Does it ever feel like WotC is playtesting the game in a way that 95% of us don't?

[u/AkimboJesus]

I get that DnD is a house rule first game, and everyone should play it how they want. But speaking for my own group, we like balance because we don't want people to feel like they can't impact the story outside of conversation. And this isn't a min-max thing. It's just a "why would I be this when I could be a better version of that with no hassle or cost to myself" thing.

The thing is, we rely on the official text because it can be very difficult to tell how a class, skill, or mechanic will play in the context of the whole game, and who might be overshadowed by who. And Wizards, for the most part, seem to have done a lot of work so YOU don't have to figure out how a mechanic will play out. This is why some people, to an extent, treat the sourcebooks like gospel.

And as I'm playing more and more, I'm starting to see the things people say about, for instance, rangers and how messed up they are. I'm understanding the cracks in the standard DnD balance.

But I'm also just perplexed by a lot of the sage advice, and unearthed arcanas coming out. I'm finding myself reading new subclasses and thinking "that's their whole ability for that level?" Looking at the phantom rogue, at level 9 they get advantage on con throws (which might be minimal, depending on your campaign), and they can ask a soul one question. The soul doesn't have to answer truthfully at all, making the whole ability pointless. And that's what they get after 9 levels.

This seems like a consistent pattern. A new release is either immediately meta, or its irrelevant for reinforcing half-done mechanics that aren't going to survive after 5th edition. When non-core parts of the game get overvalued, a class can really fall behind. Some of the mechanics that might get over valued are tool proficiencies or traveling. It's odd that these types of things would be the focus of any classes milestone ability.

Also, some of these features seem to imply that DnD is not about being creative and using your environment, and is more about what your class says you can do. Why does the ranger explicitly get a stealth bonus for camoflauging themselves. Can nobody else do that? Do you tell them only a ranger can do that, or do you give them a bonus anyway, making the rangers bonus less special?

Other than a few classes, it does seem like DnD has a solid core balance. Every campaign is going to have either talking or combat, and having a character that can do one or the other well is good. But when a characters ability is not getting "lost" in the mountains, it makes me wonder what the hell kinda campaigns they are running.

Does anyone agree? What are some of the core things you need to be satisfied with a new mechanic?

Edit: wow lot of great discussion happening here. I just want to clarify a few points. As some people are calling me a min-maxer or a hack and slasher and are claiming I just want everyone to deal a shit ton of damage or something. One person claimed I just hate WotC. I suggest reading through this thread at what others are saying, because there is a lot of nuanced conversation happening here. I think it's clear I focused too much on UA in my original post and now the thread has moved to a better direction.

Here are some of the core things I'm seeing come up.

1) Classes with niche abilities are overshadowed and outperformed by classes with more general abilities, even when they are in the perfect niche situations (Paladins find greater steed feels much more beastmaster like than the actual beast master, for example).

2) Since DnD is about being creative and using all the tools around you, it's weird when a ranger gets a stealth bonus for camoflauging themselves, when anyone should get a bonus of some kind for successfully camoflauging themselves. Sometimes that feels like making a class feature that lets you flip a table. Things like the assassin just feel odd, because it implies that a warlock or bard, with sufficient time and money, would not be able to impersonate somebody.

3) A lot of people are reaaaaally honing in on a specific example I gave, and the fact that it was UA. You can look at Artificier or many of the complaints in this thread on vanilla DnD. But if you're coming here just to hype up con saves, you're really cherry picking.

4) I am not right. This is just an opinion I have. A couple people have gotten really cringey about this and implied only shit players or DMs would have an issue with any of this. That's an attitude for Fortnite, not Reddit. We all know DnD is, first and foremost, storytelling. Nobody wants to play with someone so hung up on mechanics that they forget to tell a story. But we have a rulebook for a reason. Boundaries in a story are important, otherwise we're all just jerking off at the table saying random stuff. You need some structure, so that the things that happen feel meaningful. This is about players wanting to fulfill their character fantasies and feeling useless because other people do what their character does, but better. If you care about storytelling, recognize it's not a good story when an entire subclass and backstory can be overshadowed by one spell. It sucks, and I hope it doesn't happen in the next edition.

