D&D 5E Rapiers and Rogues

[Plaguescarred]

If it was the case there would have been no need to update Extra Attack like it was.

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

If it was the case there would have been no need to update Extra Attack like it was.

Where and when was it updated? It was updated in the last playtest packet, and that was it. To make people understand that it worked with two-weapon fighting.

 

[Plaguescarred]

Extra Attack first appeared in Playtest Packet 080213 as Two Attacks, then was updated as we know it (and renamed Extra Attack) in Playtest Packet 091913 and the last Playtest Packet update was 101413

Extra Attack was updated to make it work with Two-Weapon Fighting because both were using your action, like it is currently the case with Flurry of Blows and Two-Weapon Fighting.

(Which may even no longer be the case as we speak due to the advent of bonus action and their intent to have many game elements use one as explained in Legends & Lore and Rule of Three)

 

[Ruin Explorer]

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.

You linked it earlier: http://www.wizards.com/DnD/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4ll/20140127

The point is that TWF and Extra Attacks kick in when you "take an attack action" or something to that effect, and Flurry is an attack action. If they didn't, there'd be no need for the "bonus attack" deal with TWF/Flurry.

 

[Plaguescarred]

In the Playtest Two-Weapon Fighting doesn't kick in when you take the attack action like Extra Attack, its used by straight up taking an action just like Flurry of Blows. Even if it wouldn't be the case, Unarmed Strike aren't light weapons and wouldn't be usable with Two-Weapon Fighting anyway.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Two-Weapon Fighting doesn't kick in when you take the attack action like Extra Attack, its used by straight up taking the attack action just like Flurry of Blows. Even if it wouldn't be the case, Unarmed Strike aren't light weapons and wouldn't be usable with Two-Weapon Fighting anyway.

I've pointed out the latter myself - you get around that by wielding a Shortsword or the like in your off-hand. The former isn't clear from the wording, because the attack action in 5E is a vague concept, not a discrete unit like 4E's Basic Attack. The wording of Flurry explicitly says "You can use the attack action to..." and TWF triggers "when you take the attack action...". Are taking and using intended to be cleanly different things? They're use pretty interchangeably in most of the text, and neither is defined.

This is the problem with 5E's decision to move away from the more clear and game-ish language of 4E in favour or more vague and wobbly phrasing, which is perhaps more fun to read, but much harder to discern the precise meaning of. You could be right, but you can't say for certain that you are, because the language is just too vague.

 

[Plaguescarred]

I've pointed out the latter myself - you get around that by wielding a Shortsword or the like in your off-hand.

You need two light weapons to use Two-Weapon Fighting;

"Two-Weapon Fighting: When you are wielding two light melee weapons, you can attack twice when you take the attack action"

 

[Kobold Stew]

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.

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.
<snip>
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).

This is a problem in the playtest materials, and it's one that needs to be fixed. (We've discussed it on the boards in February, as I recall, starting around here).

There's a wide range of what might count as a scimitar, a rapier, and a short sword, and in some ways the easiest solution is simply to take the stats of a finesse weapon (scimitar or short sword) and call it your rapier.

Still, I understand swashbuckling is clearly an appealing option, and one that would be nice to make work (without requiring specializing feats).

Historically, we know there was rapier-and-daggar fighting (as well as rapier-and-lantern, rapier-and-cloak), and it would be nice to have a way to model that (e.g. as a buckler). As a DM, I'd have no problem with a player proficient in bucklers (or Dual Wielding for that matter) to buy one and for our in-game narrative to map that as a cloak or even as a parrying dagger. That's fun colour and lets anyone proficient with shields emulate something cool.

The player just has to low that they can't also attack with the dagger if they are using it for defines (that rule was in the play test, and then (thankfully) they removed the spiked shield -- perhaps for good?)

The problem comes because the rogue doesn't have that proficiency. I'd be pretty cool negotiating with a player to find a way to make that work. Two possibilities include:

* I'd happily let a player swap out "medium armour" for "bucklers" if they wanted, but it would be nice (I admit) if that option were in the game somewhere else.

* If a player wanted to take buckler (only) as a "tool proficiency" with their background, I suspect that would work as well. There's no other weapon/armour profs in the backgrounds, so some limit (bucklers only) would be needed.

(this is a personal hobby-horse of mine; I'd also like an easy solution to emulate the trident-and-net fighting of retiarii).

 

[E. Tallitnics]

I've pointed out the latter myself - you get around that by wielding a Shortsword or the like in your off-hand. The former isn't clear from the wording, because the attack action in 5E is a vague concept, not a discrete unit like 4E's Basic Attack. The wording of Flurry explicitly says "You can use the attack action to..." and TWF triggers "when you take the attack action...". Are taking and using intended to be cleanly different things? They're use pretty interchangeably in most of the text, and neither is defined.

This is the problem with 5E's decision to move away from the more clear and game-ish language of 4E in favour or more vague and wobbly phrasing, which is perhaps more fun to read, but much harder to discern the precise meaning of. You could be right, but you can't say for certain that you are, because the language is just too vague.

I've been reading through this thread and I guess I don't understand what's 'too vague' about "you get 1 Action on your turn"?

Honestly Ruin Explorer, this seems to be nothing more than Edition Warring, especially considering your last comment (quoted above). Is Edition Warring allowed on EN Forums?​

So let's see if I can help clear this up shall we?

When you use your 1 Action to select Attack you're using/taking/selecting/choosing (they are freely interchangeable because they all refer to the same thing): 'the attack action'.

Please note that in all examples you've cited "the" in "the attack action" denotes a singular, not plural, use of "attack action". Plural use would be "an".​

You then select which form that attack action takes. You do not get to stack multiple forms of that singular expression ("the attack action") because then you're taking more than 1 Action that turn, and the rules clearly do not allow that.

Although you can add a rider to that form, such as Extra Attack or the 3rd Unarmed Strike in Flurry of Blows, because the rules clearly allow that.​

I trust this has cleared up any lingering issues with English syntax that may be troubling you Ruin Explorer.

And I'm always glad to help out my D&D family members better understand the rules and get back into playing the game!

E. Tallitnics

 

[RHGreen]

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.

The D&D Shortsword is the Gladius which according to Wiki is 2.6–3.5 lb.

A short/lighter rapier type sword (usually deliberately broken to conform to blade length laws) is called a SmallSword. That, obviously, would be lighter.

Sorry, just being pedantic. Carry on.