D&D 5E I hate rapiers. Do you?

[Cap'n Kobold]

I've wanted to put an estoc on my weapon's table for a while, but I can't figure out exactly what stats to give it such that it has unique advantages. The problem would be even worse in 5e.

Its basically a Longsword that does piercing only* damage.

You make good points, though we disagree, I think, on what the DnD rapier is, in the evolution of weapons a modern person might call a rapier. IMO, what D'artagnon uses is a later rapier, closer to a small sword than the sturdier, quite long bladed weapon I've got on my wall. It would take quite a strong person to fight case with the rapier on my wall, while I've used blunted and tipped smaller blades more like the later "Dumas" weapon with very little muscle effort, because the are very light and balanced nearly at the guard.

Anyway, a few other points, in response to you and others:

Main gauche: precisely my issue, is that there is no benefit in 5e to a rapier wielder putting anything in their off hand, other than perhaps a shield, unless feats are in and hey take the dual wielding one. A simple, non thrown, Defensive (AC +1) dagger would be great. If the rapier is supposed to model D'artagnon's weapon, then it should be Light. But, as it is, the short sword models that blade better than the rapier does.

I generally use short sword stats for the later rapiers/sideswords as well.

Also, which sword represents the "Viking sword", ie, the swords shaped like longswords that didn't have a haft long enough to dual wield? In 4e, they clumsily call it a broadsword and make it less accurate, but in 5e it just doesn't exist, outside of reflavoring he rapier or shortsword.

Heck, why not rename it arming sword? That vaguely covers a wide range of relatively light one handed swords.

Longswords. They're long, not really finessable swords most commonly used with cutting effect*. Arming swords definitely have the capability to be used two-handed for a bit of extra oomph through the use of half-swording. Even viking swords can get some improvement out of using two hands with them; they're not as efficient at doing so than a longer-handled weapon, but I don't think that D&D combat is really granular enough to make the distinction.

*I houserule that weapons can deal the damage types suggested by their design. So most swords can deal either piercing or slashing damage, many warhammers can deal piercing damage etc.

 

[Rod Staffwand]

I just give all weapons the finesse property and allow players to use Strength instead of Dexterity for AC. Problem solved.

 

[Hussar]

Bingo. Other than the naming issue, which people can discuss and come to different conclusions about, this is the killer (for me).

Why not just have a single, finesse (use either Dex or Str) one-handed d8 weapon and call it Awesome Sauce? Well, except it's already called the rapier.

Meh, prior to 3e, that was called a Longsword. Unless you were using a two handed sword, there was no reason to ever not use a longsword. I mean, people are talking about the weapon vs armor table. Let's take a look shall we, just to refresh memory:

So, a mace, vs AC 2 is +3 better than a longsword. And +2 vs AC 3. How often are you using full plate or plate mail armored foes? Virtually nothing in the game actually had AC's in that range. AND, virtually all magic weapons were longswords. Certainly all the best ones were. This myth that there was this magic time in the past where players chose a bunch of different weapons is just that, a myth. In AD&D, you used a longsword, full stop. There was just no reason not to use it. It was head and shoulders better than anything else.

------

OTOH, my Primeval Thule campaign dumps rapiers, so, that should make some people happy.

 

[Gadget]

I'm thinking of just eliminating the Rapier in my game and letting those that want to use it have a re-flavored short sword or scimitar instead. Swashbucklers usually have a damage rider like Sneak Attack to add on to their damage anyway. And if not, like Bards for example, you've got spell casting up to ninth level spells to compensate.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Its basically a Longsword that does piercing only* damage.

I generally use short sword stats for the later rapiers/sideswords as well.

Longswords. They're long, not really finessable swords most commonly used with cutting effect*. Arming swords definitely have the capability to be used two-handed for a bit of extra oomph through the use of half-swording. Even viking swords can get some improvement out of using two hands with them; they're not as efficient at doing so than a longer-handled weapon, but I don't think that D&D combat is really granular enough to make the distinction.

*I houserule that weapons can deal the damage types suggested by their design. So most swords can deal either piercing or slashing damage, many warhammers can deal piercing damage etc.

We agree on granularity, for sure. The versatile property seems restricted enough, to me, that I assume it's meant to model a long enough haft to use two hands for leverage, as in the "bastard sword", but not any other form of two-handing a one handed weapon, but really I should just give up trying to figure out what they were thinking when they made the weapon chart.

 

[Warpiglet]

I hate the image of a rapier in the hand of Conan...or Elric...or King Arthur...or Aragon or...

They suck. There. I said it.

 

[Greg K]

In many campaigns, I plan to remove the rapier along with the hand crossbow (which I will remove in pretty much all campaigns). However, in campaigns in which I use Khaalis's light armor fighter variant, I will remove the rapier from the bard and rogue weapon proficiencies.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Instead of nerfing rapiers I think about renaming longswords to bastard swords and add a longsword that is a finesse weapon d8 slashing. That's it. I guess that will make me happy enough.

 

[Maxperson]

What would happen if we just ... got rid of the rapier?

Max finesse (dex) is d6, max strength (one handed) is d8.

I'm wondering, because dex already provides certain collateral benefits (AC, Initiative, skills, etc) that strength does not.

I wouldn't get rid of it. I like it as a weapon. Just reduce it from d8 to d6.

 

[Flamestrike]

Not to interrupt my own angry rant with a serious discussion of game mechanics, but ...

One thing I have been genuinely curious about in terms of design is this-

The best damage die you can usually achieve through standard means, one-handed, is d8. To get to d10 (or d12) you have to use a weapon two handed (either a two-handed weapon, or a versatile weapon with two hands).

Which means that, for one handed weapons (or traditional sword and board character) d8 is the best you can get.

Which leads to the following observation- the inclusion of the d8 finesse rapier not only makes rapier a default choice, it has the following effects-

1. It privileges Dex melee builds to the same extent as Strength Melee builds.
2. Unless your Strength build goes for a two-handed weapon.

(Yes, I know there are a few conuterexamples, namely traditional defensive sword and board with shield master, but as a general rule it holds)

I am not a fan of this. Myself.

Dex builds suck (barring archers, monks and rogues).

Why would I (as a Fighter, going 1 handed) want to max Dex over Strength? I can dump Dex to 8, wear full plate and no-ones the wiser. It also lets me have that Str 20 + athletics knocking people prone, pushing them back and so forth.