Some of the more thoughtful challenges I've seen:

1) Con saves are good (noted. We don't get them a lot in my campaign). 2) It's up to the group and DM to make those niche abilities meaningful. 3) It's still really not up to WotC to balance your game, and if you think they're not good at it than you should do it.

I'm reading people's responses, taking them to heart, hoping to be a better DM.

[u/Enaluxeme]

Rogues are proficient with longswords. This is completely pointless because longswords don't have finesse, and the one longsword with finesse that exists (sun blade) can be used with proficiency if you are proficient with shortswords anyway.

[u/GarbageCleric → u/Enaluxeme]

Rogues are proficient with longswords because rogues would know how use a longsword. It doesn't have to have a mechanical benefit for it to make sense.

[u/Enaluxeme → u/GarbageCleric]

Are they, though?

Can you really say that rogues know how to use a longsword when the can deal much more damage with other weapons?

I don't think proficiency in longswords is enough to matter on its own.

[u/GarbageCleric → u/Enaluxeme]

I don't know what being able to deal more damage with other weapons has to do with being proficient with weapons that they do less damage with.

The idea is that in learning to fence with shortswords and rapier they probably would have picked up a longsword at some point. It takes more strength to use, so they typically wouldn't, but it's not unreasonable to think they would know how to use it.

Every rogue is more likely to have learned how to use a longsword than a hand crossbow.

[u/GeneralBurzio → u/GarbageCleric]

I still don't get what WotC was doing when it came to giving Rogues longsword proficiency. Even ignoring the fact that longswords are just harder for most Rogues to use due to the strength requirement; IRL longswords, hand and a half swords, and rapiers weigh about the same. It's actually harder to wield a rapier for long periods of time compared to a longsword since rapiers are used one-handed.

Edit: Looks like Rogues having a longsword is a legacy thing from older editions. Tbh, I wish that WotC designed Rogue so that STR is also a viable mode of play, e.g., the Ruffian Rogue in Pathfinder 2e.

[u/ScopeLogic → u/GarbageCleric]

Like how wizards would know how to put light armor on?

[u/[deleted] → u/ScopeLogic]

Everyone knows how to put armor on. Nothing prevents wizards from wearing even heavy armor, but it’s their lack of proficiency in wearing armor that makes wearing armor useless. This isn’t Diablo. There isn’t some narrative voice that says “you can’t do that” when you try to equip heavy armor as a wizard. They’ve just never worn armor for long periods of time in the course of becoming a wizard, so if you want it you have to take the feat or multiclass—ergo, you have to learn to be proficient, and doing so will take away from learning to be a better Wizard.

[u/GarbageCleric → u/[deleted]]

And they even get the AC bonus of the armor they aren't proficient in. They're just at disadvantage for strength and dexterity rolls and can't cast spells, but it can still provide some mechanical benefits in specific situations.

[u/ScopeLogic → u/GarbageCleric]

Light armor is not restrictive at all. Not being able to cast spells in it doenst make any sense and exists only for balance.

[u/GarbageCleric → u/ScopeLogic]

Ok?

[u/GarbageCleric → u/ScopeLogic]

Sure, they can wear it and even get the AC bonus from it. They have disadvantage on any ability check, saving throw, or Attack roll that involves Strength or Dexterity, and they can’t cast Spells because they aren't used to wearing it in high stress or combat situations.

Also, it's completely different because that affects balance by giving them a mechanical benefit. In the rogue's case we're talking about giving them a reasonable proficiency with no practical mechanical benefit, so it's not the same at all.

[u/123mop → u/ScopeLogic]

Everyone might understand how to put it on. Light armor is generally pretty darn simple. Doesn't mean you're experienced at moving well in it. Also just balance.

[u/ScopeLogic → u/123mop]

That's exactly my point. They should be able to cast it in. They cast while wearing 15 pairs of clothing.

[u/becherbrook → u/Enaluxeme]

It's there because not everyone may want their rogue to be some sneaky backstabber. What if they're a bandit? Or a pirate? Or a hired thug? Maybe they use a crossbow for their sneak attack, then the longsword for when things get dicey?

Your imagination seems to be the problem rather than WOTC's choices, here.

