Level Up (A5E) Parrying Weapons

[Titus Divinitus]

Is the list odd or is it just me? Weapons historically known/designed for parrying (Rapier) not given the property, but then giving it to weapons historically know for being the least capable of parrying (Great Sword). I understand at some point you need to build a feature around game mechanics and balance, but it's such a flagrant disregard for reality it stands out.

The heaviest full size (1d8) sword (Bastard) and the heaviest sword available (Great) both have parrying. Additionally, even in the smaller swords, it's the heaviest of the category (short sword) that is the parrying weapon. This leads me to believe someone designated size and heft as the mechanism for the focus of this feature, rather than speed and maneuverability.

The best fictional example I can think of is the Three Musketeers (the movies, since they are visual). It seems like they modeled the dueling dagger after those often used by the Cardinal's guard, but then completely ignored the rapier battles and how they were used in the very same fights. Maybe it was Porthos always using an improvised weapon in his off hand to parry that threw them off?

 

[This Effin’ GM]

i always assumed the big swords were pretty decent for defensive fighting, mainly because it creates a larger “don’t go there” radius around you, but I am no historical sword expert

 

[lichmaster]

I'm not sure I follow your reasoning: the rapier may be a good parring weapon against other light weapons, but definitely not against the vast majority of them (larger swords, spears, maces, axes etc). It makes more sense for me that a greatsword and its smaller siblings make good parrying weapons in D&D rather than a thin blade like a rapier...

 

[Titus Divinitus]

I see your point, rather than the ability to maneuver the blade, it's more a function of how you divert the attack from an ogre's claw. So it's not weapon vs. weapon as it is weapon vs. world of D&D attacks. That I can see a bit more. BUT, from a purely weapon vs. weapon, a rapier or saber is perfectly able to parry the attack of larger sword, because it's not force on force, it's about redirecting a blade.

Dragon claw coming at you, throw up your great sword. That I get...

 

[lichmaster]

BUT, from a purely weapon vs. weapon, a rapier or saber is perfectly able to parry the attack of larger sword, because it's not force on force, it's about redirecting a blade.

I'm not really sure of this. A longsword, broadsword, greatsword, mace, halberd, glaive etc attack mostly by sweeping, not by thrusting.
There's no way you can really parry a sweeping attack with a heavier weapon using a rapier, your best chance would be to try to dodge the attack and then counter.

Rapiers were surely exceptional dueling weapons and were also used on battlefields when heavier armor was disappearing (due to the ever more prevailing presence of firearms and cavalry), but in a fantasy medieval setting with heavy armors and lots of large sweeping weapons they would be totally useless

 

[W'rkncacnter]

I'm not sure I follow your reasoning: the rapier may be a good parring weapon against other light weapons, but definitely not against the vast majority of them (larger swords, spears, maces, axes etc). It makes more sense for me that a greatsword and its smaller siblings make good parrying weapons in D&D rather than a thin blade like a rapier...

I'm not really sure of this. A longsword, broadsword, greatsword, mace, halberd, glaive etc attack mostly by sweeping, not by thrusting.
There's no way you can really parry a sweeping attack with a heavier weapon using a rapier, your best chance would be to try to dodge the attack and then counter.

okay, now, see, you MIGHT have a point with all this...except the QUARTERSTAFF of all things has parrying. no, i'm not joking, look at the quarterstaff, its FIRST PROPERTY is PARRYING. you're telling me a long piece of wood is better at parrying things then an extendo-bladed arming sword (which is basically what a rapier is - an arming sword with the blade thinned out to be as long as a longsword's while still being able to be wielded one-handed)? you're telling me i can parry an axe or an owlbear or a DRAGON'S CLAWS with a QUARTERSTAFF, or a shortsword, which is the same weight as the rapier (which would suggest it's an arming sword, but that's just semantics), or a LITERAL DAGGER, but not a rapier? okay. cool.

also, just as an aside, rapiers are actually pretty heavy - they're comparable in weight to longswords (which a5e does actually get right - the rapier is 2 lbs, the longsword is 3. that's about right, and both are fairly heavy for melee weapons). the problem is that, well, rpgs tend to get weapon weights completely and ridiculously wrong. like, why is the bastard sword five pounds? in the medieval ages that just meant a sword whose owner you didn't know of, but today it usually refers to a sword between the sizes of an arming and longsword - why is it the weight of a light zweihander (that's not a joke by the way - from what i can find, the lower range of zweihander weights is 4.4 lbs)???

basically, if you're going to try to make a realism argument for why the rapier, the most famous parrying weapon in existence, can't parry in dnd...i don't think you can win. it's absurd any way you look at it.

