D&D (2024) The rapier problem

[fluffybunbunkittens]

The weapon table shows the lack of care in general put into martial characters. I loved 4e weapons, being defined by to hit bonus, damage and a large selection of properties (I do miss Brutal X).

Brutal and High Crit would've been so easy to fit in, too.

 

[Horwath]

Brutal and High Crit would've been so easy to fit in, too.

never liked brutal, no need for more rerolls.

high crit just screams, this must be used by assassin!

 

[Kobold Avenger]

I think the system should generally cover from the Stone Age to the mid 1800s. And a "default D&D" is half-way in the Renaissance already.

 

[Horwath]

I think the system should generally cover from the Stone Age to the mid 1800s. And a "default D&D" is half-way in the Renaissance already.

we could always make weapons with "primitive" trait.

reduce damage die by one step and make it on average 1/10th the price and low craft DC

 

[Micah Sweet]

we could always make weapons with "primitive" trait.

reduce damage die by one step and make it on average 1/10th the price and low craft DC

I'd rather use materials to represent that. Level Up handles that issue (and weapons/armor in general) pretty well.

 

[Cruentus]

It depends what era. Around year 1000, the "Sword", representing knightly, viking, spatha, etcetera is the main weapon, often sword-and-shield.

The Sword is only a backup when the Longsword becomes prevalent, from 1300s to 1500s (contemporary with katana). But there are earlier examples of Longsword existing experimentally and idiosyncratically.

I could be wrong here, and someone else probably has better knowledge at hand, but I think around this time most warriors are still using spear, axe and shield. In Roman times, the Spatha developed over time as a cavalry sword, long enough to be used from horseback. The Gladius remained the infantry sword until after the fall of Rome. Swords, particularly Viking, were symbols of prestige and wealth, and were not readily available/were too expensive for most to own. But just about everyone could own a spear or an axe (which also has other uses). The archaeology is still not very clear on this, but I think that swords are more of a Hollywoodism, and "look cool", which is why they're so ubiquitous in games. They also appear in ancient sites because there is enough metal remaining to be found, while spears don't. Axes, Maces, Polearms (Spears), and Hammers were all much more effective in combat, particularly when the opponent was armored.

*edit, and I do realize that Rome fell long before 1000AD. I'm just using the Spatha, since it was mentioned, as an example of a specific weapon that developed for a specific purpose. The spatha as a slashing (not thrusting weapon) had no utility in a block of infantry behind shields.

The other element of DnD that often doesn't make sense, is that a lot of weapons and tactics were used en masse, ie. in formations. DnD is usually concerned with "skirmish" style fighting. And in skirmish style fighting, a lot of the weapons would be impractical (pikes, lances, bows, etc.), but highly effective in blocks.

**2nd edit: I've taken to reskinning the Rapier as a "Sword" that does S/P damage at d8 while still being "finesse". I still don't like it, as I'd like to remove all melee connections to Dex (aside from AC benefits) to differentiate ability scores better, but it works in a pinch.

 

[Yaarel]

I could be wrong here, and someone else probably has better knowledge at hand, but I think around this time most warriors are still using spear, axe and shield. In Roman times, the Spatha developed over time as a cavalry sword, long enough to be used from horseback. The Gladius remained the infantry sword until after the fall of Rome. Swords, particularly Viking, were symbols of prestige and wealth, and were not readily available/were too expensive for most to own. But just about everyone could own a spear or an axe (which also has other uses). The archaeology is still not very clear on this, but I think that swords are more of a Hollywoodism, and "look cool", which is why they're so ubiquitous in games. They also appear in ancient sites because there is enough metal remaining to be found, while spears don't. Axes, Maces, Polearms (Spears), and Hammers were all much more effective in combat, particularly when the opponent was armored.

*edit, and I do realize that Rome fell long before 1000AD. I'm just using the Spatha, since it was mentioned, as an example of a specific weapon that developed for a specific purpose. The spatha as a slashing (not thrusting weapon) had no utility in a block of infantry behind shields.

The other element of DnD that often doesn't make sense, is that a lot of weapons and tactics were used en masse, ie. in formations. DnD is usually concerned with "skirmish" style fighting. And in skirmish style fighting, a lot of the weapons would be impractical (pikes, lances, bows, etc.), but highly effective in blocks.

Because a viking sword was so prestigious, families went to extreme lengths to obtain it for their warriors. In this sense, swords are surprisingly common during the Viking Period.

In the viking sword and shield style, the viking shield is more like dexterous buckler, where the metal boss (hub) actively knocks away an incoming weapon. The shield itself is light and somewhat flimsy, unlike other kinds of shields. The viking shield is more like a martial weapon that requires extensive training and can be used for punching.

Celtics were using the spatha before the Romans adopted it from them. The spatha "Sword" is in use from about the 000s to the 500s. The viking "Sword" in use from the 600s to 1000s is a variant of the spatha. The knightly "Sword" in use from the 1000s to 1400s, is a variant of the viking sword.

**2nd edit: I've taken to reskinning the Rapier as a "Sword" that does S/P damage at d8 while still being "finesse". I still don't like it, as I'd like to remove all melee connections to Dex (aside from AC benefits) to differentiate ability scores better, but it works in a pinch.

Just now I am systematizing weapon traits in an other thread.

The "Sword" is an "agile" weapon − in D&D terms, a finesse weapon that can benefit from Dexterity. However, the Sword has heft, and it seems to me only a Medium size creature could wield it agilely. I would restat the weapons. Note, versatile is equivalent to twohanded but optionally onehand-able.

Greatsword 2d6: heavy, twohanded
Longsword 1d8 slash: versatile (1d12)
Rapier 1d6 pierce: finesse
Sword 1d8 slash/pierce: finesse, heavy

Notice, a Small creature can use a Longsword twohandedly, but cannot wield a Sword dexterously.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

The assumption when blocking with hands is that you're wearing gloves, which many nobles at the time did in fact wear. And that the hands are sort of cupped so less surface area touches the sharp part.

Exactly.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

If D&D was serious about medieval verisimilitude, it'd be all about spears, polearms, maces, and warhammers (the real ones, not the ones that look like a giant sledgehammer) The "arming sword" was a backup weapon.

I think the audience has long ago spoken and doesn't want D&D to be a Middle Ages simulator. That said, I think the weapons table can be cleaned up without taking that step.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Make weapon stats more similar, with only flavor between them? I believe there's an OSR game (maybe either the White or Black Hack) where every class does a set amount of damage, no matter what weapon they're using.

Make weapon stats far more complex, with every weapon being situationally good? The odds are that there will still be a "best" weapon and it'll just take the hardcore math types throwing everything into a spreadsheet to determine what it is.

Either is the solution, and it almost doesn't matter which. But yeah, 5E needs to "pick a lane" with weapons. Right now it's splitting the difference and weapons are just complicated enough to be annoying/tedious, but also too simple to be engaging or interesting.

Make the rapier a 1d6 damage weapon. Add the versatile (1d8) feature.

Are you trying, like actively trying, to give every fencer and HEMA person on these boards an actual aneurysm lol? Rapiers are not a weapon designed to be wielded with two hands on the hilt.

Is the rapier really a problem?

Literally the OP's point is that the Rapier isn't the problem, the way the system works is. People focusing on the Rapier are profoundly missing the point. And yeah you're right re: Feats (and Fighting Styles), if they sucked less this would be a non-issue.