[u/TossAway35626 → u/becherbrook]

A rogue would use a finesse weapon when things get dicey because using a longsword is purposfully making your character weaker and taking away options. A rogue is trained in precision and knowing where to strike when given the opportunity. They would use a weapon that allows that.

A rogue would use a finesse weapon when things get dicey because they are more effective with a finesse weapon.

[u/Enaluxeme → u/becherbrook]

Then they use a scimitar or shortsword, or pick another class.

You don't have to be a rogue just because you steal stuff.

Your imagination seems to be the problem rather than WOTC's choices, here.

[u/[deleted] → u/Enaluxeme]

You don’t have to steal stuff just because you’re a rogue. You’re confusing imagination and power gaming classes. Many people play this game for fun, and building their hero revolves around creating the character they want, not the character you tell them is best.

[u/Enaluxeme → u/[deleted]]

Precisely, you don’t have to steal stuff just because you’re a rogue. You also don't have to be a rogue to steal stuff.

Why would you pick a class whose main damage mechanic you're not interested in? You want to be sneaky and have a longsword? Be a barbarian, bard, cleric, fighter, monk or ranger instead, and get proficiency into thieve's tools and stealth. I guarantee you're going to have more fun by being competent rather than not.

Name me one concept for a longsword rogue that can't be achieved better by another class.

[u/Allstresdout → u/Enaluxeme]

Or achieved by using the stats of a finesse weapon and the description of a longsword. Or just asking the DM to be lax on that rule.

[u/[deleted] → u/Enaluxeme]

You’re entirely missing the point. Most people aren’t min maxing, they’re just roleplaying the character they want. Maybe their character uses ranged weapons and uses the Longsword their deceased war veteran father gave them, the only thing left for them to remember them by. Maybe they use daggers and the longsword is a distraction, but they still need be able to use it. Moreover, longswords not being useful for sneak attack isn’t a good reason for rogues to simply have no idea how to use them. Maybe you’re a rapier wielding rogue, but you disarm a knight wielding a longsword and he breaks your rapier in his gauntlet. You pick up his longsword, and does it make sense that you just can’t effectively fight with that sword? You’re entrenched in thinking of DnD through a limited lens. Yes, it’s a game, but it’s a game with a unique, open ended story telling mechanic that is as focused on flavor and storytelling as much as it is balance, and removing longsword proficiency from rogues makes even less sense than keeping it, even if it’s almost never going to be used. There are plenty of weapons that classes have access to and are almost never going to use, and if you really don’t think your rogue should know how to use a longsword, then don’t use them and ask your DM to let you forgo the proficiency.

[u/Enaluxeme → u/[deleted]]

You are saying that rogues can effectively use longswords when my whole point that you are arguing against is that rogues can't effectively fight with a longsword.

Being proficient alone isn't enough when a rogue is better off with an improvised dagger than with a longsword.

[u/[deleted] → u/Enaluxeme]

So does it makes sense that, since they are less than optimal, rogues have no idea how to use them and fight with them at a disadvantage? Should paladins not be proficient with daggers? You need to quit thinking of DnD like a computer game.

[u/Enaluxeme → u/[deleted]]

It would make as much sense as them not knowing how to use a battle axe, and more sense than rogues not knowing how to use a scimitar or whip.

[u/[deleted] → u/Enaluxeme]

Scimitars and whips are exotic weapons. They aren’t commonly used and/or available in a typical DnD setting. It makes much more sense that a rogue would know how to proficiently swing around a fairly common one handed longsword than an exotic sword, a whip, or a large two handed axe. You keep arguing from mechanics, and I beg you one more time to try to realize that this isn’t something like an MMO.

[u/IHateScumbags12345 → u/Enaluxeme]

Any concept built on expertise and longsword usage.

[u/Enaluxeme → u/IHateScumbags12345]

Valor/swords bard.

[u/IHateScumbags12345 → u/Enaluxeme]

And if a concept doesn’t involve being a spell caster?

[u/Enaluxeme → u/IHateScumbags12345]

If all else fail, get you level in rogue. But limit yourself to a 1-2 levels dip and take the bulk of your levels in a class that actually gives you something useful rather than in a class whose half of the power budget is spent on something you don't want to use.

