D&D 5E rapier+dagger and/or longsword+dagger?

[Hriston]

You've misunderstood what I mean by "trap option;" everything has an opportunity cost. If you hold a dagger in your off hand and explain it as your parrying dagger (because you don't have the Feat), you are giving up the use of a shield (assuming you are proficient).

Why is that assumption being treated as a given? Lots of characters aren't proficient with shields. What about them? What are they giving up? Many that do have shield proficiency choose not to use them, preferring to keep a free hand. Eldritch Knights have shield proficiency but need a free hand to cast spells. If a character holds a dagger in her otherwise free hand, she doesn't give up that free hand, since she could always drop the dagger and have full use of the hand.

If you take the feat and use a dagger, you gain +1 AC and about +2 damage per round, as opposed to +1 to hit and damage on ALL attacks (from an ability score increase), and +1 AC if you are a Dex based character.

An ASI isn't available to a first level character. What is a variant human giving up? Maybe a +1 to a relevant score, maybe not. If the choice is between a feat and an ASI, why assume the increase is going to benefit the character's combat performance? Maybe the player has other priorities, like being able to dual wield with a weapon that isn't light. An ASI won't help you do that. By choosing an ASI, the player is giving up the ability to wield the weapons of her choice. Does that make the ASI a trap option?

THAT is a trap option, because you've given up more than you would have otherwise gained. That's not to say that there aren't edge cases where you don't lose so much, but for most character's it's going to be a bad choice.

Being first level isn't an edge case.

I do not feel that you should always take the optimal choice. I do, however, detest that 5E discourages (mechanically) a historically accurate fighting style.

Discourages how? There's no penalty for dual wielding like there was in certain other editions. To the contrary, a feat has been included that allows you to dual wield any two one-handed melee weapons you'd like. Also, if by historically accurate fighting style you mean using a companion weapon, I wouldn't characterize that as two-weapon fighting in the sense of making an attack with both weapons every round. In that style, the off-hand weapon's primary purpose is to parry, not attack. You can also parry with a single weapon, so I don't see any particular reason why using a companion weapon should significantly boost your AC or give you extra attacks.

Having done stage combat, I know that it's easier to use 1 sword than sword and dagger, but I also know that 2 swords is MUCH harder. This is why in my games, I allow a 1d8 weapon to be used with a light 1d4 weapon with TWF. You are of course welcome to do whatever you want in your games.

Sure, and I have no problem with you doing that in your games. Personally, I'm fine with the feat covering everything beyond basic TWF. I don't feel that a higher level of granularity is necessary to make players feel their choice is the most optimal. That way, a player that takes the feat in order to do longsword +dagger, for example, always has the option of using two longswords if she feels she isn't doing enough damage.

Unless you want to play an elf

Does giving up a feat, one that may be important to your character concept, make elf a trap option?

 

[Ilbranteloth]

Why? Finesse is relative to weapons that don't have it. All it means is you can use your choice of strength or dexterity. Certainly a basket-hilted sword is more gracile and delicate, and more suited for use with dex, than a longsword.

I'm not sure the basket hilt has anything to do with how graceful the sword was. They were applied to broadswords (double-edged chop and thrust), back swords (similar but single edged), cutlasses (similar with a heavier curved blade), sabres (lighter curved backsword), and rapiers (thin thrusting swords). I have rules for disarming weapons, and the ones with basket hilts make it harder to disarm you. A basket hilt can be applied to any short sword or smaller.

But a lot of the discussion here is on fluff or flavor, saying that a swashbuckler can't use a rapier or a pirate can't use a cutlass.

The rules were designed simply and have to do more with game balance than historical accuracy.

Light weapons all do 1d6 or less damage. This seems to be in part to limit the amount of damage that can be caused with two-weapon fighting without a feat.

Finesse weapons are tied to sneak attack, but are also designated as such to allow for Dexterity-based fighters. The rapier is the only finesse weapon that does more than 1d6 damage. As a result most of my players have rapiers, which is a renaissance weapon designed for dress and dueling. They could carry edges and be used for cutting, but were primarily used by unarmored or lightly armored civilian duels and such, rather than the battlefield. They evolved into smallswords which were even less cumbersome. Their 'finesse' nature theoretically made them more effective than longswords and other larger swords, provided you weren't fighting an armored opponent. Or skeletons.

