don't know about how it was in 2e, but in 3e, rogues weren't proficient with longbows there either despite having shortbow proficiency. So 5e isn't the edition to blame for splitting them up.

Yep, in 2E, Thieves could not use long bows. Only Fighters, Paladins, Rangers and Bards could. Same with composite bows, too. In fact, Thieves could not even use heavy or light crossbows, only hand crossbows.

[LudicSavant]

Is there ever a reason to use short bow, rather than long bow? Mechanically, of course.

As of Tasha's, Monks can use short bows as a Monk Weapon with their native proficiencies.

[Ogun]

RSP, realistically, switching from the long bow you you train and fight with to one you pick up on the battlefield is going to affect how well you perform.
Just like tennis rackets, cellos, hammers, spatulas or other tools, what you are familiar with affects your performance.

A rapier isn't used the way a short sword is, it isn't even used the same way as other fencing weapons like the small sword or saber.

When you are attacking with a long bow from surprise you will get advantage which does make up for your lack of proficiency bonus, at least at low levels.

[stoutstien]

RSP, realistically, switching from the long bow you you train and fight with to one you pick up on the battlefield is going to affect how well you perform.
Just like tennis rackets, cellos, hammers, spatulas or other tools, what you are familiar with affects your performance.

A rapier isn't used the way a short sword is, it isn't even used the same way as other fencing weapons like the small sword or saber.

When you are attacking with a long bow from surprise you will get advantage which does make up for your lack of proficiency bonus, at least at low levels.

Heck an inch shift of the point of balance of two otherwise identical swords swing/handle very differently. My accuracy of hitting a 3 inch target with my favorite rapier goes up almost 20% when I have the correct pommel on.

[RSP]

RSP, realistically, switching from the long bow you you train and fight with to one you pick up on the battlefield is going to affect how well you perform.
Just like tennis rackets, cellos, hammers, spatulas or other tools, what you are familiar with affects your performance.

100% agree that different items within the same type will have variation, however, those differences can be adjusted for with a brief period of acclimation: it’s not a difference in how you’re trained.



A rapier isn't used the way a short sword is, it isn't even used the same way as other fencing weapons like the small sword or saber.

A rapier and a short sword represent very similar things in 5e, just like the scimitar and long sword do. None of those has a description, so it’s tough to say what is or isn’t a real life comp.

For instance, a saber cannot be a 5e short sword or rapier, as it’s a primarily slashing weapon and those are exclusively piercing weapons, but it could be either a long sword or a scimitar. I’d probably say scimitar as I don’t think of two hands when using a saber, but that doesn’t mean you can’t have a saber that could be held two-handed. I’ve seen depictions of scimitars that are shorter than depictions of sabers, so calling a saber a “long sword” over a scimitar makes some sense. In 5e, scimitars and long swords both weight 3 lbs (even though scimitars are “light”).

Either way, I’d not argue with a player saying their PC’s long sword is a saber.

Maybe people disagree with me but there’s a ton of real life weapons that could fit as various of the scant few weapons in the 5e table. What’s the length at which a piercing weapon is a dagger vs the short sword? No idea but the only difference we can look to is if it’s 1 lb and a piercing weapon, then it’s a dagger; 2 lbs and piercing, it’s a short sword or rapier (though one of those is a “heavier” 2 lbs for some reason).

A longbow and short bow are both 2 lbs, so I’m assuming the short bow is actually made thicker, or with a heavier wood than a longbow (which is also heavier though the same weight). So maybe it’s actually the short bow which would need the greater strength to draw. Either way, at what length is a 2 lb bow a short bow vs a long bow? At that specific length one becomes completely unfamiliar with it in terms of training? And I’m thinking even a short bow is taller or as tall as a 3’ gnome. Doesn’t that mean the training for them to use a 3’ short bow is the same as a 6’ human using a 6’ longbow?

So the argument being posed to me is a 1 lb piercing weapon is used completely differently than a 2 lb piercing weapon (regardless of blade length), so much so that being trained to use one as a weapon is completely foreign to training in the other. Further, two 2-lb piercing weapons are also completely different than each other in terms of training, though we don’t even know what differences exist between the two in terms of appearance, balance, hilt, etc.

I don’t agree with that argument.



When you are attacking with a long bow from surprise you will get advantage which does make up for your lack of proficiency bonus, at least at low levels.

“Surprise”, or rather attacking when unseen, has nothing to do with training in 5e: trained and untrained characters alike will receive Advantage regardless of proficiency.


Above is the part you should have bolded. "Effectively" is important here, and in game terms it means being able to add your proficiency bonus to attacks with it.

I understand both what effectively means, and how proficiency works in 5e.

I’m stating that to me it makes more sense to have broader proficiencies that cover similar weapons.

If we’re using real life as our basis, the argument that a trained scimitar fighter who picks up a long sword is just as effective with the long sword as someone who’s never had a minute of training in either, isn’t convincing to me.

I believe the scimitar training will, in fact, transfer to the longsword, and they’ll be capable of attacks, feints, parries, etc., with the long sword, much more so than someone who’s never had scimitar or long sword training.

[Reach Weapon]

If we’re using real life as our basis
It seems to me that this is one of those places where 5E is more interested in being a game (with those types considerations) than in being a reality simulator.

Perhaps every explanation is unsatisfying because it's unnatural to the frame you're viewing it in?

[Psyren]

I understand both what effectively means, and how proficiency works in 5e.

I’m stating that to me it makes more sense to have broader proficiencies that cover similar weapons.

I'm not disparaging your understanding of the term, but longbows and shortbows have not been considered "similar weapons" in the way you seem to want for over three decades now if not more. At this point your best bet is probably going to be a houserule of some kind.

