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

[Lanliss]

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.

By different area I meant a different area of Europe. Europe seems a bit large for everywhere to have gotten the rapier at the same time. I meant different area I. The same way for my follow-up question. Was there a nearby country that had their own special weapon which could be a replacement for the rapier, or a possible seafaring country that made use of such a weapon which could be the origin of the d8 finesse-able weapon for this country?

 

[Azzy]

Essentially, this is my question. Would this matter? I'm getting very mixed messages in the thread

I'd say it doesn't matter. Looking at it mechanically, the difference between a rapier and a shortsword (which is the most likely goto melee weapon if you remove the rapier) is 1 point of damage on average, and 2 points of damage at maximum. So, the most extreme result of removing the rapier is Dex-based melee combatants doing 2 points less damage. That's largely insignificant.

 

[Gadget]

This has touched on one of my few pet peeves with 5e out of the box: the addition of the rapier. Not only is it far to modern a weapon for D&D's more transitional medieval take--even by D&D's somewhat abstract fighting representations--it seems to be there to make DEX even more of an uber stat than it has been in the past. It used to be that a dex melee fighter had to settle for smaller weapons (usually dagger or short sword) when in melee, or make an investment in STR. Usually such characters relied on damage boosters like sneak attack/back stab to make up the difference, or settled for lesser damage. That is no longer the case, as we can now dump STR and rely on DEX and the uber-rapier for damage. Of course, the expansion of Power Attacking, GWM, two-handed damage in recent additions may have had a lot to do with forcing this change, but that is topic for another thread.

Of course, it is just an average of +1 damage, but it still rankles. Especially if you want to play second line melee class, like valor bard, blade-lock or such, and feel like you have to go with rapier or you're gimping yourself. There is no hard choice of having to prioritize STR in your build.

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

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.

Actual differences in the way they were used however don't matter unless they actually impact upon the D&D mechanics though. Just assume that anyone proficient with a weapon will use it in a correct style. Just because historical longswords were used in a different style to zweihanders, doesn't mean they don't both use greatsword stats as far as 5th ed is concerned.
The style or method in which they were used doesn't matter since both weapons boil down to "2d6 Slashing, Heavy, 2-handed."

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...

Finesse is one of my personal bugbears, but bear in mind that its a weapon property, and doesn't affect shield usage at all by the rules. Bucklers are covered under shields in 5th ed, so rapier and shield isn't as odd as you might have thought.

Essentially, this is my question. Would this matter? I'm getting very mixed messages in the thread

In general, not much. Whether you decide to upgrade the tulwars and similar to d8 finesse weapons, or to not bother with a rapier substitute isn't going to make or break your game.
You might want to perhaps adjust the proficiencies a bit, maybe giving Rogues, Bards etc scimitar profs since those were more common weapons than longsword-types though.

By different area I meant a different area of Europe. Europe seems a bit large for everywhere to have gotten the rapier at the same time. I meant different area I. The same way for my follow-up question. Was there a nearby country that had their own special weapon which could be a replacement for the rapier, or a possible seafaring country that made use of such a weapon which could be the origin of the d8 finesse-able weapon for this country?

Bear in mind that we're looking at a couple of hundred years here, and Europe was much more cosmopolitan in the renaissance than it was in the more mediaeval period. Rapiers and prestigious fencing masters travelled and were in demand as fashion items with every noble wanting to copy the trendsetters. There were different styles of fencing and rapier-equivalents in different countries, and not every European country adopted the rapier so enthusiastically.

However to get back to your original point, yes, Rapiers were developed and used by the same areas that used longswords, and indeed would often be used by the same person.

 

[aramis erak]

So.

Background: I'm learning the new (to me) D&D rules and working on a vaguely South-Asian setting (Yoon-Suin, *highly* recommended).

Some of the weapons in such a setting are going to be unchanged - a spear is a spear, and so is an axe. Other weapons are new but are replacements of sort for existing weapons. A small kriss is a dagger, a large one a short sword, a firangi a longsword. Some weapons don't really exist in "standard" D&D and I'll have to stat them out like the Urumi. So far so good right?

What I have realized however is I don't have a rapier. And by rapier I don't mean "long thin stabbing sword". I mean "one handed finesse-able weapon that does 1d8 dmg". As a result, a character wanting to fight with a one-handed weapon would be limited to 1d6 dmg weapons.

Now my first instinct here is "this isn't a problem, high dex characters have it too good with dex being so useful all around anyway". But... well I haven't played the game yet, and most (I hope haha) of you have. Would "forcing" dex-based characters to use smaller weapons be a big issue? Or is it a small nerf that might well be needed (seeing how good dex is).

A bladed sai would be roughly equivalent to a townsword (also a thin, stabbing weapon, but one absent from D&D), and the townsword is to the rapier as the Shortsword is to the broadsword.

You don't "need" a rapier, but a sai could easily be a d6 finesse piercer in the same basic role.

 

[MoonSong]

This has touched on one of my few pet peeves with 5e out of the box: the addition of the rapier. Not only is it far to modern a weapon for D&D's more transitional medieval take--even by D&D's somewhat abstract fighting representations--it seems to be there to make DEX even more of an uber stat than it has been in the past. It used to be that a dex melee fighter had to settle for smaller weapons (usually dagger or short sword) when in melee, or make an investment in STR. Usually such characters relied on damage boosters like sneak attack/back stab to make up the difference, or settled for lesser damage. That is no longer the case, as we can now dump STR and rely on DEX and the uber-rapier for damage. Of course, the expansion of Power Attacking, GWM, two-handed damage in recent additions may have had a lot to do with forcing this change, but that is topic for another thread.

Of course, it is just an average of +1 damage, but it still rankles. Especially if you want to play second line melee class, like valor bard, blade-lock or such, and feel like you have to go with rapier or you're gimping yourself. There is no hard choice of having to prioritize STR in your build.

You know, some of us just like the aesthetic?

 

[Guest 6801328]

Here's what I would have preferred:

"Short Sword": 1d6, light, finesse
"Long Sword": 1d8, finesse
"Bastard (or Broad) Sword": 1d8, versatile
"Great Sword": 2d6, heavy

Yes yes yes I KNOW that terminology is not historically accurate. All 17 people on the planet who care post on these forums.

 

[Hriston]

Historically accurate terminology version

Short sword: 1d6, light, finesse
Knightly sword: 1d8, finesse (edit: you could throw "broadsword" in here too)
Long sword: 1d8/1d10, versatile
Great sword: 2d6, two-handed, heavy

 

[S'mon]

I guess there's no real problem with having a non-light scimitar type blade (tulwar maybe?) that is still finessable and does d8. That said, a Rogue does fine with d6 melee weapon, and DEX Fighter/Paladin etc ought to still be viable with d6 too.

Edit: After watching a bunch of ScholaGladiatoria on Youtube I like the idea of making the
Arming Sword d8, Finesse - and the Longbow STR-based.

 

[TheCosmicKid]

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

But then again, so are warlocks, golems, and zombies. Vampires and other Gothic horror elements in the game come from even later. Lovecraftian stuff, later still. D&D as it presents itself is... mildly medieval at best.