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

[fjw70]

I use rapier stats for shortswords/scimitars so rapier are not the only d8 finesse weapon. I then bump daggers to d6 to gill in the space that shortswords/scimitars vacate.

 

[ChrisCarlson]

FWIW, in my setting, the rapier is a distinctly elven weapon by design. Sure, all those foppish human dandies like to run around dueling with them and all, but it is elf in origin none-the-less.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

Sure, but consider this: in D&D you have on the one hand the shortsword, a light finesse weapon, analogous to the Roman gladius and other ancient swords, and on the other hand you have the versatile longsword. There's a gap between the two that represents the majority of sword evolution in the medieval period: the spatha and its descendants, the migration period, knightly, and arming swords. They were neither light (because you couldn't readily wield two of them) nor versatile (because they weren't made to be wielded with two hands). The rapier fills that gap in the D&D rules by losing the light property of its smaller cousin in exchange for a larger damage die, while it retains finesse. I'm inclined to treat all other swords in the one-handed arming sword family the same, because otherwise they would simply be the equivalent of longswords that forgo versatile for no other benefit.

I'd still count arming swords, viking-era swords etc as D&D longswords. You can still get a bit of extra force out of them by using two hands even if they aren't designed as two-handed weapons. In the same way that many bastard swords aren't designed to be used with one hand whilst on foot, but you technically could if you had to.
If a character tends to use their longsword one-handed, I'll probably assume its closer to an arming sword. If they generally use it two-handed, its probably closer to a historical longsword. I don't think that 5th ed has or needs enough granularity to worry about finer distinctions.

If needs be, think about an arming sword as versatile in that it can be, and often was, half-sworded using both hands.

Actually, I'd probably give it light myself, due to the emphasis on dual wielding pata or pairing it with other weapons. So basically a shortsword, although some of them could be quite long.

AFAIK the pata was more often paired with a small shield. Considering that it generally had a rather substantial blade attached to it, I'd probably treat it as a non-versatile longsword.

Depending on point of view, one could argue that the katana is a finesse weapon. It is very light and sharp. While I'm not exactly a katana fanboy (I prefer Western-style swords), I do have to give it credit for that. Caution should be exercised, though, as you're not far away from a versatile, finesse weapon, at that point.

Katana are generally rather heavy for their length actually, with the weight distributed towards the blade. While they look less deep in the blade than equivalent swords, they are generally thicker. This means that they are around the same weight as some bastard swords, but shorter. They are extremely sharp, but the style emphasises large sweeping cuts using the power of the shoulders rather than more finesse.
Given that katana are often equivalent length or shorter than scimitars, sabres, tulwars etc, you could use scimitar stats for them if you wanted finesse, with the paired katana and wakizashi treated as two scimitars.

 

[Mercule]

Katana are generally rather heavy for their length actually, with the weight distributed towards the blade. While they look less deep in the blade than equivalent swords, they are generally thicker. This means that they are around the same weight as some bastard swords, but shorter. They are extremely sharp, but the style emphasises large sweeping cuts using the power of the shoulders rather than more finesse.
Given that katana are often equivalent length or shorter than scimitars, sabres, tulwars etc, you could use scimitar stats for them if you wanted finesse, with the paired katana and wakizashi treated as two scimitars.

Fair enough. As I said, I'm generally more familiar with Western-style swords. For those, the D&D categories are so subjective, that it's not easy to make "exact" assignments. I was thinking in terms of what would fall into the "versatile" (i.e. bastard) category of long swords. While some historical examples (true hand-and-a-half swords) might be lighter than a katana, the claymore that most people picture wouldn't have been.

Even then, it's guesswork. Even though I know better, my brain is probably polluted by "replicas" and "stage props" that are absurdly heavy compared to what they purport to replicate.

 

[Guest 6801328]

D&D and real life martial arts are worlds apart.

This.

There's a philosophical difference between starting with history and precedent and trying to model it with game mechanics, versus starting with interesting & balanced game mechanics and then attaching evocative fluff. I believe games should be designed according to the latter. I honestly could care less how much real plate armor weighs or how long a real quarterstaff is.

I realize there are a lot of people on these forums who geek out on historical fighting techniques and what-not...and that's cool, I geek out on my own topics...but I just glaze over when that knowledge is introduced as a rationale for game rules.

 

[MostlyDm]

The weapon system of 5e is not nearly as fragile and finely tuned as some people think it is.

You could pretty much distill melee weapons down to about six choices and be fine.

Holdout weapon: 1d4 damage, light, can be thrown.
Small weapon: 1d6 damage, light, can probably be thrown.
Weapon: 1d8 damage, finesse or versatile (I'd probably allow both because it's really not a huge deal. Or let people choose on the fly based on stance!)
Big weapon: 2d6, heavy.
Reach weapon: 1d10 damage, heavy, reach.

Ranged weapons could be similarly simplified, though there are less of them already.

Making variant weapons can be fun but it's ultimately not a big deal one way or the other.

 

[TheCosmicKid]

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

Frankly, "finesse" is kind of an artificial distinction D&D makes. I'm not sure how you would determine whether a real-world weapon is finessable or not. Even with a big ol' claymore you're not just swinging wildly with your full strength. For something like an arming sword or pata? I'm definitely willing to give them the benefit of the doubt.

 

[TheLoneRanger1979]

I'd still count arming swords, viking-era swords etc as D&D longswords. You can still get a bit of extra force out of them by using two hands even if they aren't designed as two-handed weapons. In the same way that many bastard swords aren't designed to be used with one hand whilst on foot, but you technically could if you had to.
If a character tends to use their longsword one-handed, I'll probably assume its closer to an arming sword. If they generally use it two-handed, its probably closer to a historical longsword. I don't think that 5th ed has or needs enough granularity to worry about finer distinctions.

If needs be, think about an arming sword as versatile in that it can be, and often was, half-sworded using both hands.

Though an extra hand on the grip would provide some speed and power to a say migration era/arming sword, we could say the same for every weapon, be it gladius or even a dagger. However, even if this wasn't an issue, there is very distinctive way the one handed "long" blades were used as opposed to how the actual long swords were used. And then again, there is tons of differences in the way an two handed long sword was used, when compared to a large renaissance great sword. All 3, look, feel and are used in way too different manners to be just lumped together or "abstracted" together. I do agree though, that most blades in the same length category made to be used with same/similar grips can.

Katana are generally rather heavy for their length actually, with the weight distributed towards the blade. While they look less deep in the blade than equivalent swords, they are generally thicker. This means that they are around the same weight as some bastard swords, but shorter. They are extremely sharp, but the style emphasises large sweeping cuts using the power of the shoulders rather than more finesse.
Given that katana are often equivalent length or shorter than scimitars, sabres, tulwars etc, you could use scimitar stats for them if you wanted finesse, with the paired katana and wakizashi treated as two scimitars.

Just i wanted to say. You beat me to it!

 

[Khisanth the Ancient]

I detest rapiers. They don't fit in with the rest of the aesthetic. Or, I should say, MY aesthetic.

That's because the rest of D&D is largely based on Medieval stuff, with some Classical influences and some Renaissance stuff (minus gunpowder, which was in Europe by the late Middle Ages in RL).

Rapiers are Early Modern, 16th-17th century, belonging to an age of guns, transAtlantic colonization, and the beginnings of the modern world.