D&D 5E Rapiers and Rogues

[Uller]

While I favor the TWF rogue archetype myself, we also need rapier rogue as a viable option. The suggestion of adding light shield proficiency to the rogue is a good solution, as I see it. The rapier rogue is definitely trading offense for something else, and a defensive edge is the most obvious answer. Also, having a parrying dagger as an off-hand weapon choice for rapier rogues in the PHB would do no harm.

We sort of house ruled it that a rogue with a rapier can also use a dagger in the off-hand. 1d8+dex/1d4 is not really that different from 1d6+dex/1d6. However, our rogue player worries a bit about her AC...so a light shield option or some other defensive bonus would be nice too.

 

[DDNFan]

Which means the average damage is either 5.625 or 8.25. If you round, it's either 6 or 8 points.

There's no point in rounding average (mean) damage, since it's a already an expected value over many rounds and thus is meaningless for any given round. Median, yes.

Since there's no reason to use a rapier over two short swords except to use cunning action to withdraw from the enemy, which is sort of a skirmisher fighting style, there's even less reason to dual wield two daggers over two short swords, or use a single dagger over two.

Basically, rogues dual wield in 5th edition if they want to land their sneak attacks reliably. It's their only option since they don't get extra attacks.

The real question is, is it even effective to use cunning action to play a game of cat and mouse, over the bonus action damage for dual wielding, which increases your average damage more and more, the more sneak attack dice you get.

I wish they gave rogues a 19-20 crit range with daggers at level 5, and made sneak attack incompatible with dual wielding. Either you attack once, possibly with advantage for two chances to hit and deal sneak attack, or you flank and get one chance. Advantage is better than sneak attack, but not much better except for crit chance. There is a rapidly diminishing benefit for more d20 rolls after two, to trigger SA damage.

When you have advantage while dual wielding, the chance is vanishingly smaller of foregoing sneak attack compared with single wielding for 4d20 vs 2d20.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

While I favor the TWF rogue archetype myself, we also need rapier rogue as a viable option. The suggestion of adding light shield proficiency to the rogue is a good solution, as I see it. The rapier rogue is definitely trading offense for something else, and a defensive edge is the most obvious answer. Also, having a parrying dagger as an off-hand weapon choice for rapier rogues in the PHB would do no harm.

Unfortunately this is kind of problematic in 5E, because to use a Rapier and off-hand weapon (of any kind), you need the Dual Wielder feat (yes, even though, in reality, that was a very common combo and is probably easier to manage than two cinquedeas or whatever!). So you're paying a Feat to not gain on DPS much at all! However you DO get +1 AC from the Dual Wielder feat if using different weapons in each hand (which you would be), so there is that.

There's no point in rounding average (mean) damage, since it's a already an expected value over many rounds and thus is meaningless for any given round. Median, yes.

Probably the first time I've completely agreed with DDNFan!

I wish they gave rogues a 19-20 crit range with daggers at level 5, and made sneak attack incompatible with dual wielding. Either you attack once, possibly with advantage for two chances to hit and deal sneak attack, or you flank and get one chance. Advantage is better than sneak attack, but not much better except for crit chance. There is a rapidly diminishing benefit for more d20 rolls after two, to trigger SA damage.

I'd be against making SA incompatible with dual-wielding because too many popular Rogue-types in fantasy fiction dual-wield and still deliver deadly blows. I do agree re: daggers getting 19-20 crit for Rogues, though. Maybe there will be a "Daggermaster"-ish Rogue sub-class which will get that. I expect to see plenty of sub-classes in later books and/or Dragon, too.

Obvious! A rapier is very light, which facilitates quicker escapes, and allows the use of a buckler, shield, or parrying knife.

Twin short swords would be heavier and clunkier, maybe pricier, and require armor for protection, versus a shield.

See above posts for answers involving game mechanics.

See yeah, no, 5E doesn't agree - Shortswords are Light weapons, Rapier is not a Light weapon. Reality doesn't agree either, btw - a short sword, like a cinquedea, is considerably lighter than a rapier (1.5lbs vs. 2lbs+ usually though some are slightly lighter than 2lbs) from the same era and place. Actualy swashbucklers typically used a weapon more comparable to a shortsword (in D&D terms - a broadsword in older D&D terms is probably closest) than a rapier, too - though it should do slashing damage, with their buckler. Probably use scimitar stats for that in 5E (even though it looks nothing like one).

As per last playtest packet, you cannot use Two-Weapon Fighting and Flurry of Blows at the same time because each use your attack action. You use your action to either do one or the other.

That cannot be a correct interpretation, sadly, because the example of combining TWF with Flurry was given by WotC *after* that packet went out. I wish it was, but it isn't.

 

[DDNFan]

house rule time

A good house rule to limit the number of dice rolls and make rogues use their cunning action more than just straight damage from dual wielding, is to make Sneak Attack an explicit action type, which is a single attack that, if it hits, deals bonus damage.

An incentive to use daggers over rapiers would be nice, like you gain a 19-20 crit range at a certain level.

I would also give rogues proficiency in parrying with a dagger in their off hand. So you could hold two daggers, but use one for defence (+1 to AC) and the other for sneak attacking. You would need this to offset the loss of incentive to get into melee range since dual wielding is only possible at melee range and doesn't work with bows.