[RSP]

It seems to me that this is one of those places where 5E is more interested in being a game (with those types considerations) than in being a reality simulator.

Perhaps every explanation is unsatisfying because it's unnatural to the frame you're viewing it in?

Sure. That doesn’t change that I have a preference, though.

The preference is a system that makes more sense in how it views weapon proficiencies, and specifically, how it applies like weapons together.

Note: the system oddly already does this with improvised weapons. I personally don’t think a table leg is more similar to a club than a scimitar and long sword are, but others may feel differently.


I'm not disparaging your understanding of the term, but longbows and shortbows have not been considered "similar weapons" in the way you seem to want for over three decades now if not more. At this point your best bet is probably going to be a houserule of some kind.

“Similar weapons” is a very subjective term, so I’m not sure what authority you’re going off of. A long bow and a short bow are, in most ways, very similar.

Again, wouldn’t a 3’ gnome using a 3’ bow be similar mechanically to a 6’ human using a 6’ bow?

Another way to think of it: would it be reasonable for a DM to decide, using the Improvised Weapon rules, that a saber, a katana, or Wheel of Time’s heron-marked blades all count as long swords for proficiency and damage? I believe so.

Likewise, if scimitar wasn’t listed on the weapons table, wouldn’t it then be reasonable for a DM to likewise rule its similar enough to a long sword to count for proficiency and damage?

[Psyren]

“Similar weapons” is a very subjective term, so I’m not sure what authority you’re going off of. A long bow and a short bow are, in most ways, very similar.

But monks and rogues aren't known for using longbows. That's where the split comes from. A longbow is a weapon of open war, or maybe hunting, not a weapon of subterfuge. So I repeat my advice to houserule it, because if it hasn't changed in 4 editions not including PF, it's probably not going to.

[RSP]

But monks and rogues aren't known for using longbows. That's where the split comes from.

In what regard? The fantasy ideas behind Rogues or Monks has nothing to do with them using a “short bow” vs a “long bow”.

Using a short bow would, if we’re thinking in-game world, be far more practical than a long bow, for adventurers.

But that, in my opinion doesn’t mean either isn’t known for using “long bows”.

The game already is very simplified in how it views bows: as one poster mentioned, there’s no way in reality one could use a long bow from horseback, yet there’s no such restriction in 5e. Different bow sizes would use different arrow lengths as well. I’ve had plenty of DM’s have scenarios where the PCs are fighting in a 5’ tunnel, yet long bows aren’t impacted by the restricted space (and as there’s no description as to just how long a long bow is in 5e, or a rule stating they require X amount of space, they’d be making a houserule to do so).

5e already hand waives all of that and just reduces bows to “no difference but one is undefinedly longer, incurs Disadvantage for Small creatures, and does more damage.” Again, they even weigh the same, though realistically one is about twice the size of the other.

In-game proficiency doesn’t make much sense either, considering two PCs, neither of which has proficiency in Short Bows: a Wizard who’s never even seen a bow (of any type) in their life, much less held one; yet is equally adept with a short bow as an archer who’s trained on the long bow their entire life. That makes no sense to me.

Again, this is the same with scimitar vs long sword, or rapier vs short sword: they shouldn’t be unrelated weapons, in my opinion. If you’re trained in the long sword, you can translate that to a scimitar, in terms of using it effectively.

You may well be right that 5.5 won’t address this, but that doesn’t mean it makes sense that they do.

[Psyren]

In what regard? The fantasy ideas behind Rogues or Monks has nothing to do with them using a “short bow” vs a “long bow”.

The regard I described in the part you omitted. If that doesn't satisfy, fine, but that's my read on the situation.

[diplomancer]

In what regard? The fantasy ideas behind Rogues or Monks has nothing to do with them using a “short bow” vs a “long bow”.

Using a short bow would, if we’re thinking in-game world, be far more practical than a long bow, for adventurers.

But that, in my opinion doesn’t mean either isn’t known for using “long bows”.

The game already is very simplified in how it views bows: as one poster mentioned, there’s no way in reality one could use a long bow from horseback, yet there’s no such restriction in 5e. Different bow sizes would use different arrow lengths as well. I’ve had plenty of DM’s have scenarios where the PCs are fighting in a 5’ tunnel, yet long bows aren’t impacted by the restricted space (and as there’s no description as to just how long a long bow is in 5e, or a rule stating they require X amount of space, they’d be making a houserule to do so).

5e already hand waives all of that and just reduces bows to “no difference but one is undefinedly longer, incurs Disadvantage for Small creatures, and does more damage.” Again, they even weigh the same, though realistically one is about twice the size of the other.

In-game proficiency doesn’t make much sense either, considering two PCs, neither of which has proficiency in Short Bows: a Wizard who’s never even seen a bow (of any type) in their life, much less held one; yet is equally adept with a short bow as an archer who’s trained on the long bow their entire life. That makes no sense to me.

Again, this is the same with scimitar vs long sword, or rapier vs short sword: they shouldn’t be unrelated weapons, in my opinion. If you’re trained in the long sword, you can translate that to a scimitar, in terms of using it effectively.

You may well be right that 5.5 won’t address this, but that doesn’t mean it makes sense that they do.

One way I could see doing this and still have bounded accuracy would be to sort weapons into different groups, and having proficiency in one weapon in the group would give you half-proficiency in the others; but would this really make any difference in game play? Unlike for skill checks, where half-proficiency is better than zero, the cases when you'd WANT to use a weapon where you have half-proficiency will be few and far between, and for that reason, I don't think it'd be worth the added complexity of having to check weapon groups when you're attacking with a weapon different from your usual one. I'd say it's probably better to leave it as an ad hoc judgement by the DM, maybe with one paragraph in the DMG stating that this is an option.

