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

[S'mon]

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.

According to Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rapier & other sources I've seen, the Rapier originates ca 1500 - which makes it just as Medieval as Full Plate Armour.

Conversely, gunpowder weapons are around 250 years earlier, dating from the 'high medieval' 13th century.

 

[SouthpawSoldier]

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.

This has been a thought of mine ever since I discovered his channel, but I can't imagine the amount of work involved in adjusting the rules to match.

Back to the topic at hand; there was a thread on another form ages ago regarding the math of 5e weapon stats....
Found it! Shame it died so quickly.

I like where this thread is going; never considered that rapiers just didn't belong.

 

[Bayonet]

Throw all your players for a loop and make it so that you roll DEX to hit (to see if you're accurate enough to hit what you're aiming at) and you roll STR to damage (to see if you can put enough force in to make it count). In my opinion, that makes the most sense, and should be how the game is played.

But that's just MY opinion, and I can do things like that in my game if I want to, like letting spears have Reach, or letting blunt weapons have advantage against plate. Or I could rule that certain weapons and armors don't exist in a certain area, or don't exist at all.

To answer your question... you can do what you want, man! Make a light katana with rapier stats!

 

[TheLoneRanger1979]

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

I'd just make the long sword 2d4 to compensate for the larger heavier blade and more momentum. Probably add a heavy attribute to it, to prevent it from being used in dual wielding too.

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."

Bur are they all in the same mechanics category? Is a long sword really the equivalent of an arming sword when used in one hand? And is that same sword equivalent to a zweihander when used in both?

In the first case, the blade is still heavier and longer. The grip would be less stable. If i had it my way, i would add some damage (say 2d4 vs 1d8), but lower to hit value as -1 if used in one hand. Thus you could still grab a shield with it, but you aren't gonna hit as often.

In the second case, a zweihander can almost be considered a short spear in some grips. And the blade is much longer and heavier then a long sword. So if this is 2d6, slashing, heavy, two handed, then the long sword would justify 1d10 heavy, versatile.

Note; in both cases i presume the damage die to be dependent on both the length and the mass of the blade. This of course may be a completely wrong line of thinking, but the dagger/short sword/long sword die progression makes me think it isn't in DnD context.

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.

Yep, me too. Although i'd hate to see all the ruckus this would cause on the forums

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

Bur are they all in the same mechanics category? Is a long sword really the equivalent of an arming sword when used in one hand? And is that same sword equivalent to a zweihander when used in both?

No, the historical longsword (note: not D&D longsword) is a two-handed weapon that would be covered by the 5th ed Greatsword description. The Zweihander is also covered by the greatsword description. Their actual usage can vary quite a bit, but in D&D terms they both boil down to "2d6 Slashing*, heavy, 2-handed."

Bastard swords and arming swords (D&D "longswords") are often also used in different ways and feel fairly different in the hand, but both boil down to: "1d8 Slashing*, Versatile"

Yep, me too. Although i'd hate to see all the ruckus this would cause on the forums

What you do in your game is your business. I've had bows be finesse weapons as a houserule pretty much since I started. I personally wouldn't make arming swords finessable though: I can sort of see the argument for rapiers: in a fencing style emphasising ripostes and footwork there is an argument for you being able to use your reflexes and balance. I see arming swords as more dependent upon your capability to move the blade and change its direction rapidly, as well as the force you can apply with it.
I'm not however going to tell you off if you decide that you do want to add finesse to stuff, or add lots more weapons with special rules to the weapons table. Your game, your call.
*I've also had a houserule that most swords can choose to deal Slashing or Piercing damage at the users discretion.

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

Whoops! Missed a bit:

In the first case, the blade is still heavier and longer. The grip would be less stable. If i had it my way, i would add some damage (say 2d4 vs 1d8), but lower to hit value as -1 if used in one hand. Thus you could still grab a shield with it, but you aren't gonna hit as often.

That's way too granular for the 5th Ed ruleset. You really don't need to go into that sort of level of detail unless you and your players specifically want to.

A longer, heavier blade will be slower to respond, true. But the reach increase may cancel out the speed decrease in terms of hitting. Compared to a somewhat lighter blade it will build up less speed when it lands a blow, meaning that there is no real difference in damage between them as well.

Note; in both cases i presume the damage die to be dependent on both the length and the mass of the blade. This of course may be a completely wrong line of thinking, but the dagger/short sword/long sword die progression makes me think it isn't in DnD context.

 

[Guest 6801328]

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

Oh, I'd be fine with calling the finesse version a Broadsword. "Knightly sword" just sounds too....Arthurian. (Ironic, huh?)

Or how about just "Sword"? Short Sword, Sword, Long Sword, Great Sword...

 

[Hriston]

I'd just make the long sword 2d4 to compensate for the larger heavier blade and more momentum.

While that increases average damage by half a point, it actually cuts your chance of doing maximum damage in half, so it's not a great trade-off.

Probably add a heavy attribute to it, to prevent it from being used in dual wielding too.

Heavy doesn't do this. Two-handed would. At that point you've got a greatsword, which I should have pointed out in my post is not a historical term. As far as I know there is no historical term that encompasses all swords that require two hands to wield. Some on this thread seem to be using the term longsword this way, but I don't think that's correct. Ideally, the "greatsword" category should encompass the zweihander as well as very large longswords that necessitate the use of two hands, such as the Scottish two-handed claymore. Of course, the term claymore is derived from the Gaelic for great sword.

 

[Hriston]

Oh, I'd be fine with calling the finesse version a Broadsword. "Knightly sword" just sounds too....Arthurian. (Ironic, huh?)

Broadsword would be the AD&D term. It might create confusion with the basket-hilted broadswords that are now given the historically accurate term broadsword. If you don't like knightly sword, arming sword is a close alternative, although a bit more specific.

Or how about just "Sword"? Short Sword, Sword, Long Sword, Great Sword...

This is just about how I think of it, and I think how the Basic editions handled it.

 

[TheCosmicKid]

Some on this thread seem to be using the term longsword this way, but I don't think that's correct.

As far as I can tell, it's mostly correct. "Longsword" seems to denote swords that are generally used with two hands, although this includes bastard swords as well as the larger obligatory two-handers. It means something like "longer than a normal sword", not "longer than a shortsword" the way D&D tends to use it. Although since 5E merged the longsword and the bastard sword, I think it's close enough to correct now.