 

[Cybit]

A good house rule to limit the number of dice rolls and make rogues use their cunning action more than just straight damage from dual wielding, is to make Sneak Attack an explicit action type, which is a single attack that, if it hits, deals bonus damage.

An incentive to use daggers over rapiers would be nice, like you gain a 19-20 crit range at a certain level.

I would also give rogues proficiency in parrying with a dagger in their off hand. So you could hold two daggers, but use one for defence (+1 to AC) and the other for sneak attacking. You would need this to offset the loss of incentive to get into melee range since dual wielding is only possible at melee range and doesn't work with bows.

Note; if you're using your cunning action to hide or basically get advantage consistently, you're probably better off doing that than dual wielding. Say you are fighting near a corner; you could attack, then use your cunning action to move away and hide behind the corner (Not sure if disengage is a cunning action, but if it is, no opportunity attacks). This would protect you from attacks most likely, and then you can pop back out and attack w/ advantage. The loss of 1d6 damage is probably worth getting in and out of combat with no issues.

Just my two cents

 

[DDNFan]

Note; if you're using your cunning action to hide or basically get advantage consistently, you're probably better off doing that than dual wielding. Say you are fighting near a corner; you could attack, then use your cunning action to move away and hide behind the corner (Not sure if disengage is a cunning action, but if it is, no opportunity attacks). This would protect you from attacks most likely, and then you can pop back out and attack w/ advantage. The loss of 1d6 damage is probably worth getting in and out of combat with no issues.

Just my two cents

Ya, totally. Our party rogue does that all the time, since we have a fighter and a ranger holding the front line anyway. She uses her bow a lot more than her two short swords.

What I have a problem with is that when you are in melee, and have advantage, getting 4 dice rolls. It's way overkill. Two is enough. At least advantage is harder to come by in 5th edition than CA was in 4th, so maybe I just proved my own point is moot.

Still, it would have been a cleaner design to make rogues gain advantage when flanking instead of letting them dual wield with sneak attack. It's the same number of dice rolls, and the off hand damage doesn't have any dex mod applied to it so it's comparatively very little added, only 3.5 max. I don't see how it's worth it.

I like dual wielding, but not for rogues. Monks do flurry of blows, rangers are decent at dual wielding, but rogues are practically forced to if in melee range, to offset the fact that they don't gain advantage while flanking and missing all your attacks means not only the loss of their base damage, but a scaling sneak damage too.

Nothing a few well-placed houserules can't fix.

 

[Plaguescarred]

That cannot be a correct interpretation, sadly, because the example of combining TWF with Flurry was given by WotC *after* that packet went out. I wish it was, but it isn't.

Where was it given? Using multiple effects usable "as an action" using the same action would have far more reaching impact than this interaction if you think about it.

You can find this topic discussed on WoTC forums here and people agreed http://community.wizards.com/forum/playtest-packet-discussion/threads/3933526

Likewise, as duscussed here Extra Attack was originally worded "as an action" as well and got changed later for the same reason that they weren't working togheter, here's an exchange i had with Mike Mearls back then, which essentially was the same, use one or the other; (which eventually led to an update to Extra Attack as we know it)


@Plaguescarred Two Attack feature seems to not work with Two Weapon Fighting as both use your action. Any plan to update TWF as a non-action?
@mikemearlsTwo Attacks and Two Weapon Fighting: As written now you use one or the other. Suggestion: TWF gives one extra attack w/o ability mod to dmg.

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

Where was it given? Using multiple effects usable "as an action" using the same action would have far more reaching impact than this interaction if you think about it.

Two-weapon Fighting:
When you are wielding two light melee weapons, you can attack twice when you take the attack action on your turn, attacking once with each weapon.

Extra Attack:
You can attack one extra time whenever you take the attack action on your turn.

So, if you take the Attack action during your turn, you can attack twice and also get one extra attack. They seem completely compatible to me.

They might have been incompatible in a previous playtest but in the final one they work fine together.

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

Still, it would have been a cleaner design to make rogues gain advantage when flanking instead of letting them dual wield with sneak attack. It's the same number of dice rolls, and the off hand damage doesn't have any dex mod applied to it so it's comparatively very little added, only 3.5 max. I don't see how it's worth it.

It's worth it because my first, and favorite character, my namesake Majoru Oakheart was a Fighter/Thief who in 2e used a Longsword and a Dagger. In later editions I remade him for other games and he'd switch to whatever weapons worked best, but he was always a dual wielder. It would be a shame if I couldn't dual wield effectively. I'm perfectly ok with using two short swords or a long sword and a sword sword. But I want two weapons and I want him to be able to fight in a sneaky way using Sneak Attack.

In fact, I played a version of him in a playtest game already and it was great fun. I never used my cunning action really since I didn't need it except for a couple of times I was low on health and needed to do hit and runs to avoid being hit.

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

As per last playtest packet, you cannot use Two-Weapon Fighting and Flurry of Blows at the same time because each use your attack action. You use your action to either do one or the other.

There's also the interpretation that you are using an attack action to Flurry of Blows. When you take the attack action, you get to TWF. So, both get to work.

Notice the Flurry text doesn't say "you can use your action", it says you can use your attack action. Which means the action you've chosen for the round is "Attack". When you choose "Attack", you get Extra Attacks and also Two-Weapon Fighting.