[Pildion]

well..if you don't have longbow proficiency (i.e. rogues) and you don't want to use crossbows.

I'm not sure, the only thing that comes to mind is Rogue, but they want a crossbow, for more damage, as a rogue only attacks once a round. Any class that gets extra attack, also gets longbow. I'm honestly not sure you would ever use a shortbow.

[KorvinStarmast]

Is there ever a reason to use short bow, rather than long bow? Mechanically, of course. Yes. If you are a monk and want to use a ranged weapon, you are proficient with the short bow. (Elf Monks are also proficient with long bow).

[Pildion]

Yes. If you are a monk and want to use a ranged weapon, you are proficient with the short bow. (Elf Monks are also proficient with long bow).

I thought with Tasha's all monks could make longbow there "monk weapon"?

[KorvinStarmast]

Just like tennis rackets, cellos, hammers, spatulas or other tools, what you are familiar with affects your performance. Golf clubs ... :smalleek:

It seems to me that this is one of those places where 5E is more interested in being a game (with those types considerations) than in being a reality simulator. Yes.


I thought with Tasha's all monks could make longbow there "monk weapon"? I'll check, that doesn't ring a bell with me. Have not played any Tasha's monks yet, so that might be why it wasn't on the tip of my tongue.
EDIT/Follow Up: Long bow has 'heavy' property so I don't think that qualifies for the monk weapon thing in Tasha's. (It must lack the heavy and special properties)

[x3n0n]

I thought with Tasha's all monks could make longbow there "monk weapon"?

Dedicated Weapon does not allow weapons with the heavy property (nor special).
Kensei's Kensei Weapon feature has the same limitations, with an explicit exception for longbows.

[RSP]

One way I could see doing this and still have bounded accuracy would be to sort weapons into different groups, and having proficiency in one weapon in the group would give you half-proficiency in the others; but would this really make any difference in game play? Unlike for skill checks, where half-proficiency is better than zero, the cases when you'd WANT to use a weapon where you have half-proficiency will be few and far between, and for that reason, I don't think it'd be worth the added complexity of having to check weapon groups when you're attacking with a weapon different from your usual one. I'd say it's probably better to leave it as an ad hoc judgement by the DM, maybe with one paragraph in the DMG stating that this is an option.

I think 5e is at the point where specific weapon proficiency is not needed. With Tasha’s allowing moving proficiencies around, you can tailor how you want a PC to work.

Weapons themselves will already work themselves into, or out of a build. A Dex build won’t want to use a longsword, but why needless restrict, say, a Bladesinger from using a short sword on the sole reason of “but you picked rapier as your proficiency”.

Or, more on topic, if the long bow is simply a mechanical construct of better range and ~1 point of damage, why tell the Rogue they can’t use it. Is the game actually suffering if the Rogue gets to use a “long bow” rather than a “short bow”?

[KorvinStarmast]

Or, more on topic, if the long bow is simply a mechanical construct of better range and ~1 point of damage, why tell the Rogue they can’t use it. Is the game actually suffering if the Rogue gets to use a “long bow” rather than a “short bow”? I have read your initial post and your follow ups, and it seems to me a case of complaining just to complain. The weapons suite in 5e works well enough for the system that they are used in. If you are the DM you can choose to allow a rogue to use a longbow if it is really that important to you, the Weapons Master feat is available, you can play an elf (all of whom get Long bow proficiency) ... and so on.

[Lord Torath]

Has anyone read Tamora Pierce's Protector of the Small series? Keladry had been trained on foreign bows, and was now expected to be able to use a Tortallan short bow. At slow speeds, she was fine, but when rushed, she gripped the bow 2/3rds of the way down, pinched the arrows instead of gripping the string, and tended to draw the string back too far, resulting in dropped arrows.

If you're proficient in short bow, switching to an unfamiliar longbow would probably result in stumbles over pulling an arrow that's a foot or so longer than you're used to from your quiver and not drawing the bow back far enough, resulting in under-powered releases. You could still use it, and at your own speed on the archery field, you'd probably be as accurate as with the short bow. Rushed in combat, you're likely to try to fall back on your old muscle memory, which is not suited for the longbow.

[Psyren]

I'm not sure, the only thing that comes to mind is Rogue, but they want a crossbow, for more damage, as a rogue only attacks once a round. Any class that gets extra attack, also gets longbow.

Monk gets Extra Attack and doesn't get longbow (except for Kensei.) Moreover, monk/rogue is not an uncommon combination, especially shadow monk.

[RSP]

Golf clubs ... :smalleek:


If I ever get to my next ASI, I’m selecting Skill Expert for proficiency and expertise in golf clubs.

Really I’d be satisfied with “can use effectively”, but that hasn’t happened yet.


I have read your initial post and your follow ups, and it seems to me a case of complaining just to complain. The weapons suite in 5e works well enough for the system that they are used in. If you are the DM you can choose to allow a rogue to use a longbow if it is really that important to you, the Weapons Master feat is available, you can play an elf (all of whom get Long bow proficiency) ... and so on.

It’s a pet peeve. Weapons are already just mechanical applications that abstract however the player/DM want (again, they have no in-game descriptions other than mechanics). A katana and a bastard sword both equate to long swords in 5e, yet are more different in use than short swords and rapiers (which, if Wikipedia is to be believed is also a “long sword”: so technically rapiers and long swords are the same thing?).

