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

[Ilbranteloth]

I

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.

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.

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

I would be fine with an arming/knightly sword being a short sword. I put it in the next category based on earlier editions of D&D defining a short sword as having a blade up to 24" in length.

Agreed on the broadsword, and I only called out the 'basket hilt' because the type of hilt doesn't have anything to do with the nature of the sword itself, and I didn't want people to latch onto that terminology. And yes, filling the 1d8 range with the broadsword makes sense.

IIlbranteloth

 

[Whirlingdervish]

i don't need a rule in the book for me a the book is a springboard if a person wants wield, Case of rapier, Genoese Axe and Mace, without the dual weilding feat I would assign the old school -2/-4 to their attack rolls with no strength bonus added to either attack. Following along those lines if i feel like i need an expanded weapon list. A new race, class, archtype, background, or monster i get out the notebook and go to town because i realized early on WotC is not going to do it for me

 

[Shendorion]

You can get there without house rules if you give him a "smallsword" that's just a short (d6) rapier until he can pick up the feat. TWF is almost always a loss in terms of DPR and defensive capability, so letting him use a rapier and dagger as if they were both Light Finesse weapons doesn't throw your game out of intended balance.

 

[Hriston]

I would be fine with an arming/knightly sword being a short sword. I put it in the next category based on earlier editions of D&D defining a short sword as having a blade up to 24" in length.

The AD&D Players Handbook (1978) contradicts itself somewhat on this. On page 37, it says the shortsword 'includes all pointed cutting & thrusting weapons with blade length between 15” and 24”.' That makes it sound like 24" is the upper limit on length, but on page 38, it gives a length for the shortsword of around 2 feet. The longword and broadsword, by way of contrast, are said to be around 3 1/2 feet. To me, this means that if something is truly a sword, and not just a "pointed cutting & thrusting" weapon, then it can be longer than 2 feet, as long as it doesn't extend into the longsword/broadsword range, say at around 33".

Now, the knightly sword, with which the arming sword is synonymous, is a bit longer at 33-36", so I think you're correct in establishing an intermediate category between the shortsword and the longsword. Also, this quote from a Wikipedia article on the classification of swords caught my eye: "It must be noted that the term broadsword was never used historically to describe the one-handed arming sword.[citation needed] The arming sword was wrongly labelled a broadsword by antiquarians as the medieval swords were similar in blade width to the military swords of the day (that were also sometimes labeled as broadswords) and broader than the dueling swords and ceremonial dress swords.[citation needed]" It occurs to me that Gygax may have been following some of these antiquarians in mislabeling the arming sword as a broadsword. I'm actually very pleased, if this is indeed true, to find that he was referring to a medieval sword rather than an early modern one.

Agreed on the broadsword, and I only called out the 'basket hilt' because the type of hilt doesn't have anything to do with the nature of the sword itself, and I didn't want people to latch onto that terminology.

Agreed, and yet that is the terminology that seems to be currently in use. As evidence of how misleading it is, I am only now discovering that Gygax very likely did not mean the basket-hilted broadsword, but was rather misusing the term broadsword to refer to the arming/knightly sword.

And yes, filling the 1d8 range with the broadsword makes sense.

IIlbranteloth

In honor of Gygax, I'll probably continue to call it a broadsword. Thanks.

 

[S'mon]

The term can also refer to the basket-hilted backsword, which I would classify, along with all backswords, as a scimitar...

I differ in that I see the arming sword/knightly sword as the equivalent of the short sword...

Backswords as scimitars and arming swords as shortswords? These don't feel right to me at all. An arming sword is not short, a backsword is not curved, and both are pretty good 1-handed defence weapons, whereas d6 in 5e (or 1e, 2e, 3e, 4e...) is pretty crap. Just make them d8 1-handed weapons and everything works out.

 

[Herobizkit]

Sabre = cutlass = scimitar in my games.

Rapier also has the light quality, because RAPIER.

 

[S'mon]

Sabre = cutlass = scimitar in my games.

Rapier also has the light quality, because RAPIER.

I treat cutlass & sabre as equivalent to rapier, ie d8 finesse. These are much better weapons
than Mongol or Saracen scimitars, which were more for cutting down fleeing infantry from
horseback - I heard the Mongol scimitars didn't do too well vs Japanese blades in the invasion of Japan.

Arming sword, backsword, 1-h broadsword, & messer are all d8 1-handed non-finesse.

d6 is reserved for Cinquedea, Smallsword, any other really crap swords... I'm not even sure a
Roman gladius (28" blade!) should really be a Shortsword - it's as long as a katana, which people keep wanting to make d10 or better!

 

[Hriston]

Backswords as scimitars and arming swords as shortswords? These don't feel right to me at all. An arming sword is not short, a backsword is not curved, and both are pretty good 1-handed defence weapons, whereas d6 in 5e (or 1e, 2e, 3e, 4e...) is pretty crap. Just make them d8 1-handed weapons and everything works out.

Yeah, I think that works pretty well. All of these swords could inhabit the space currently occupied by the rapier. The reason I generally would place the backsword along with scimitars is because it's a single-edged blade, so I'm inclined to group them together, but admittedly this approach falls apart when dealing with something like a really large, two-handed scimitar. Anything like that would have to go into the greatsword category. I think you're right about arming swords too. After looking into it somewhat, I'd place the arming/knightly sword along with the spatha, migration period sword, and Viking sword in the spot currently occupied by the rapier. Descendants of the arming sword such as the estoc, rapier, and broadsword would fall into this category as well. There's no particular reason why single-edged swords of a certain size couldn't also go there, just like katana should probably be considered a longsword. Makes you wonder why scimitar is given a separate entry from shortsword.

 

[S'mon]

Yeah, I think that works pretty well. All of these swords could inhabit the space currently occupied by the rapier. The reason I generally would place the backsword along with scimitars is because it's a single-edged blade, so I'm inclined to group them together, but admittedly this approach falls apart when dealing with something like a really large, two-handed scimitar. Anything like that would have to go into the greatsword category. I think you're right about arming swords too. After looking into it somewhat, I'd place the arming/knightly sword along with the spatha, migration period sword, and Viking sword in the spot currently occupied by the rapier. Descendants of the arming sword such as the estoc, rapier, and broadsword would fall into this category as well. There's no particular reason why single-edged swords of a certain size couldn't also go there, just like katana should probably be considered a longsword. Makes you wonder why scimitar is given a separate entry from shortsword.

I agree with that. Like you I would use longsword stats for Katana even though it's short, though really d6/d10 might be more accurate - using a katana 1-handed vs a European arming sword or longsword would be a bad idea.

I don't know why scimitars are called out separately. d6 finesse looks right for a typical scimitar. Some of the larger more advanced Indian Tulwar type blades could reasonably be statted as d8 finesse slashing, same as sabre & cutlass - they're all pretty comparable blades (sabre good on horse, cutlass on foot).

 

[S'mon]

"I'd place the arming/knightly sword along with the spatha, migration period sword, and Viking sword in the spot currently occupied by the rapier."

I would keep all those as d8 non-finesse martial weapons, being STR-only makes them feel slightly inferior and 'cruder', and helps explain why DEX-based Roman legionaries might prefer their shortswords to the STR-based barbarians' longer blades.