D&D 5E rapier+dagger and/or longsword+dagger?

[Salamandyr]

This right here is why Basic had it going on.

Short sword
Normal sword
Two Handed sword

No frills; imagine it how you want.

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

I agree. For example, I use the rapier stats for sabres and basket-hilted swords, including the so-called claymore or Scottish broadsword. Of course, this doesn't solve the OP's problem, but it does make some sense of the rapier not being a light weapon.

I have some trouble thinking of them as "finesse" weapons as well.

On the subject of off-hand attacks, another item of interest to develop for use in conjunction with rapier is the cloak. Perhaps a refluffed net would suffice.

Paying the cost, weight and actions to use a shield and simply describing it as wrapping a reinforced cloak around your off-arm would be fine in my book.

The issue comes when you want to do something like that to get a shield-type benefit, without shield proficiency.

Personally have a dislike of character wielding two 42" longsword due to my LARPing days...

42" basket-hilted Eldritch rapiers are the new cheese.

*Twitches.*

 

[jrowland]

Another suggestion is to treat Main Gauche not as a weapon, but as a tool.

Main Gauche - a Main Gauche is a tool shaped like a dagger, but with a larger hand guard to assist the player in parrying blows.
A player wielding a One Handed weapon in their main hand and a Main Gauche in their off-hand can, as a Bonus Action, choose to begin parrying incoming blows. Until the end of their next turn their AC is increased by 2.

As a tool it gives anyone the opportunity to "use a shield" without using a shield, but also without making this item better than a shield since it costs you your bonus action.

I like it. I'd probably modify it to:

Main Gauche - a Main Gauche is a tool shaped like a dagger, but with a larger hand guard to assist the player in parrying blows.
A character wielding a One Handed weapon in their main hand and a Main Gauche in their off-hand can, as a Bonus Action, choose to begin parrying incoming blows or to make an attack (use dagger stats). If they choose to parry incoming blows they can use their reaction until the start of their next to reduce the attack roll of incoming attack by 1d4.

In this manner, they can choose to go offensive (use the dagger) or defensive (parry).

 

[dmnqwk]

42" basket-hilted Eldritch rapiers are the new cheese.

Player: Hey DM, I've got a new weapon I'd like to dual wield, if that's okay. I'll pay a feat for it!
DM: Sure, what is it?
Player: I'm going to dual wield Eldritch Blast-wielding Warlocks!
DM: *Enjoys a short break in a Sanitarium."

 

[Skyscraper]

Thanks for the replies. I like the fighting style Swashbuckle idea but may just allow the 1d4 off hand weapons, as there is less change to the game that way. The AC bump does fit the style of the musketeer better though...

Or I could add a weapon to the game and call it Mein Gauche, that can basically be used as either a dagger or a shield but not both in the same round.

That would be "main gauche". "Main" in French means "hand". And "gauche" means "left". So main gauche means left hand. As in... well, you get it.

 

[Sword of Spirit]

Actually, when I think of duelists, they tend to have only a single weapon. I don't often think of a duelist attacking with both rapier and dagger, not saying that they can't, I just don't imagine that when I think of a duelist possibly due to the greatest duel I can think of, the epic duel in Princess Bride. It's also the same with pirates, I don't normally think of them as holding two weapons, when I do I tend to imagine cutlass and pistol.

I imagine most duelists going with a single weapon also. But that text was quoted from the dual-wielding Swashbuckler's introduction.

The swashbuckler can use a smallsword (stats as shortsword)

This is actually the idea that I had. A smallsword looks much like a slightly shorter rapier anyway, so it works well enough visually. That's my current way of handling it without actually houseruling.

until he builds up the strength to use a rapier at level 4. Or he can fence with an empty hand until he gets good enough to suplement it with a dagger. Or, as I suggested, he can fence with rapier and dagger and just not attack much with the dagger until he learns how.

So you think the Swashbuckler should essentially take the Dual Wielder feat? I have no problem with him doing so, but it sort of breaks the game assumptions to require a feat in order to take advantage of what is defined as a primary subclass feature for you.

A cutlass is a short, but very solid and heavy, straight-edged chopping sword. You could stat the thing as a longsword (I've definitely seen pirates in movies taking a two-handed grip on), sickle, or just houserule in a more delicate version as a shortsword that deals slashing damage. All of which Rogues can use.

The heaviness of the cutlass is a concern.

The problem with a shortsword that deals slashing damage is that, statistically that is exactly the same as a scimitar! That essentially amounts to giving the rogue scimitar proficiency (except that it would weight a pound less, so it's better (if insignificantly so)).

If they had given the rogue scimitar proficiency, then they could at least say something like, "We assume Swashbuckler rogues will two-weapon fight with scimitars (cutlass) or take the Dual Wielder feat and use a rapier and dagger." But without it, you can't even be a proper pirate, much less a two-weapon fighting swashbuckler variety.

Basically, they dropped the ball on this one. It would be nice if they would give us a , "Yeah, we kind of goofed on that one. I'd suggest..." but that doesn't happen much. I actually really appreciated Mike Mearls expressing how he would have done the fighter subclasses differently if he had it to do over (even though I'm fine with how they are).