Does it really increase fun to say “oh you found a magic scimitar but can’t use it without multiclasing or taking the worst feat in the game (Weapon Master), because it’s completely unfamiliar to your character, though they’re a master at long sword, short sword and rapiers.”

Weapon Master itself, being such a horrible feat, is evidence (again, in my opinion) of how bad the weapon proficiency system works.

More over, RAW, PCs can learn languages or learn to be a blacksmith, but are incapable of adapting their know-how of a long sword to a scimitar without learning all martial weapons via multiclass, or taking a horrible feat that teaches two other weapons as well.

Again, with all the changes and flexibility 5e has gone with (floating ASIs, switching proficiencies), the idea that knowing how to use a long bow has no bearing on using a short bow is just bizarre to me.

[Keltest]

"long sword" is not a technical term in real life. Historically it applied to whatever the longest contemporary blade was. In D&D terms youre looking at a knightly sword or a bastard sword for the longsword stats, and an arming sword for the shortsword stats. And this still isnt a perfect translation, but it gets you closer.

[RSP]

Has anyone read Tamora Pierce's Protector of the Small series? Keladry had been trained on foreign bows, and was now expected to be able to use a Tortallan short bow. At slow speeds, she was fine, but when rushed, she gripped the bow 2/3rds of the way down, pinched the arrows instead of gripping the string, and tended to draw the string back too far, resulting in dropped arrows.

If you're proficient in short bow, switching to an unfamiliar longbow would probably result in stumbles over pulling an arrow that's a foot or so longer than you're used to from your quiver and not drawing the bow back far enough, resulting in under-powered releases. You could still use it, and at your own speed on the archery field, you'd probably be as accurate as with the short bow. Rushed in combat, you're likely to try to fall back on your old muscle memory, which is not suited for the longbow.

Sure: but don’t you think a few hours of familiarization would get the user comfortable with the changes?

But also keep in mind, in 5e this isn’t a factor, at least not the arrows, as there is no such thing as “long bow arrows” vs “short bow arrows”.

Plus, is that archer in the story better off using the unfamiliar bow with their prior training, or would they be better with the unfamiliar bow if they’d never used any bow before?

[Keltest]

Sure: but don’t you think a few hours of familiarization would get the user comfortable with the changes?

But also keep in mind, in 5e this isn’t a factor, at least not the arrows, as there is no such thing as “long bow arrows” vs “short bow arrows”.

Plus, is that archer in the story better off using the unfamiliar bow with their prior training, or would they be better with the unfamiliar bow if they’d never used any bow before?

The short version is no. Theyre sufficiently different that being cross trained might actually be worse for an archer, since he has to unlearn the habits of the shortbow that dont work for the longbow.

[RSP]

"long sword" is not a technical term in real life. Historically it applied to whatever the longest contemporary blade was. In D&D terms youre looking at a knightly sword or a bastard sword for the longsword stats, and an arming sword for the shortsword stats. And this still isnt a perfect translation, but it gets you closer.

That is my understanding, and partly my point. Long sword doesn’t represent any specific weapon in 5e, but instead could be any number of historic weapons (other weapons have this to a lesser degree). That broad range of represented weapons include ones that aren’t horribly similar to each other, while also being more similar to say a scimitar (or a rapier, short sword).


Has anyone read Tamora Pierce's Protector of the Small series? Keladry had been trained on foreign bows, and was now expected to be able to use a Tortallan short bow. At slow speeds, she was fine, but when rushed, she gripped the bow 2/3rds of the way down, pinched the arrows instead of gripping the string, and tended to draw the string back too far, resulting in dropped arrows.

If you're proficient in short bow, switching to an unfamiliar longbow would probably result in stumbles over pulling an arrow that's a foot or so longer than you're used to from your quiver and not drawing the bow back far enough, resulting in under-powered releases. You could still use it, and at your own speed on the archery field, you'd probably be as accurate as with the short bow. Rushed in combat, you're likely to try to fall back on your old muscle memory, which is not suited for the longbow.

Sure: but don’t you think a few hours of familiarization would get the user comfortable with the changes?

But also keep in mind, in 5e this isn’t a factor, at least not the arrows, as there is no such thing as “long bow arrows” vs “short bow arrows”.

Plus, is that archer in the story better off using the unfamiliar bow with their prior training, or would they be better with the unfamiliar bow if they’d never used any bow before?

[Keltest]

That is my understanding, and partly my point. Long sword doesn’t represent any specific weapon in 5e, but instead could be any number of historic weapons (other weapons have this to a lesser degree). That broad range of represented weapons include ones that aren’t horribly similar to each other, while also being more similar to say a scimitar (or a rapier, short sword).

Ok, your understanding on the distinctions and similarities are incorrect. I dont know what more to tell you. The default longsword is a fairly specific sword style. Its not just "everything in history called a longsword, ever."

[RSP]

The short version is no. Theyre sufficiently different that being cross trained might actually be worse for an archer, since he has to unlearn the habits of the shortbow that dont work for the longbow.

Disagree, but if you think otherwise, it’s not worth arguing as neither opinion will out weigh the other. If your life experiences says similar things are harder to do, and mine say they’re easier, there’s no way to convince the other, I’m sure.

But I definitely disagree that it makes things more difficult.


Ok, your understanding on the distinctions and similarities are incorrect. I dont know what more to tell you. The default longsword is a fairly specific sword style. Its not just "everything in history called a longsword, ever."

On what are you basing this? What “default long sword” are you using? Is there a description I missed in the RAW (quite possible I did) or are you just assuming what you think of as a “long sword” is what everyone should play as a “long sword” in 5e?