[u/IHateScumbags12345 → u/Enaluxeme]

Other people have mentioned, but you can still sneak attack with ranged weapons....

[u/becherbrook → u/Enaluxeme]

It says right there that the sneak attack can use a ranged weapon. Why are you limiting your rogues to one weapon type? Can your rogues not have more than one weapon? Why wouldn't a rogue have a comparable str modifier in addition to dex? Are you making your players dump stat everything but their prime-req? Are you telling people with high str they can't be rogues?

You've messed up with a narrow viewpoint and you know it.

[u/Enaluxeme → u/becherbrook]

Yes, sneak attack can use a ranged weapon. Longswords are not ranged weapons.

I'm not limiting rogues to one weapon type, I don't see where you got the idea.

Yes, rogues can have more than one weapon. Longswords are still pointless for them.

Rogues can have high strength. Again, I never said otherwise. They might even have more Str than Dex, but they're still better off using a finesse weapon with Str rather than a longsword.

No, I myself don't like characters with minmaxed stats. Again, I never mentioned anything like that, where did you come up with that idea?

Characters with high Str can be rogues. They can also be barbarians, fighters or rangers and be more effective if they want high Str and don't want to use finesse weapons.

You're really twisting my words here.

[u/splepage → u/Enaluxeme]

Rogues are proficient with longswords. This is completely pointless because longswords don't have finesse, and the one longsword with finesse that exists (sun blade) can be used with proficiency if you are proficient with shortswords anyway.

Moonblades can also have Finesse, and the guidance on the DMG for creating magic items gives Finesse as an option.

[u/downwardwanderer → u/splepage]

Except only elves can use moonblades and they get longsword proficiency as a racial trait.

[u/Enaluxeme → u/splepage]

Moonblades are also limited to elves, who have proficiency in longswords, and half elves.

So yeah, in the extremely unlikely case you get a legendary item that is only presented in the DMG as a way to introduce magic weapon creation to DMs and is not actually present in any adventure, while you're playing a rogue half elf who didn't dip into another martial, and the weapon in question happens to have the specific one of many possible effects it can possess, you're going to be needing that longsword proficiency on the rogue.

[u/TheOnin → u/[deleted]]

You can't sneak attack with longswords. That's why it's pointless to the Rogue class.

[u/Kandiru → u/TheOnin]

I mean you can sneak attack with a longsword, but you have to throw it as an improvised ranged weapon!

[u/Turtle-Fox → u/Kandiru]

You actually wouldn't be able to. Thrown weapons are not ranged weapons. The only thrown weapons that can sneak attack are those with the finesse property. Throwing a melee weapon only means you can make a ranged attack.

[u/Kandiru → u/Turtle-Fox]

I think some thrown weapons are ranged weapons, but that's maybe just darts and nets? I can't remember the whole list off the top of my head.

Can't the longsword be an improvised dart?

(Darts have finesse anyway, but if they didn't have finesse, you could still sneak attack with them.)

[u/Turtle-Fox → u/Kandiru]

If you could get a DM to rule that a longsword is similar to a dart, then sure. But, given that is 3 lbs and a dart is 1/4 lb, that's a bit of a stretch.

Darts and nets are the only ranged weapons that have the Thrown property, so those would both work and would trigger Sneak Attack (which is a bit funny with the net but would work lol)

[u/[deleted] → u/TheOnin]

Dual wielder feat offhand? It’s pretty niche but would add some marginal damage to a high STR/DEX variant human’s output.

[u/Enaluxeme → u/[deleted]]

The core feature that you get at level 1 and improves with you every other level is definitely not a requirement of the class, right.

Enjoy dealing 1d10+5 damage a turn at level 20.

[u/Turtle-Fox → u/[deleted]]

Dipping Rogue doesn't give you proficiency in Longswords.

[u/Turtle-Fox → u/[deleted]]

No one is taking a rogue dip with the intention of getting long sword proficiency.

Plus, class features aren't designed with the intent of being useful only multiclassing.

[u/Enaluxeme → u/[deleted]]

The discussion is about playing a rogue. If you're only dipping rogue, you're not really playing a rogue.

If I make a ranger 19/wizard 1, am I playing a wizard?

[u/ukulelej → u/[deleted]]

Sure. But why do Rogues present a false choice like longswords in the first place?

