D&D 5E I hate rapiers. Do you?

I broke with the consistent +1 die level pattern and made the Trident's versatile 1d10 instead of the standard 1d8. It's a martial weapon, and that minor modification breaks nothing, and seems fair - more force gives the extra prongs more oomph.

I hate Rapiers, but I like Estocs. Go figure.

Cap'n Kobold said:

I think that amongst many, Dex builds are regarded as better then Strength builds unless you want to use a two-handed weapon.

Ironically, the rapier actually needs a stronger person to utilise effectively than a Longsword.

Rapiers were paired with the main-gauche, but it was rare that they would be used in simultaneous attacks as per D&D's dual-wielding mechanic. The main-gauche was for defence and for when your opponent was too close for you to employ your rapier effectively. Generally you would be trying to keep at rapier-fighting distance, not dagger-range.

I think part of the issue is not the anachronism of them both being around at the same time, its the practicality of trying to use a rapier of said full plate.

Of course all this is rather muddied by the issue that there wasn't really a point at which rapiers just appeared. The longsword was always both a cutting and thrusting weapon, and there was a gradual evolution to accentuate the thrust, with cut-and-thrust swords for civilian use growing longer and thinner to improve their effectiveness against an unarmoured opponent using a similar weapon. The point at which these swords became the D&D rapier isn't definite.
Sort of. The rapier was a civilian weapon. For military use people would still be using what D&D would term a longsword as the backup to their polearm. Rapiers didn't see military use until quite a bit later, after armour was almost fully phased out.

Click to expand...

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.

Of course, talk of rapiers always makes me want to switch armor to damage mitigation, with shields, stats, and your weapon providing your defense, but I also detest systems that turn a successful attack into one which does literally nothing.

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.

Thematics aside, the Rapier is fine mechanically and the OP has more of an issue with Dex than with the Rapier. Dex isn't quite as good as many believe, but it's far better than it's been in prior editions (except maybe 4E). If you really feel the need to nerf, you should change Finesse to Dex to Hit but Str for damage (you should then probably do the same for Ranged Weapons... and good luck with figuring out crossbows if you do).

I am of the opinion that the Scimitar should have been 1d8 Finesse (not Light) Slashing, giving us another option (and requiring a Feat for the Drizzt wanna-bes). No one in either campaign I'm in uses the rapier, and see far more uses of heavy weapons, such as the Glaive and Greatsword.


If you want to talk about thematics, then you should probably have a problem with all the other anachronisms and errors as well. The scimitar is an Arabian weapon, and so is just as out of place, while the cutlass (an appropriate euro weapon) would fit the same role, but was left out. The Greatsword should be called a Longsword, while the Longsword should be called an Arming Sword. Studded Leather never existed, while Brigantine did (and is left out). The amount of gold that exists in the standard D&D world is obscene, and a single hoard would cause massive inflation. HP and the combat round are poor simulations of actual combat, so a "Greatsword" would be almost as ineffectual as a Rapier would be against a Dragon.

The list goes on and on, but I think I've made my point. Thematically, the logic of the D&D world is heroic fiction, which allows for a lot of anachronisms and oddities. Obviously the DM is allowed to make whatever changes they see fit to make the game work for their group, but I believe the majority of people accept (or at least tolerate) the standard logic.

Hriston said:

I used to hate rapiers, but then I started calling it an arming sword and it all made sense.

Click to expand...

This is actually a elegant solution to at least part of the problem. Several similar solutions present themselves, some of which allow the swashbucklers to retain their panache as well. For example, you could easily reflavor this entry as a "backsword" (the ancestor of the sabre), which most amateurs would mistake for a rapier owing to its ornate hilt and straight blade.

I don't think it address the problem though that there appears to be one best single handed weapon, although that's been true pretty much since 2e simplified the weapon table.

BookBarbarian said:

I hate Rapiers, but I like Estocs. Go figure.

Click to expand...

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.

*Deleted by user*

I have no problems whatsoever with the rapier as implemented in 5e. For example - The rest of the arms and armor present far more egregious and ridiculous historical inaccuracies. What I -do- have a problem with, regarding the Str vs Dex balance, is that throwing weapons can't be drawn as part of the attack (like ammunition).

Isn't this more a problem with Dex is King than the Rapier itself?

lowkey13 said:

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.

Click to expand...

What you are fundamentally fighting against is that the rules for weapons in 5e are as simple as they've been for any edition since the BECMI era. As such, there just isn't a lot of granularity or room for differentiating weapons from each other.

There are some missing spots in the matrix you could fill up, and someone earlier in the thread did. I'll fill in another. You can put the Polynesian Or in the heavy, reach, bludgeoning 1d10 damage slot, parallel to Pike and Glaive/Halberd.

But the very fact that Glaive and Halberd are now the exact same weapon (and indeed virtually all European polearms probably fall into the same slot) suggests how far we've come from the granularity of 1e. But this simplification started in 1e when people largely ignored the weapon vs. AC modifiers that made weapons work differently defending on the tactical situation (a 1e mace might be better than a long sword against a high AC foe, but worse against a large unarmored creature).