D&D General The rapier in D&D

One reason why I wanted the Mastery system to be more like Marshall cantrips is because I think that weapon damage type could have been a prerequisite to certain ones.

Like how masteries originally required to have certain properties.

There could have been a weapon Mastery for different damage types.

Or have a single weapon Mastery that did different things depending on the damage type of the weapon.

The long sword could have the ability to switch between bludgeoning and slashing, where is the ask can switch between slashing and bludgeoning


Overwhelm
If you hit a creature with this weapon with a result of 21 or greater, you gain a bonus to the damage equal to your Constitution modifier if the weapon deals Bludgeoning damage, Charisma modifier if piercing damage, or Wisdom modifier if slashing damage.

I like the idea of mastery or some such tied to damage type, but what you suggest is exactly the sort of thing that makes me prefer streamlining. It is fiddly low impact thing that does not simulate anything and does not make actions more interesting. It also creates weird incentives like charismatic people preferring piercing weapons.

That being said, most masteries as they were published seem fiddly and pointless as well.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

You claimed that rapiers were not suitable for warfare.

Rapiers were suitable for warfare in the same sense pistols were suitable for warfare WW1 till today. Both weapons have similar purpose. First and foremost, they are mark of status and authority ( officers weapons), after that, they are self defense backup weapon. Both weapons are also primarily civilian self defense tools.

When we look at fiction where rapier is main weapon of protagonists, it's mostly in urban, civilian or semi civilian setting, with one on one duels or small groups going at each other.
 


Rapiers were suitable for warfare in the same sense pistols were suitable for warfare WW1 till today. Both weapons have similar purpose. First and foremost, they are mark of status and authority ( officers weapons), after that, they are self defense backup weapon. Both weapons are also primarily civilian self defense tools.

When we look at fiction where rapier is main weapon of protagonists, it's mostly in urban, civilian or semi civilian setting, with one on one duels or small groups going at each other.

So small groups like, oh, 4-6 individuals fighting a similar number of enemies? Sounds about right for D&D. If you're playing a primarily urban campaign like I've run a few times over the years it would be appropriate. On the other hand I've never run a game where the characters were primarily members of a large military unit, at best they're a special forces strike team that occasionally get caught up in a major battle.

In addition D&D hasn't really try since 1e to account for weapon effectiveness vs armor and even now there are a lot of myths and misconceptions about what weapons were really effective against which type of armor. The real issue here may be people running around in heavy armor at all times, but it's something I allow simply for game balance. High dex is already too good I don't want to make it even better by punishing people for not focusing on it.
 

I like the idea of mastery or some such tied to damage type, but what you suggest is exactly the sort of thing that makes me prefer streamlining. It is fiddly low impact thing that does not simulate anything and does not make actions more interesting. It also creates weird incentives like charismatic people preferring piercing weapons.

That being said, most masteries as they were published seem fiddly and pointless as well.
One of my personal house rules was that you can sacrifice 10 points of damage for a minor unofficial status effect associated to the damage type

Like you can sacrifice 10 slashing to make them Shredded Cuts (3d6 bonus damage)
10 bludgeoning for a Crushed hand/finger (can't use hand until heal or rested)
10 piercing for Bleeding Wound (damage over time)
 


I don’t chase goalposts.
The goalposts have been dragged around this thread since the beginning. Of course, the initial premise isn't well defined, so it is pretty much no man's land. Rapiers are concurrent with or precede other products listed in the equipment lists, were used on battlefields (and the only D&D game that only included weapons specific to war was Chainmail/oD&D, so this seems a non sequitur right out the gate), and are no less appropriate to fighting fantasy megabeasts than most of the rest of the weapon list as well. The whole thread is kind of a non sequitur, too, as 'this isn't realistically good for fighting a dragon' is incredibly loosely connected to the notion of whether it belongs in D&D (which has always been about a lot more than that, including non-battlefield person-to-person combat, where a rapier is entirely appropriate) to begin with.

OP doesn't like rapiers in D&D. Good, done. If we'd started with premises based on theme or tone, we'd have something useful to do here. Instead we got a competitive 'I bet I have more amateur historical warfare knowledge than you'-style pissing match. I've seen those since Usenet and Dragonsfoot back in the early/ mid-90s, and have yet to see anyone actually be impressive doing so. It's a slight iteration of the 'yeah, well I have 5 years of Ti Kwan Leep, which is better than your 4 years of SCA at knowing who would win in a fight' we all did as awkward teenagers. At least we've gotten some interesting house rule discussions in on the side.
What about having certain creatures (i.e. dragons with their scales) absorb the first few HP of damage from each slashing, bludgeoning or piercing attack? If 100 zero-level farmers manage to score a few hits with their clubs and spears, and on average they do 3-4 HP damage each, most wouldn't end up inflicting any damage at all, or perhaps a point or two.
They have that (damage thresholds) for objects. Likewise, that's pretty much D&D 3.0/3.5/PF1 Damage resistance minus that unlikely scenario that the zero-level farmers had magic weapons. There were mechanical reason this got removed for 5e (probably weighting of 'one big attack' vs. 'many smaller-damage attacks' classes), but could be brought back in with sufficient playtesting (or, since this is a D&D general thread, just play 3e/pf).
Rapiers in D&D. A source of concern since 2000. Time truly is a flat circle.
They were in 2e as well. There I think the concern was that they didn't do enough damage to justify the proficiency, and wouldn't show up on the magic weapon table (a concern for anything introduced after the DMG).
 

In 3.x, rapiers were meh. They have crit range 18-20 which was good only if you planned to get improved critical feat or enchant it with keen property. It's only martial weapon with d6 damage you can use with finesse and get to 15-20 crit range. Regular short sword was just slightly worse than rapier (19-20 x2 crit) and it was half the price :D Elven thinblade and in PF1 Elven curveblade were go to weapons for dex based finesse melee characters. Thinblade was 1d8 18-20x2 finesse weapon and Curveblade was 1d10 18-20x2 two handed finesse weapon (so you got your 1.5 str to damage).
 

In 3.x, rapiers were meh. They have crit range 18-20 which was good only if you planned to get improved critical feat or enchant it with keen property. It's only martial weapon with d6 damage you can use with finesse and get to 15-20 crit range. Regular short sword was just slightly worse than rapier (19-20 x2 crit) and it was half the price :D Elven thinblade and in PF1 Elven curveblade were go to weapons for dex based finesse melee characters. Thinblade was 1d8 18-20x2 finesse weapon and Curveblade was 1d10 18-20x2 two handed finesse weapon (so you got your 1.5 str to damage).
How accessible were those elven blades in the setting though? I bet they were hard to find outside an elven community. They certainly would be in my game. Different weapons are available in different areas, based on tech level and culture.
 

One of my personal house rules was that you can sacrifice 10 points of damage for a minor unofficial status effect associated to the damage type

Like you can sacrifice 10 slashing to make them Shredded Cuts (3d6 bonus damage)
10 bludgeoning for a Crushed hand/finger (can't use hand until heal or rested)
10 piercing for Bleeding Wound (damage over time)

Better, except the slashing one, which seems to be trading ten points of damage for about then points of damage, which seems rather pointless.
 

Remove ads

Top