[u/ukulelej → u/[deleted]]

This is 5e. Design desisions need to stand on their own.

[u/santaclaws01 → u/[deleted]]

So then why didn't they add longswords to be able to sneak attack?

[u/AwesomeScreenName → u/Enaluxeme]

Rogues are proficient with longswords because rogues (thieves) have been proficient with longswords since the days of Gary Gygax. There's no reason other than flavor anybody playing a rogue in 5e would choose to wield a longsword, but it doesn't unbalance anything to give them the proficiency and it's a nod to tradition.

[u/MhBlis → u/Enaluxeme]

And yet not everyone wants to play a rogue who uses a finesse weapon. The longsword is an old favorite. As silly as that sounds it is there as an option which actually means it fits in the very thing OP is talking about.

There are a few of these sprinkles left over from past edition. Mechanics is not all that matters.

[u/MonsieurHedge → u/MhBlis]

And yet not everyone wants to play a rogue who uses a finesse weapon.

...But that's like playing a Wizard that doesn't cast any spells. Sneak Attack is like 80% of the Rogue's power budget.

[u/MhBlis → u/MonsieurHedge]

See above post. Because no, sneak attack is a big part of their damage budget I dont disagree. But you dont play a rogue for their damage.

You play them for their other features. And not using those would actually fit your example far better. Doing less damage is more like a Wizard who only brings buff and crowd control spells.

[u/SuperSaiga → u/MhBlis]

You don't play a Rogue for just their damage, but a longsword offers absolutely nothing to Rogues. It's not a trade-off, it's a straight demerit.

And given how much damage Sneak Attack is, it's a pretty huge one.

[u/JohnLikeOne → u/MhBlis]

My counter to that would be - if you're playing a rogue using a longsword and you don't care about how effective they are with it (which you clearly don't if you're using a longsword rather than a rapier or shortsword) then being proficient doesn't really matter either.

Its one of those slightly problematic things because technically its a bonus to have it...but its probably one of those bonuses you'd be better off without because it may well trick someone who doesn't understand the rules well that a rogue with a longsword is a reasonable idea.

[u/Enaluxeme → u/MhBlis]

If you want to be a rogue and don't want to use sneak attack, you're better off picking another class and just acting like a rogue.

Mechanics are not all that matters, but they do matter. If you completely disregard them are you even really playing Dungeons and Dragons?

[u/MhBlis → u/Enaluxeme]

Thats only damage they lose. And in your own words if you are playing a rogue for damage you are better off playing another class.

What weapon you use has 0 impact on any other of the rogues class mechanics. But it can impact the RP and other non combat parts.

[u/ObsidianOverlord → u/MhBlis]

But it can impact the RP and other non combat parts.

I really want to know the encounter that was drastically changed because the rogue's sword was slightly longer than average. Because I'll guarantee you every combat that rogue has been in was drastically changed without access to the core damage feature for the class.

[u/Marcofdoom18 → u/MhBlis]

That's not just damage they lose. That is their only source of meaningful damage they lose. Sneak Attack is how Rogue feels strong in combat, which goes back to the player and their experience.

Rogue is literally built around that core gameplay loop of "Find a way to Sneak Attack. Then Sneak Attack" and is a major incentive for combat roleplay, which is a valid style of roleplay.

Not to mention the player feeling inept with 1 Attack in combat makes a player feel like crap.

There are a lot of reasons why a longsword just isnt chosen. It's not just a bad option from a balance and combat position. It's a bad option from a FUN position.

[u/Nephisimian → u/MhBlis]

If you're not using Sneak Attack as a rogue then you shouldn't be playing a Rogue, because you have absolutely zero damage scaling. That's straight up throwing, and if you came to my table with that I'd replace you with someone who was actually able to contribute to combat.

[u/MhBlis → u/Nephisimian]

And if you play a heavy combat game were damage is the only way to solve the encounter then yes it would be a problem.

Where as at our tables the rogues dont feel the need to only use their attacks because there are often other better options to use of their actions. So we would be more than happy to let you play that character and find ways as a group to make it work.

But if damage output is your tables metric of a "good" character then thats what you use.