If they wanted to simplify things more, they would have designated weapon types such as:

Great Swords - any sword that must be wielded two-handed and cause 2d6 slashing damage
Long Swords - any sword that can be wielded one- or two-handed that causes 1d8/1d10 slashing or piercing damage (that is, they have a longer hilt)
Short Swords - any sword that can be wielded one-handed and cause 1d6 slashing or piercing damage
Small Swords/Daggers - any sword that can be wielded one-handed and cause 1d4 slashing or piercing damage

D&D mixes weapons of many ages and cultures, all of which were originally developed largely based on the combat requirements of the weapon. The defining characteristics for combat are whether they are single-edged, double-edged, curved, and in the case of some rapiers and specialized daggers, carrying no edge and used entirely as a thrusting weapon. The exact length and weight would vary between specific types, but within a certain range to qualify for a given type.

The reality is that we're missing a class of swords, that was marginalized by the long sword, that of the 'arming' sword, aka as a side-sword, norman sword, knights' sword, etc. These are swords with a blade between a short and long sword and wielded one-handed, increasingly on horseback. If we were to add these, then they should occupy the 1d8 damage slot, and longswords would be a 1d10/1d12 weapon. So-called broadswords could also fall in this slot, and would be capable of utilizing a basket hilt as well.

All the rest is fluff. The difference between a short sword and scimitar is the appearance, weight, and cost.

Now for the second issue, which is that of the rapier. It's currently statted as between a short sword and long sword (1d8, but not versatile). As far as I can tell, this was to provide an option for a 'finesse fighter.' If you add the arming (medium) sword category, then this would fall there.

Light weapons would be based on weight. This has no impact on damage, so essentially all swords that cause 1d6 or less damage could be considered light.

Finesse weapons are a bit trickier. Presumably they are weapons, like the rapier, that indicate they are quick and effective with the use of primarily thrusting attacks that are more precise and harder to parry. But if we look at the damage range, the rapier sets the limit at 1d8. In which case we can argue that it's the method of training that's as important, provided the weapon is light and agile enough. So they could be swords up to the medium size. The game has declared that finesse fighters (probably based off of eastern fighting techniques) should also have slashing and bludgeoning weapons available. So that works with the medium sword definition.

I don't really see any reason why the swashbuckler or pirate couldn't use a scimitar (cutlass) or rapier. Even allowing it as the primary weapon with a dagger as the secondary as has been suggested works well, although it does bump up the sneak attack damage, which becomes an even bigger bump for the swashbuckler. However, as written, they granted a defensive bonus instead, and even called it out in a sidebar so folks wouldn't miss it. That ability to make two attacks per round and still avoid opportunity attacks is pretty big.

The main issue is that you can't use the weapon labeled as a rapier. Well, I think the only reason a rapier is not light is because it is a 1d8 damage weapon, and was labeled as such for the finesse warriors. So make a broadsword/sidesword that has the stats of the rapier in the PHB, and add a rapier that has the stats of a shortsword.

If you want a 1d8 damage for sneak attack, then you either do it single-handedly, or with a feat. I would also agree that the Dual-Wielder Feat should be changed to allow you to use one weapon that is not light, but the second still needs to be. The idea of wielding two longswords is a bit ludicrous.

Ilbranteloth

 

[Kalshane]

I think of the D&D longsword as encompassing the medieval longsword (when it is feasible to wield it with one hand), and the bastard sword/hand and a half sword. Are you saying that, historically, the longsword was never wielded with one hand? If so, I was unaware of this fact. It certainly isn't represented that way in medieval fantasy fiction. If so, then what you are referring to is a D&D greatsword, in which case I wonder even more why you say the rapier requires more strength to wield. Could it be that strength and dexterity are physiologically not as separate as the rules make them out to be?

Traditionally, the D&D (and fantasy) longsword has been closer to a historical category of swords that include the arming sword and "knight's sword" (ie. one-handed straight double-edged blades primarily used to slash) while the actual historical longsword is closer to the D&D bastard sword. The longsword manuals of Talhoffer and Fiore, among others, depict a 4'(ish) weapon with a two-handed hilt and involve using a two-handed grip for the majority of techniques, though a one-handed grip is used at times (typically to either extend the range of a thrust or because you are using your free hand to grab, bat or redirect your opponent or their weapon.)

5E has brought the longsword of the game more inline with its historical counterpart.