 

[Kobold Stew]

Paying the cost, weight and actions to use a shield and simply describing it as wrapping a reinforced cloak around your off-arm would be fine in my book.

I have done the same.

The issue comes when you want to do something like that to get a shield-type benefit, without shield proficiency.

Exactly! I've assumed a character needs proficiency to use a cloak (or whatever) for this benefit.

This was my version:

The Main Gauche: When holding a dagger or torch in the off-hand while attacking with a one-handed or versatile weapon in the main hand, the character has +1 to AC and rolls an extra d4 on critical hits. When used in this fashion, the dagger or torch is not considered a weapon.

Given that, do you require proficiency for this? I would.

I have (somewhere on these boards) suggested that bucklers [or things skinned as bucklers] can be represented easily within the rules:

- Shield (+2 AC, proficiency required)
- buckler (or cloak or lantern or dagger) (+1 AC, no proficiency)

Both "fill" the hand", and if you're using a dagger defensively, you can't also attack with it that turn.

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

I imagine most duelists going with a single weapon also. But that text was quoted from the dual-wielding Swashbuckler's introduction.

This is actually the idea that I had. A smallsword looks much like a slightly shorter rapier anyway, so it works well enough visually. That's my current way of handling it without actually houseruling.

So you think the Swashbuckler should essentially take the Dual Wielder feat? I have no problem with him doing so, but it sort of breaks the game assumptions to require a feat in order to take advantage of what is defined as a primary subclass feature for you.

A swashbuckler doesn't have to take the feat. A swashbuckler who wants to get the benefits of the feat probably should take it.

If the subclass is indeed build around dual-wielding, taking the feat that improves that option makes sense for some characters. However, if you regard it as required for any character using that subtype, it would be better to just houserule it into the subclass abilities.

The heaviness of the cutlass is a concern.

The problem with a shortsword that deals slashing damage is that, statistically that is exactly the same as a scimitar! That essentially amounts to giving the rogue scimitar proficiency (except that it would weight a pound less, so it's better (if insignificantly so)).

If they had given the rogue scimitar proficiency, then they could at least say something like, "We assume Swashbuckler rogues will two-weapon fight with scimitars (cutlass) or take the Dual Wielder feat and use a rapier and dagger." But without it, you can't even be a proper pirate, much less a two-weapon fighting swashbuckler variety.

You don't need to be using the scimitar stats for a cutlass in order for a character to be a "proper" pirate.
Rogues can use longswords and sickles. More military pirates might be be (or at least have) Ranger or Fighter levels.

 

[Sword of Spirit]

A swashbuckler doesn't have to take the feat. A swashbuckler who wants to get the benefits of the feat probably should take it.

If the subclass is indeed build around dual-wielding, taking the feat that improves that option makes sense for some characters. However, if you regard it as required for any character using that subtype, it would be better to just houserule it into the subclass abilities.

Yep, that's probably what the designers should have done. I'm expressing why they screwed up and the mechanics of the class clash with the fluff given to it.

We are told in the book that the class represents a duelist or pirate who uses two-weapon fighting. They are given mechanical incentive to use two-weapon fighting.

But the mechanics do not allow them to use two-weapon fighting with rapiers or cutlasses--which are the weapons the referenced archetypes are most likely to use.

This is a design flaw.

(The way I personally deal with it is to let them use a small sword (shortsword) instead of a rapier, and if they want a non-throwable main-gauche, I'd let them use short sword stats for it also--as a heavier weapon not designed for throwing. This requires no house-rules, but some creative refluffing. I also give the Swashbuckler proficiency in scimitar, although that only starts when they get the subclass at 3rd level. That does require a house-rule, which I wouldn't have to make if they had made the class work right. )

You don't need to be using the scimitar stats for a cutlass in order for a character to be a "proper" pirate.
Rogues can use longswords and sickles

Neither longswords nor sickles can use finesse--and the assumption is generally that the Swashbuckler (as well as rogues in general) is using finesse weapons. (The sickle is virtually worthless weapon anyway--seriously, compare it to the dagger.)

 

[Hriston]

I have some trouble thinking of them as "finesse" weapons as well.

Why? Finesse is relative to weapons that don't have it. All it means is you can use your choice of strength or dexterity. Certainly a basket-hilted sword is more gracile and delicate, and more suited for use with dex, than a longsword.

Paying the cost, weight and actions to use a shield and simply describing it as wrapping a reinforced cloak around your off-arm would be fine in my book.

I hadn't looked into the use of the cloak as a main-gauche when I posted earlier, but it seems we're talking about a parry whether you're using a dagger, a buckler, or a cloak, so I wouldn't necessarily see it as a refluffed shield, but rather as a reaction that only battlemasters can take.

The issue comes when you want to do something like that to get a shield-type benefit, without shield proficiency.

I like how the battlemaster's parry maneuver gets around this issue by reducing damage rather than contributing to AC. With the maneuver, it doesn't matter if you're using a main-gauche, your main weapon, or a table leg to parry the blow. Of course a battlemaster would be proficient with shields regardless.