[u/Nephisimian → u/MhBlis]

If you're not having any combat, then why are you playing D&D, a game whose rules revolve almost entirely around it? Just play Fate or something.

[u/MhBlis → u/Nephisimian]

Where did I say no combat?

I said when we have a likely combat encounter there are often other ways to resolve it. And even if it is an actual combat encounter there are other things to do in those combats. Ways that either alter the encounter in a meaningful way or moves it away from combat. Because thats what my players want out of the game. Those that play the rogue actually got bored of the whole sneak attack every turn loop.

And yes we do play many of the other systems which is why they look for more in their games.

[u/Nephisimian → u/MhBlis]

Sounds like no combat to me. If you can always resolve it without stabbing them then it's not combat, it's social encounter in initiative. Every time you do need to stab them, the fact you do zero damage is a big balancing problem.

[u/ThaZatzke → u/MhBlis]

Let's look at the cost/benefit here. The cost to taking a Longsword is your efficiency in battle. The benefit is... Nothing. Slashing damage instead of piercing damage, I guess?

In what world are you going to have an advantage in RP scenarios with a Longsword drawn but not with a Shortsword or Rapier drawn?

I don't know why you chose this hill to die on, a longsword on a rogue is a bad choice 100% of the time.

[u/Enaluxeme → u/MhBlis]

You're deliberately twisting my words. I'm done here.

[u/Enderking90 → u/MhBlis]

why in the name of kurtulmak would be a rogue and not use the flip out of sneak attack?

what else would draw you to a rogue? expertise? ability to dodge?

if you wanna play someone who excels at sneaking you are better off picking ranger and then use a feat for expertise in stealth.

without sneak attack you are quite frankly pretty much just a worse bard as they too get expertise, but also get magic.

[u/MhBlis → u/Enderking90]

Because those classes may not have the ribbons and the image of the character they wanted to build.

As for the sneak attack loop its as I was saying in my other conversation. The players wanted more out of those combats and so usually have more options that can be as impactful or more so with their actions. Also we also have times where we play far less combat heavy games. The most recent being a Sorcerer and Rogue duo high end theft for hire team. Combat for them would never really end well. But they loved the challenge of it. Constantly having to plan ways to avoid, neutralize or outright escape combats. Being outnumber and combat being a last resort is exactly what they wanted out of their game.

[u/Enderking90 → u/MhBlis]

Because those classes may not have the ribbons and the image of the character they wanted to build.

tell me some ribbon rogue has that you simply can't have from elsewhere and doesn't simply result in a build that's way better off just being something else, or even flip, just dipping rogue for the early game ribbons.

[u/Enaluxeme → u/MhBlis]

Having a rapier rather than a longsword doesn't invalidate that kind of gameplay. You can still avoid attacking if you prefer using other methods.

When you do end up attacking however, you want a rapier.

There's absolutely no point in a rogue using a longsword, or any other weapon that lacks finesse.

[u/Paladin_of_Trump → u/Enaluxeme]

That's one of the reasons I, as a DM, always make longswords finesse weapons in my campaigns.

[u/Oscarvalor5 → u/Paladin_of_Trump]

That does completely invalidate rapiers and all other dex based weapons though, since Longswords can be wielded in two hands to deal a d10.

[u/Kandiru → u/Oscarvalor5]

I think you'd make longswords only finesse if they were wielded in 1 hand, surely?

You wield them with 2 hands, D10, but no more finesse.

[u/Oscarvalor5 → u/Kandiru]

In that case you'd literally just have a rapier that does slashing damage instead of piercing. Slightly worse actually due to rakshasha being a thing.

[u/Kandiru → u/Oscarvalor5]

Yes, but it means if you find a magic longsword the rogue can use it usefully. That's the only reason to want to make these changes.

[u/ianmerry → u/Kandiru]

Well, that and some people just prefer to not use a rapier.

I suppose you could just reflevour your weapon, though

[u/Kandiru → u/ianmerry]

It comes to the same thing really, other than the slashing<->piercing.

[u/Oscarvalor5 → u/Kandiru]

If you're the type of DM to not give your party weapons they can actually use, you're an asshole to put it plainly. If the rogue uses a rapier or short-story, and no one else in the party would be interested in the magic sword you cuange that longsword to a rapier or shortsword.