[diplomancer]

I think 5e is at the point where specific weapon proficiency is not needed. With Tasha’s allowing moving proficiencies around, you can tailor how you want a PC to work.

Weapons themselves will already work themselves into, or out of a build. A Dex build won’t want to use a longsword, but why needless restrict, say, a Bladesinger from using a short sword on the sole reason of “but you picked rapier as your proficiency”.

Or, more on topic, if the long bow is simply a mechanical construct of better range and ~1 point of damage, why tell the Rogue they can’t use it. Is the game actually suffering if the Rogue gets to use a “long bow” rather than a “short bow”?

Yeah, I am very much against buffs to bladesingers. The weapon restriction is one of the few balancing factors to it. And if you don't want those restrictions, you could still be an Elf and get all the finesse weapons you are likely to need (or a Dwarf, with Tasha's).

From a balance standpoint, giving Long Bows to Rogues would make very little difference, except perhaps for kiting; as noted, they usually have only one attack, so a Light Crossbow is the same, except for Range (and Range rarely makes a difference, since 80' is plenty). As to whether it "fits" Rogues, I'd say it does, but I grew up on BECMI, where they were a Thief's main weapon.

[Snails]

A big part of simple vs martial weapons isn't just weapon complexity, but also "Could somebody have learned to use this weapon outside military contexts". A Dagger isn't a simple weapon because knife-fighting is easy, but because Daggers are common, and even basic peasants have a decent reason to have a big 'ol knife around, and can learn how to use it.

A Shortbow is a simple weapon, not because it's easy to use, but because it's the weapon of choice for hunters the world over, so while not everybody COULD use a shortbow, it was far easier for any given person to learn. A Longbow on the other hand is basically exclusively used in military contexts. One of the simplifications of D&D is that characters are given a wide range of proficiency. In reality, finding somebody trained in using both a greatsword and a longbow would be basically unheard of, those were both specialist weapons. D&D doesn't want to make a big game about picking which weapons your fighter can use, so they just hand out "Simple" and "Martial" weapon proficiency, and rarely go into picking and choosing specific weapons.

I think yours is the right way to look at it, coupled with the fact that D&D is just a game and it gives the benefit of the doubt to our hero PCs.

Your wizard might well have had opportunity to pick up a short bow in his youth, whether he was a peasant child or had a loftier heritage with family members who liked to hunt from horseback. The wizard is skilled with a short bow if the player decides the PC's background allows for it. The rules just say it is not the DM's job to worry about this level of detail.

Realistically, a Fighter may or may not be skilled with any kind of bow. Who is to say? The player. Dare to roleplay who your character is.

[RSP]

Yeah, I am very much against buffs to bladesingers. The weapon restriction is one of the few balancing factors to it.

I’m not sure we agree on what constitutes a “buff” and how “balancing” it is.

What exactly do you think unbalances if a Bladesinger could, say, use long swords and scimitars, as opposed to just scimitars?

[Keltest]

On what are you basing this? What “default long sword” are you using? Is there a description I missed in the RAW (quite possible I did) or are you just assuming what you think of as a “long sword” is what everyone should play as a “long sword” in 5e?



Well its got the versatile property but not the two handed property, so anything that is exclusively one or two handed is out. Scimitars and rapiers are accounted for as well already. It cant be an arming sword since those are short swords (as well as typically one handed only). That leaves us with knightly swords/bastard swords.

[RSP]

Well its got the versatile property but not the two handed property, so anything that is exclusively one or two handed is out. Scimitars and rapiers are accounted for as well already. It cant be an arming sword since those are short swords (as well as typically one handed only). That leaves us with knightly swords/bastard swords.

Why can’t they be katanas or heron-marked blades? Dar’s one-sided blade in Beastmaster? The Dread Pirate Roberts and Zorro both use slashing swords that are rapiers (which obviously can’t be 5e Rapiers as those are exclusively piercing weapons), which would be long swords or scimitars in 5e.

I think you’re assuming 5e long swords need to be something they don’t have to be.

[Keltest]

Why can’t they be katanas or heron-marked blades? Dar’s one-sided blade in Beastmaster? The Dread Pirate Roberts and Zorro both use slashing swords that are rapiers (which obviously can’t be 5e Rapiers as those are exclusively piercing weapons), which would be long swords or scimitars in 5e.

I think you’re assuming 5e long swords need to be something they’re not.

Well the obvious answer is that katanas are not long swords and are not actually natively supported by the 5e system. If you want to use a katana, you can use a longsword's stats with minimal disruption. Dar's sword looks like a pretty classic scimitar to me. Zorro is using a sword that would fall under the umbrella of rapier (which can be bladed even if they are primarily thrusting weapons).

According to google, "heron-marked blade" is not a single blade type, but rather an ornamentation on a blade, so I'm not sure what youre getting at there.

[RSP]

Well the obvious answer is that katanas are not long swords and are not actually natively supported by the 5e system. If you want to use a katana, you can use a longsword's stats with minimal disruption. Dar's sword looks like a pretty classic scimitar to me. Zorro is using a sword that would fall under the umbrella of rapier (which can be bladed even if they are primarily thrusting weapons).

According to google, "heron-marked blade" is not a single blade type, but rather an ornamentation on a blade, so I'm not sure what youre getting at there.

Heron-marked blades are the swords of blade masters in Wheel of Time, they’re one-sided blades that can be used single or two-handed.

Dar’s sword is versatile, so fails as a scimitar (though you thinking that’s what it most closely represents just supports my argument that there isn’t an in-game difference enough to support separate proficiency).

