Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Hriston" data-source="post: 6789998" data-attributes="member: 6787503">You're contrasting two-handed longsword use with one-handed rapier use. Concluding that the longsword requires less strength doesn't seem right to me considering how common one-handed use of the longsword is. You also seem to be saying you don't think the rapier should have finesse either. Is that correct? Less effective than a shield, in D&D terms, is contributing 0 to AC. I believe the assumption is characters are parrying and acting defensively whenever possible, whether that's with their weapon, an armored forearm, or some other object. All such actions are subsumed into the combat matrix, represented by attacks against AC or hit point loss, UNLESS you have an additional class feature like the Battlemaster's parry maneuver.So, a roleplaying advantage. Perhaps that offsets the loss of +2 to AC. To be fair, the OP said nothing about a mechanically effective parrying ability being a part of the player's character concept. Nevertheless the issue was broached, I believe, because there's a feeling that a character should get some mechanical benefit for giving up a free hand. The parry maneuver doesn't require a free hand, but it does use up your reaction and a superiority die. Defensive Duelist is similar in that you use your reaction to add your proficiency to your AC. With Dual Wielder, in contrast, you give up a free hand to get a +1 to AC. This also comes closest to the OP's character concept because it lets you use weapons that aren't light. There are several options if you want a mechanical benefit. Alternatively, as I've already said, you can describe any character as parrying a blow, whether the attack is a hit or a miss. You don't actually need this to be framed by the rules for it to be part of your character concept.</blockquote>

Verification