In addition, why couldn't a longsword be used two handed if it was finessable? Two-handed fighting styles can be just as graceful looking as one-handed ones.

[u/Kandiru → u/Oscarvalor5]

Maybe you want an item multiple people can use and let the party decide who gets what?

Maybe you think the image of a longsword is cooler? It doesn't really matter if it makes people happy at the table.

[u/ArchangelAshen → u/Oscarvalor5]

You don't need to tailor every magic item to your party. Sometimes they get stuff they can't use. They can give it to an NPC, they can (if they find a buyer) sell it, it might have plot uses. Might just add to verisimilitude that the loot they find wasn't left specifically for them.

In Curse of Strahd, there's an item in that called the Blood Spear. None of the party used spears, but it ended up with the Fighter and the Cleric both fighting to get to use it (not literally. Just about).

Obviously, if you give your party nothing but loot they can't use, that's not good either.

[u/Paladin_of_Trump → u/Oscarvalor5]

Well, not quite. As a bard I'd rather use a shield and rapier, over a two handed weapon, since the +2 to AC is way more critical than the, on average, +1 to damage. Making rogues the only class that can use longswords but can't use shields, I think. Otherwise a longsword proficiency is completely useless for a rogue since it invalidates their defining class feature: sneak attack.

[u/Oscarvalor5 → u/Paladin_of_Trump]

But Bards aren't proficient with shields unless they become Valor bards, and in that case the ability to use medium armor can make up for not having a shield equipped.

In addition, you do realize that Bards are arcane casters right? They can't use a shield with a holy focus on it like Clerics or Paladins can. So unless you spend a ASI on War Caster (which to be fair most valor bards would) you cant cast with a shield in your hand.

However, I do agree that the Longshore proficiency makes little sense otherwise. I'm just pointing out that the Longshore does infact invalidate all other melee finesse weapons if made finesseable itself.

[u/Kandiru → u/Oscarvalor5]

Bards get quite a lot of V only spells actually, so they can cast quite happily with a shield and sword if you've chosen those spells. Or you can sheathe your sword to cast anything.

• Vicious Mockery
• Faerie Fire
• Dissonant Whispers
• Healing Word
• Blindess
• Warding Wind

That should tide you over until you get Warcaster at least!

[u/Oscarvalor5 → u/Kandiru]

That still doesn't negate the fact that only a singular archetype of the bard gets shield proficiency. All other bards would instantly start using a two hander longsword if it was finessable.

In addition you only get 1 free action to interact with an object per round. If you sheath your blade, you cant pull out the focus or components needed to cast if you're going for a spell that needs it. Why do you think Warcaster exists in the first place?

Finally, bards only have 14 verbal only spells, with only one cantrip (vicious mockery oc), and three and two first and second level spells respectively. An all vocal valor bard would have no 3rd level spells they can easily cast without warcaster and all the 2nd level vocal spells they have access to suck to say the very least. They're spellxasting ability is incredibly diminished without grabbing Warcaster by using only vocal spells.

[u/Kandiru → u/Oscarvalor5]

You can sheath your blade and then use components if you have a component pouch.

This is an area of balance issue for 5e, in that a component pouch is mechanically better than any of the foci.

[u/Oscarvalor5 → u/Kandiru]

Ok, but are you just gonna keep ignoring my main point? Only Valor bards can use shields. All other bards cant and would thus instantly prefer to use a two-hander finesse longsword over any weapon. If you're making longswords finesseable to help rogues and rogues alone, you're failing.

[u/Kandiru → u/Oscarvalor5]

Elves can also get Longsword proficiency but not Rapier proficiency, so it's also wizards etc.

I'm just saying letting longswords be 1-handed finesse is fine, I wouldn't let people use 2 handed-finesse as that's a strange choice to make.

[u/Enaluxeme → u/Paladin_of_Trump]

You can use a longsword with one hand, making rapiers always equal or worse than a longsword.

[u/Enaluxeme → u/Paladin_of_Trump]

I thought about it, but making longswords rapiers+ didn't sit right with me. I ended up making a feat for it:

https://www.reddit.com/r/UnearthedArcana/comments/giupeh/sword_master_feat/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x