 

[Ilbranteloth]

Traditionally, the D&D (and fantasy) longsword has been closer to a historical category of swords that include the arming sword and "knight's sword" (ie. one-handed straight double-edged blades primarily used to slash) while the actual historical longsword is closer to the D&D bastard sword. The longsword manuals of Talhoffer and Fiore, among others, depict a 4'(ish) weapon with a two-handed hilt and involve using a two-handed grip for the majority of techniques, though a one-handed grip is used at times (typically to either extend the range of a thrust or because you are using your free hand to grab, bat or redirect your opponent or their weapon.)

5E has brought the longsword of the game more inline with its historical counterpart.

Agreed, and I thought of naming the 'middle' group of swords long swords, and the hand-and-a-half category bastard swords but decided against perpetuating the disconnect from historical weapons. The main problem is that the middle category includes the longest bladed one-handed swords and there is a very large variety that bear little resemblance to each other - rapier, broadsword, arming sword, khopesh, saber, cutlass, etc. Overall I'm OK with that, it just means that more information must be defined in the fluff, such as weight, whether slashing, piercing or both (which 5e did away with but can be very important, particularly in close quarters), cost, etc.

Now that I've started statting them out, though, I very well may go with the category route in my campaign. Bumping up the longsword to a little more damage shouldn't have a very dramatic effect on the game, particularly if all longswords are the same.

I think the tradeoff of a shorter rapier (call it an epee) for the swashbuckler for two-handed use, and the longer rapier for bumping up one-handed damage, including sneak attack, is a reasonable tradeoff. Particularly since the swashbuckler can sneak attack basically every time, and also retreat without provoking opportunity attacks.

Ilbranteloth

 

[Kalshane]

Agreed, and I thought of naming the 'middle' group of swords long swords, and the hand-and-a-half category bastard swords but decided against perpetuating the disconnect from historical weapons. The main problem is that the middle category includes the longest bladed one-handed swords and there is a very large variety that bear little resemblance to each other - rapier, broadsword, arming sword, khopesh, saber, cutlass, etc. Overall I'm OK with that, it just means that more information must be defined in the fluff, such as weight, whether slashing, piercing or both (which 5e did away with but can be very important, particularly in close quarters), cost, etc.

Now that I've started statting them out, though, I very well may go with the category route in my campaign. Bumping up the longsword to a little more damage shouldn't have a very dramatic effect on the game, particularly if all longswords are the same.

I think the tradeoff of a shorter rapier (call it an epee) for the swashbuckler for two-handed use, and the longer rapier for bumping up one-handed damage, including sneak attack, is a reasonable tradeoff. Particularly since the swashbuckler can sneak attack basically every time, and also retreat without provoking opportunity attacks.

Ilbranteloth

Yeah, I don't know that the game really needs separate stats for every possible weapon that existed in human history. While the actual fighting styles for using a longsword or katana, for example, have some differences, they're functionally "hand-and-a-half" swords designed primarily for slashing. A rapier can represent any long-bladed "finesse" weapon. The only place you really get into trouble is proficiencies, but even there, it's easy enough for a DM to handwave allowing a rogue with the pirate background to a have proficiency in cutlass (aka scimitar) and call it a day. It might make a difference in maybe 1% of battles where they encounter a creature that is resistant to piercing, but not slashing. The rest of the time, the rogue is doing 1d6+Dex+SA. 5e isn't 3.x/PF where weapons need nitty-gritty stat differentiation based on damage die, type and crit range.

As for the original question, I've got no problem with someone using a rapier and dagger to dual wield without the feat. Sure, a rogue gets a 1 point average damage boost for the times they don't make the off-hand attack because they're using Cunning Action instead. It's an iconic fighting style and it's not going to break the game, IMO.

 

[S'mon]

I gave Rapier + Dagger use as a Background benefit IMC. IMC it's "Antillian Trader", but you can do something similar. Keeps player happy, no resource cost, doesn't affect the general rules.

 

[S'mon]

Traditionally, the D&D (and fantasy) longsword has been closer to a historical category of swords that include the arming sword and "knight's sword" (ie. one-handed straight double-edged blades primarily used to slash) while the actual historical longsword is closer to the D&D bastard sword. The longsword manuals of Talhoffer and Fiore, among others, depict a 4'(ish) weapon with a two-handed hilt and involve using a two-handed grip for the majority of techniques, though a one-handed grip is used at times (typically to either extend the range of a thrust or because you are using your free hand to grab, bat or redirect your opponent or their weapon.)

5E has brought the longsword of the game more inline with its historical counterpart.

I agree.