You didn’t actually offer evidence why katanas aren’t long swords in 5e.

Zorro and DPR both use their weapons as slashing (and piercing) so could be rapiers or long swords, depending on how it’s used.

Again, if you have something rule-based supporting your long sword determination, I’d like to see it; but all those listed swords can be long swords per what we have to go by in 5e, so far as I’ve seen in the rules.

[Gignere]

I just realized that at least in Chinese martial arts and weapons there is changjian (literally translate into long sword) and duanjian (literally short sword), I wonder if Gygax got inspiration for his weapon naming convention from the same badly dubbed martial arts flicks he got inspiration for the monk.

[Keltest]

Heron-marked blades are the swords of blade masters in Wheel of Time. Dar’s sword is versatile, so fails as a scimitar. You didn’t actually offer evidence why katanas aren’t long swords. Zorro and DPR both use their weapons as slashing (and piercing) so could be rapiers or long swords, depending on how it’s used.

Again, if you have something rule-based supporting your long sword determination, I’d like to see it; but all those can be long swords per what we have to go by in 5e, so far as I’ve seen in the rules.

Doing some more googling, your Heron-marked blades are not real. As in they have no historical equivalent. So thats why they arent in D&D or supported by the system, much like Cloud's buster sword doesnt have a good analogue.

As far as katanas go, you are the one who needs to prove they ARE longswords. The burden of proof is on the one making the claim, to say nothing of the fact that you cant prove a negative. Its like asking me why a rock isnt a window. This is moot anyway, because the DMG specifically calls out Katanas as an alternative to the longsword if youre playing an eastern inspired campaign, IE theyre not the default assumption.

And for Zorro and Dar, theyre using their weapons at a level of simulation that D&D simply doesnt cover. If you want to be Dar, feel free to ask your DM for a custom scimitar with the versatile property. Much like the Heron-marked blade, it doesnt have a 1:1 real world equivalent, because in any situation where a curved blade was superior to a straight blade, you were using your off hand for something. Im sure you could find an example of a scimitar somewhere in the world that can be used two handed, but the vast majority of them were used either mounted, with a shield or both, and so didnt need the versatility.

[RSP]

Doing some more googling, your Heron-marked blades are not real. As in they have no historical equivalent. So thats why they arent in D&D or supported by the system, much like Cloud's buster sword doesnt have a good analogue.

Um, well, none of the 5e swords are real: it’s literally a fantasy game. Dar’s sword isn’t “a historic equivalent” either: also just a fantasy depiction. In fact, I’d say the majority of what 5e draws from (mainly fantasy literature with some more recent movies thrown in), isn’t based on anything historic. Tolkien, for instance, appears to be a big influence on D&D in general, yet isn’t historic.

I’m not sure why that now would be some big issue.



As far as katanas go, you are the one who needs to prove they ARE longswords. The burden of proof is on the one making the claim, to say nothing of the fact that you cant prove a negative. Its like asking me why a rock isnt a window.

Again, katanas are slashing weapons that fit the versatile property. That’s what we have to go on in 5e. That is the extent of the proof.



And for Zorro and Dar, theyre using their weapons at a level of simulation that D&D simply doesnt cover. If you want to be Dar, feel free to ask your DM for a custom scimitar with the versatile property. Much like the Heron-marked blade, it doesnt have a 1:1 real world equivalent, because in any situation where a curved blade was superior to a straight blade, you were using your off hand for something. Im sure you could find an example of a scimitar somewhere in the world that can be used two handed, but the vast majority of them were used either mounted, with a shield or both, and so didnt need the versatility.

D&D and 5e definitely cover fantasy aspects like those weapons.

I’ve still yet to see any proof that a 5e long sword must be what you say it must be.

[Keltest]

I’m, non of the 5e swords are real: it’s literally a fantasy game. Dar’s sword isn’t “a historic equivalent” either: also just a fantasy depiction. In fact, I’d say the majority of what 5e draws from (mainly fantasy literature with some more recent movies thrown in), isn’t based on anything historic. Tolkien, for instance, appears to be a big influence on D&D in general, yet isn’t historic.

I’m not sure why that now would be one some big issue. Because D&D items are (at least loosely) based on historical weapon families, not trying to create stats for every imaginary weapon from every fantasy. Its D&D, not the Beastmaster or Wheel of Time Roleplaying Game. Separate your IPs.



Again, katanas are slashing weapons that fit the versatile property. That’s what we have to go on in 5e. That is the extent of the proof. And again, if you want to have a katana, use the longsword stat block and just call it a katana. Nothing breaks, thats the intended method. Its just assumed to not be a katana unless you deliberately make it otherwise.



D&D and 5e definitely cover fantasy aspects like those weapons.

I’ve still yet to see any proof that a 5e long sword must be what you say it must be.

If process of elimination isnt proof enough, then youre just going to have to be disappointed.

[BRC]

It's an edition and a half behind, but This image https://www.masterthedungeon.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/DNDWeapons4-1024x792.jpg.webp
Is from the 3.5 PHB, showing what the developers thought of as examples for the different weapon types.


About as close as we're going to get to a "Canon" answer on what exactly qualifies as a Longsword.

[RSP]

Because D&D items are (at least loosely) based on historical weapon families, not trying to create stats for every imaginary weapon from every fantasy. Its D&D, not the Beastmaster or Wheel of Time Roleplaying Game. Separate your IPs.

So, again, the long sword doesn’t represent any specific weapon, but rather a grouping of weapons that have similar properties (slashing and versatile in the long swords case). Therefore any weapon that fits that mold, is a 5e longsword.

