D&D 5E Is the rapier "necessary"?

[Hriston]

Step back and look at the bigger picture. All a rapier is in D&D is a 1d8 finesse weapon that is not light -- i.e., something which functions as well as any "standard" main-hand weapon, but quick enough to use dexterity rather than strength, and should not be wielded off-hand or dual-wielded without special training. I think a lot of weapons fit those parameters, even if they're shaped very differently than the rapier of the European Renaissance. Arguably, since the longsword is versatile, this description is the best fit for any strictly-one-handed Medieval arming sword. Hell, one of my characters uses rapier stats for a light spear.

Yeah, I replace rapier on the weapons list for my generically medieval campaigns with the medieval knightly sword/ later medieval arming sword, of which the rapier is just a further evolution anyway. I dislike rapier because it's modern and distinctly civilian in character.

 

[Al2O3]

I don't get the idea that rapiers would be civilian. During the 30-year was I think rapier was the standard sword in the Swedish army. And even if it is more civilian that also makes sense to me for adventurers.

The "too modern" argument is nothing I can really counter.

 

[Khisanth the Ancient]

I don't get the idea that rapiers would be civilian.

Rapiers were designed for dueling, and pretty useless against armor.

During the 30-year was I think rapier was the standard sword in the Swedish army.

I don't know much about Swedish history, could be, but 30 Years War is 17th century, well into the early modern period, which is a very different style of warfare from the Middle Ages.

 

[Lanliss]

I am not big on history, so please correct me if I am wrong, but the rapier is from a different place than the standard long and short swords, right? Have you considered weapons from other countries or areas that may have traded with south Asia, that could be d8 and finesse-able, but still fit thematically?

 

[Hriston]

Just looking up the Swedish Imperial Army on Wikipedia, I see that musketeers and some pikemen used the rapier for close quarters defense, whereas cavalry were issued the broadsword. I find that generally, however, the rapier is considered a "dress sword", used primarily for self defense in a civilian context.

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

I am not big on history, so please correct me if I am wrong, but the rapier is from a different place than the standard long and short swords, right? Have you considered weapons from other countries or areas that may have traded with south Asia, that could be d8 and finesse-able, but still fit thematically?

No, the Rapiers are European, same as "longswords" and such. They are from a rather different time period than the usual mediaeval range that D&D settings tend to depict however.
That said: rapiers and "D&D longswords" were used in the same time periods: Rapiers were used as fashion accessories and for duelling, but generally a real sword would be used for actual combat use where you would be fighting to kill or disable, against a foe who might be wearing armour, and in a disorganised melee.

I don't get the idea that rapiers would be civilian. During the 30-year was I think rapier was the standard sword in the Swedish army. And even if it is more civilian that also makes sense to me for adventurers.

Civilian in the sense that it was generally carried to be seen and to advertise your family's fencing master, and in honour duels with codified rules. Adventurers would generally use military weapons, which are designed to be used in a real fight.
Of course, there are times when clanking down the street like two tons of shiny metal death looking for someone to happen to is illegal, or even worse, a social faux pas. Where rapiers are the fashion, it may be best to follow fashion.

Yeah, I replace rapier on the weapons list for my generically medieval campaigns with the medieval knightly sword/ later medieval arming sword, of which the rapier is just a further evolution anyway. I dislike rapier because it's modern and distinctly civilian in character.

Maybe, but I'm not sure I'd consider those swords finessable.

Just looking up the Swedish Imperial Army on Wikipedia, I see that musketeers and some pikemen used the rapier for close quarters defense, whereas cavalry were issued the broadsword. I find that generally, however, the rapier is considered a "dress sword", used primarily for self defense in a civilian context.

The rapier was likely used because it was very much a backup weapon after you were no longer able to use your musket/bayonet or pike and they likely owned one for civilian use.
The reason that the cavalry were issued broadswords instead is that it was their primary weapon: they were expected to fight in melee using it.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

IMX most dex characters use TWF, which precludes rapiers anyway, until you get the feat. So you could adjust the feat instead.

IME when a Dex-heavy ranged attacker gets forced into melee, he's likely to go rapier + shield instead of TWF. YMMV though.

 

[Guest 6801328]

I detest rapiers. They don't fit in with the rest of the aesthetic. Or, I should say, MY aesthetic. And because they are clearly the best 1H finesse weapon, EVERY dex build uses them.

So you combine the two and everybody is running around D&D campaigns with a weapon that gives me eyerolls.

I know I'm in the minority here, but I would have been perfectly happy if they had just left it completely out of the game. True, all the dex builds would use a Short Sword, but at least that wouldn't be immersion-killing.

 

[Ancalagon]

One of the thing I'm reading about when doing some research on this is that the two weapons fighting style was fairly popular in the area, using two swords of the same length. This is best done with somewhat shorter blades, so perhaps the 2 scimitars fighting style will have to do to satisfy dex-based fighters.

In Europe it was more common to have a shorter blade in the off hand. Using two rapiers (or two longer blades of any kind) at once was rare.

when a Dex-heavy ranged attacker gets forced into melee, he's likely to go rapier + shield instead of TWF

I am *not* an experienced rapier fighter, at all -in fact I would say that I "don't have the proficiency" . But I have used a shield a fair bit, and in my experience it's not a finess style at all. The most important aspect of using a shield is not speed, it's *discipline*. Mind you, this changes if you are using a small buckler so...

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

I am *not* an experienced rapier fighter, at all -in fact I would say that I "don't have the proficiency" . But I have used a shield a fair bit, and in my experience it's not a finess style at all. The most important aspect of using a shield is not speed, it's *discipline*. Mind you, this changes if you are using a small buckler so...

Aren't you changing the subject here from D&D PCs to real-life fighting techniques? If you're saying that rapier and shield aren't compatible in real life, nolo contendere. But I thought we were talking about "IMX/E" in D&D.

D&D and real life martial arts are worlds apart. For example, in real life (and in GURPS) retreating tends to give you a defensive advantage; in D&D it gives you a penalty (triggers an opportunity attack).