Re arming swords and other 1-handed sword type weapons, I have them do d8 damage,
no 2-handed usage. I allow some to be Finesse, eg the Cutlass, to have high DEX
cutlass-wielding pirates - if we actually wanted historical accuracy I guess most swords would be Finesse while bows would be STR-based.

I would not advise making longswords d10/d12, a d10 1-handed weapon is a big step up from anything in the rules. IRL an arming sword is generally a slightly *better* 1-handed weapon than a longsword, which is slightly unwieldy in 1 hand. Giving them both d8 works fine. I have a bigger issue with the crappy
d6 shortsword, but I guess that makes sense in a 1-1 medieval/renaissance
dueling/street-fighting context. A Cinquedea is certainly an inferior weapon to a Rapier if there's space to use either.

 

[devincutler]

While it wouldn't be game breaking, I think the mechanism is already in place with a feat...so why is there a need to go through these gyrations? Just have the person wield a shortsword and dagger and call the shortsword an epee or foil. Seems like the player is trying to use a character concept as an excuse to squeeze some more damage out of TWF without burning a feat. You will note it is, coincidentally, the heavier weapon that the player claims is necessary for his character concept, although a shortsword could have just as easily been reskinned.

 

[Hriston]

I

I'm not sure the basket hilt has anything to do with how graceful the sword was. They were applied to broadswords (double-edged chop and thrust), back swords (similar but single edged), cutlasses (similar with a heavier curved blade), sabres (lighter curved backsword), and rapiers (thin thrusting swords). I have rules for disarming weapons, and the ones with basket hilts make it harder to disarm you. A basket hilt can be applied to any short sword or smaller.

I use the term "basket-hilted" to refer to the type of sword rather than the type of hilt. I understand that basket-style hilts may be found on any number of swords and daggers, but the term, as far as I understand, makes specific reference to the broadsword, which is what I intended. The term can also refer to the basket-hilted backsword, which I would classify, along with all backswords, as a scimitar. Thus, you find a distinction among scholars between basket-hilted broadswords and basket-hilted backswords. The argument I was making, to which you replied, was that the basket-hilted broadsword, which I suppose we could just call a broadsword, being a one-handed weapon, is lighter and more gracile (which doesn't necessarily mean the same thing as graceful) than the longsword, and so could justifiably fill the niche presently inhabited by the rapier (1d8 finesse, not light). Given what you presented (which I quote below), I think you agree with me.

The reality is that we're missing a class of swords, that was marginalized by the long sword, that of the 'arming' sword, aka as a side-sword, norman sword, knights' sword, etc. These are swords with a blade between a short and long sword and wielded one-handed, increasingly on horseback. If we were to add these, then they should occupy the 1d8 damage slot, and longswords would be a 1d10/1d12 weapon. So-called broadswords could also fall in this slot, and would be capable of utilizing a basket hilt as well.

I differ in that I see the arming sword/knightly sword as the equivalent of the short sword. It's the basic, one-handed sword. Notice that is already has finesse, so I'm not making the argument that the broadsword is significantly more gracile than the arming sword.

The main issue is that you can't use the weapon labeled as a rapier. Well, I think the only reason a rapier is not light is because it is a 1d8 damage weapon, and was labeled as such for the finesse warriors. So make a broadsword/sidesword that has the stats of the rapier in the PHB, and add a rapier that has the stats of a shortsword.

That seems like a good solution to the OP's problem.

 

[Hriston]

Traditionally, the D&D (and fantasy) longsword has been closer to a historical category of swords that include the arming sword and "knight's sword" (ie. one-handed straight double-edged blades primarily used to slash) while the actual historical longsword is closer to the D&D bastard sword. The longsword manuals of Talhoffer and Fiore, among others, depict a 4'(ish) weapon with a two-handed hilt and involve using a two-handed grip for the majority of techniques, though a one-handed grip is used at times (typically to either extend the range of a thrust or because you are using your free hand to grab, bat or redirect your opponent or their weapon.)

5E has brought the longsword of the game more inline with its historical counterpart.

I agree. 5e has no bastard sword. It is now the longsword, which I agree is more in keeping with contemporary scholarship on the subject. What I was replying to in what you quoted, however, was the assertion that the longsword should only be considered as wielded with two hands when the nomenclature "bastard sword" and "hand and a half sword" underscores the fact that the longsword is versatile. It can be wielded with one hand or two hands. If a sword is too large to be wielded with one hand, then in 5e D&D terms, it should be considered a greatsword.