Historical context isn’t what drives 5e, though, so I’d omit that. It draws way more from fantasy than real life.



And again, if you want to have a katana, use the longsword stat block and just call it a katana. Nothing breaks, thats the intended method. Its just assumed to not be a katana unless you deliberately make it otherwise.

Why is it assumed to be anything specific? You’ve yet to give any rules evidence to support this stance.



If process of elimination isnt proof enough, then youre just going to have to be disappointed.

Except you just agreed that isn’t the case and that other weapons fit the bill of “long sword”, so I have no idea why anything has been “eliminated”.


It's an edition and a half behind, but This image https://www.masterthedungeon.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/DNDWeapons4-1024x792.jpg.webp
Is from the 3.5 PHB, showing what the developers thought of as examples for the different weapon types.


About as close as we're going to get to a "Canon" answer on what exactly qualifies as a Longsword.

Not relevant to 5e, though.

[Keltest]

So, again, the long sword doesn’t represent any specific weapon, but rather a grouping of weapons that have similar properties (slashing and versatile in the long swords case). Therefore any weapon that fits that mold, is a 5e longsword.

Historical context isn’t what drives 5e, though, so I’d omit that. It draws way more from fantasy than real life.

Technically, every weapon is a family rather than a single specific thing. Two scimitars made by different smiths for different people will not be identical. But theyre both scimitars because theyre close enough to each other. D&D is a couple layers of abstraction above that.


Why is it assumed to be anything specific? You’ve yet to give any rules evidence to support this stance. Because thats how language works. When somebody says "longsword" they dont mean "rapier" because we have "rapier" as a category already.



Except you just agreed that isn’t the case and that other weapons fit the bill of “long sword”, so I have no idea why anything has been “eliminated”.

Why not? I laid out my logic pretty clearly fairly early on. I guess we can add in the extra step of "anything that isnt a historical weapon doesnt get a stat block by default." If you dont understand something, please ask me to explain, dont just say I never provided anything in the first place.

[diplomancer]

I’m not sure we agree on what constitutes a “buff” and how “balancing” it is.

What exactly do you think unbalances if a Bladesinger could, say, use long swords and scimitars, as opposed to just scimitars?

Magic items; though a Bladesinger will rarely want to use a Long Sword, since it's Str-based. But the decision between choosing Rapier, Short Swords or Scimitars is a real decision, and one that would be taken away if it was just "eh, you know one, might as well know the others too".

and, at very early levels, sheer availability of weapons. My Goblin Bladesinger had to start with daggers as he couldn't afford two short swords; then I ran into a bunch of people wielding scimitars. I'd have switched, but couldn't as I had no proficiency.

[RSP]

Magic items; though a Bladesinger will rarely want to use a Long Sword, since it's Str-based. But the decision between choosing Rapier, Short Swords or Scimitars is a real decision, and one that would be taken away if it was just "eh, you know one, might as well know the others too".

and, at very early levels, sheer availability of weapons. My Goblin Bladesinger had to start with daggers as he couldn't afford two short swords; then I ran into a bunch of people wielding scimitars. I'd have switched, but couldn't as I had no proficiency.

How is excluding the use of magic items presented to the character more fun than letting them use magic items?

I mean, you’re detailing a scenario where it’s basically “man that would be fun to have but I can’t.” I get that some DMs like random magic items or just stick to what’s in a module, but if a magic item is in a module, it’s expectation is, I’d assume, to be used. Preventing that seems like a less fun version of 5e.

Kind of like if you say your campaign is no magic items, then constantly drop magic items as loot for your players but tell them they can’t use them because it’s no magic items.

(Note: I haven’t specifically argued for scrapping the difference between piercing weapons and slashing weappns, in terms of proficiency, so this isn’t a great argument against what I stated, as it doesn’t apply; however, I don’t know how presenting the group with magic items they can’t use, as opposed to ones they can, makes 5e more fun for the players.)

[diplomancer]

How is excluding the use of magic items presented to the character more fun than letting them use magic items?

I mean, you’re detailing a scenario where it’s basically “man that would be fun to have but I can’t.” I get that some DMs like random magic items or just stick to what’s in a module, but if a magic item is in a module, it’s expectation is, I’d assume, to be used. Preventing that seems like a less fun version of 5e.

Kind of like if you say your campaign is no magic items, then constantly drop magic items as loot for your players but tell them they can’t use them because it’s no magic items.

(Note: I haven’t specifically argued for scrapping the difference between piercing weapons and slashing weappns, in terms of proficiency, so this isn’t a great argument against what I stated, as it doesn’t apply; however, I don’t know how presenting the group with magic items they can’t use, as opposed to ones they can, makes 5e more fun for the players.)

The question was "how is it a buff to bladesingers to give them proficiency in Long Swords for free when they choose scimitars", and my answer was "magical items". A Bladesinger in Curse of Strahd who chose Scimitar as his melee weapon can't use the Sun Sword, even though it is finesse and he would very much like to. Being able to use the Sun Sword is a definite boost to that Bladesinger.

Is it unfun being unable to use a particular magic item? Perhaps. But it's also unfun for a Fighter not to be able to cast 9th level spells, so I'm OK with a Bladesinger not being able to get weapon proficiencies for free... and even if no one in the part can use a particular Magic Item, that is still a story lead, as they try to find a way to swap it for something more beneficial.

[RSP]

Technically, every weapon is a family rather than a single specific thing. Two scimitars made by different smiths for different people will not be identical. But theyre both scimitars because theyre close enough to each other. D&D is a couple layers of abstraction above that.

Sure, and I wouldn’t suggest dropping a prof bonus applied to using a scimitar of a different maker. Just like a scimitar vs a Dar sword shouldn’t equal dropping prof.