 

[Waller]

okay, now, see, you MIGHT have a point with all this...except the QUARTERSTAFF of all things has parrying. no, i'm not joking, look at the quarterstaff, its FIRST PROPERTY is PARRYING. you're telling me a long piece of wood is better at parrying things then an extendo-bladed arming sword (which is basically what a rapier is - an arming sword with the blade thinned out to be as long as a longsword's while still being able to be wielded one-handed)? you're telling me i can parry an axe or an owlbear or a DRAGON'S CLAWS with a QUARTERSTAFF, or a shortsword, which is the same weight as the rapier (which would suggest it's an arming sword, but that's just semantics), or a LITERAL DAGGER, but not a rapier? okay. cool.

also, just as an aside, rapiers are actually pretty heavy - they're comparable in weight to longswords (which a5e does actually get right - the rapier is 2 lbs, the longsword is 3. that's about right, and both are fairly heavy for melee weapons). the problem is that, well, rpgs tend to get weapon weights completely and ridiculously wrong. like, why is the bastard sword five pounds? in the medieval ages that just meant a sword whose owner you didn't know of, but today it usually refers to a sword between the sizes of an arming and longsword - why is it the weight of a light zweihander (that's not a joke by the way - from what i can find, the lower range of zweihander weights is 4.4 lbs)???

basically, if you're going to try to make a realism argument for why the rapier, the most famous parrying weapon in existence, can't parry in dnd...i don't think you can win. it's absurd any way you look at it.

It was a long search, but I think we found the world's #1 rapier fan at last!

 

[Stone Dog]

I'm going to put the constructive stuff up top instead of after my negativity and say that the rapier is certainly missing something that could be used to meet some of the expectations of it. Defensive (light) is good, but it doesn't quite gel. I'd add a fencing quality to the rapier, dueling dagger, and shortsword.

Weapons with the fencing quality are treated as dual-wielding only when paired with other fencing weapons in the hands of a user with proficiency in both weapons. In addition, a proficient user that is not wielding shield may have the use of the Defensive property as if they were wielding a light shield.

Now to the negativity.

Absolutely, a quarterstaff is better at parrying things than a rapier. 100% No question. In addition, the rapier is absolutely crap at parrying a quarterstaff. If I'm going to be a defensive fighter in a dungeon or any threat diverse combat career and depend on my weapon to keep me safe instead of a shield or my dodging ability, no, I do NOT want a rapier.

I'd only want a rapier if I was a fencer or swashbuckler or something and even then my defense would be based on footwork and dodging, and I wouldn't want to parry anything that wasn't heavier than the same class of light skirmishing weapon that I'm already using.

The Parrying quality probably should be called "blocking" since it is a weapon that can take the place of a shield for (normally) up to 4 AC. That indicates that the weapon should be big since it is on average as good as a heavy shield and it should be two handed because using your wrist to take a heavy impact is a bad idea. It should be balanced because you can attack and defend with it in the same round, which is troublesome if one end of the weapon is significantly heavier than the rest of it. It should be sturdy to avoid breaking after a single blow.

In my opinion the weapons that do have the parrying quality that shouldn't are dueling daggers, shortswords, and scythes. The first two because using them as shield substitutes are bad ideas. Your wrist is a bad fulcrum for taking impacts. The scythe is just a dumb thing to bring to a fight anyway and it is way too unbalanced to attack and defend in the same round.

 

[tetrasodium]

you're telling me a long piece of wood is better at parrying things then an extendo-bladed arming sword

Spoiler: without question

A quarterstaff is dramatically longer end to end than nearly all weapons other than some pole arms but unlike those pole arms it is wielded in such a way that the wielder is the fulcrum & able to push against the load as well as pull against the effort to exert much more force even under load than if held towards one end or used as a thrusting weapon. In the case of parrying a forceful blow that dual leverage can even be used to push the wielder away from the blow using the force of the blow to aid in their movement.

 

[MajorSarigar]

If it works better for your table, no reason you can't give the rapier the Parrying property, or create a Cultural weapon that is basically a rapier + Parrying. The tools are there for you to use as you see fit.