Because thats how language works. When somebody says "longsword" they dont mean "rapier" because we have "rapier" as a category already.

Disagree: language works to support long sword=rapier because long sword has in fact meant rapier. Long sword has also meant great sword.

The 5e rules, though, say a rapier is piercing and a long sword is slashing, therefore a long sword cannot be a rapier in 5e. So again, a slashing rapier is a long sword in 5e because that’s how it qualifies.



Why not? I laid out my logic pretty clearly fairly early on. I guess we can add in the extra step of "anything that isnt a historical weapon doesnt get a stat block by default." If you dont understand something, please ask me to explain, dont just say I never provided anything in the first place.

You saying “5e weapons only represent historical weapons as decided by Keltest” is not proof that 5e weapons only represent the historical weapons you want them to.

You still haven’t shown any support in the 5e rules for this.

As another poster stated, the Chinese language has long swords and short swords as well: why can’t those be considered long swords and short swords in 5e?


The question was "how is it a buff to bladesingers to give them proficiency in Long Swords for free when they choose scimitars", and my answer was "magical items". A Bladesinger in Curse of Strahd who chose Scimitar as his melee weapon can't use the Sun Sword, even though it is finesse and he would very much like to. Being able to use the Sun Sword is a definite boost to that Bladesinger.

Is it unfun being unable to use a particular magic item? Perhaps. But it's also unfun for a Fighter not to be able to cast 9th level spells, so I'm OK with a Bladesinger not being able to get weapon proficiencies for free... and even if no one in the part can use a particular Magic Item, that is still a story lead, as they try to find a way to swap it for something more beneficial.

Being able to use the Sun Sword is a boost to any character that uses the Sun Sword. The Bladesinger isn’t broken by it, nor is it given a boost more than any other class (less than some Id say). Plus, the Bladesinger could very well use the Sun Sword, you’ve just chosen a specific scenario where that isn’t the case, but any standard Elven Weapon Training Bladesinger can use it.

I don’t see how that’s a buff.

[Reach Weapon]

How is excluding the use of magic items presented to the character more fun than letting them use magic items?
Rather than argue the supposed fun of game-level crap like balancing powers, meaningful choices or any of that, I'll just ask if most of your complaints go away if it was relatively easy for (magic) weapons to be shifted from one weapon name/category to another?

Like if most any decent-sized town or character with an appropriate tool proficiency "restrings", "glues" or whatever short bows to long bows and back, or "re-profiles", "grinds", "fits-up" scimitars to daggers and vis-a-versa, are the hard lines between them still an issue?

[RSP]

Rather than argue the supposed fun of game-level crap like balancing powers, meaningful choices or any of that, I'll just ask if most of your complaints go away if it was relatively easy for (magic) weapons to be shifted from one weapon name/category to another?

Like if most any decent-sized town or character with an appropriate tool proficiency "restrings", "glues" or whatever short bows to long bows and back, or "re-profiles", "grinds", "fits-up" scimitars to daggers and vis-a-versa, are the hard lines between them still an issue?

I’m all for DMs who give magic items to Players, to give items that’ll be useful to the Players. My pet peeve is moot if all weapons dropped are useable by members of the group.

However, it’s still a pet peeve that the system views like weapons as completely different (even though different weapons fit into their simplified weapon mechanics).

As a DM, I’m not going to drop a nice magical halberd as the first magic weapon available to the party if no one in the party is able to use it (barring some specific reason like that halberd is a carrot for an NPC they’ve negotiated with for other benefits).

I’m not sure what benefit there is to a DM giving the group stuff they can’t use (unless they have a robust magic item trade system, I guess, which lets the group trade unwanted items for equivalent wanted items).

(Also, just in case anyone wanted to know how much of a pet peeve this is for me - I know, you probably don’t - my last 3 characters (which goes back a few years now), were made to fit this view of like weapons. So, for instance, I had a Half Elf Sorc that took Elven Weapon Training variant, then using Tasha’s (and DM approval), dropped the bow proficiencies to cover the in-game gap of knowing how to use a long sword but not a scimitar, a short sword but not a rapier. The PC used Shadow Blade when in melee so all those profs were moot (particularly Long Sword as it was a Dex build and had a much better Dex). I just wanted to have the in-game fiction make sense in my mind)

[anamiac]

So, the longbow and shortbow make some sense in medieval England 900 years ago, where there were some very nice options, but not a lot of variety. However, if you take the larger picture, they don't make much sense at all. The Mongols used horse bows that D&D would call a shortbow, but they were made out of composite materials and had a draw weight equal to any longbow. You could make a composite bow of any strength level, but they were more expensive and easier to break.

I would have six types of bow, and classes would either have proficiency with all bows or none.





Type
Requires
Damage
Cost
Durability
Horseback? Sneaky?


Light, straight bow
--
d6
25
10hp
no


Light, recurve bow
--
d6
75
5hp
yes


medium, straight bow (aka longbow)
str 14
d8
50
10hp
no


medium, recurve bow (aka shortbow)
str 14
d8
150
5hp
yes


Heavy, straight bow (aka greatbow)
str 18
d10
125
10hp
no


Heavy, recurve bow (aka greatbow)
str 18
d10
400
5hp
yes

[animorte]

Long bows might result in you being flat-footed when the royal vizier makes his play for the throne and sends in assassins to kill you all, because you're still bowing while other things are happening around you. Thus, it might sometimes be in your best interests to make a short and respectful bow rather than a long and groveling bow.

How did nobody else take a minute to stop and appreciate this impressive example?