D&D 5E The D&D rapier: What is it?

[doctorbadwolf]

By "them"... do you mean rapiers or something else?

I was responding to the part of the post I quoted wherein dual wielding was discussed.

So, Viking swords.

 

[Hriston]

All fair. We have no real simulationist tendencies, so we don't really care if the specs match up exactly. The longsword is a bit of a stretch, but the rapier and short sword fit fine, imo.

OK, so more interested in telling the sort of stories that might surround something like a Viking sword and less in exploring the atmosphere evoked by including a Viking sword as an actual item? Just a guess.

As far as dual wielding them, I've seen it done with practice weapons of very similar weight, length, and balance, so I don't see much issue with it.

This is getting a little confusing because it isn't clear what size the practice Viking swords were. I was using a sword's suitability for dual wielding as a litmus test for its inclusion as a short sword. Now, I'm aware that there was some dual wielding of side swords in the Italian school of swordsmanship in the early 16th century, but it saw little to no battlefield use and seems to have been mostly for exhibition purposes and displays of prowess, so I'm quite comfortable requiring a feat for dual wielding swords of that size. In cultures that have fielded dual wielding swordsmen in the past, the swords used were usually quite short, maybe 2 feet at most.

Also, most PCs don't have a hard time getting mundane weaponry made for them, and in a world with humans and halflings living together, I assume that weapons range even more in length than they did IRL.

Sure, but if you're a human dual wielding Viking swords sized for a halfling, you might have trouble finding purchase for your hands on the hilts.

I'm curious, though. What did you used to associate the rapier with that had you banning it?

I was associating it with the historical rapier of the Early Modern period. In contrast, the material culture I prefer for my settings is Early/High Middle Ages, which is how I imagine some of the fantasy fiction I enjoy, particularly the works of Tolkien. At first I banned the rapier to accomplish this. Then I realized the typical swords of those eras, the Viking and knightly swords respectively, aren't well represented in D&D by either the short or long swords. At least to my mind, they are too long and heavy for dual wielding, so can't be represented by the short sword. Also, their hilts aren't long enough for two-handed use, so they can't be represented by the long sword. The rapier works well to represent them, however, because it's non-light and non-versatile. It also supports both DEX and STR builds, reflecting the prominence of the sword among medieval weapons, in fantasy fiction at least.

 

[Kalshane]

This is getting a little confusing because it isn't clear what size the practice Viking swords were. I was using a sword's suitability for dual wielding as a litmus test for its inclusion as a short sword. Now, I'm aware that there was some dual wielding of side swords in the Italian school of swordsmanship in the early 16th century, but it saw little to no battlefield use and seems to have been mostly for exhibition purposes and displays of prowess, so I'm quite comfortable requiring a feat for dual wielding swords of that size. In cultures that have fielded dual wielding swordsmen in the past, the swords used were usually quite short, maybe 2 feet at most.

Well, Myamoto Musashi and his Niten Ichi-Ryu (using katana and wakizashi together) was a notable exception, though I'd agree that it's certainly unusual and specialized enough of a style to require a feat. (Unfortunately in 5E once you go through the trouble of using a feat on it, you might as well use two katana/longswords. There's nothing in base 5e that really supports one long weapon and one short one, outside of someone taking Dual Wielder and taking the damage hit to their off-hand for flavor reasons.)

 

[Ancalagon]

I've actually handled a Viking practice sword (a Hanwei model) and it was very handy, with the blade being 28 inches long. I wouldn't be able to manage it, but someone trained could plausibly weild two? At the upper limit though... past a certain point (In length of the the blade), the blades are really in each other's way.

Incidentally, a sword like this would be a great weapon for someone having to cross difficult terrain, would get in the way far less than a honking rapier or longsword...

Sent from my SM-G930W8 using EN World mobile app

 

[Hriston]

Well, Myamoto Musashi and his Niten Ichi-Ryu (using katana and wakizashi together) was a notable exception, though I'd agree that it's certainly unusual and specialized enough of a style to require a feat. (Unfortunately in 5E once you go through the trouble of using a feat on it, you might as well use two katana/longswords. There's nothing in base 5e that really supports one long weapon and one short one, outside of someone taking Dual Wielder and taking the damage hit to their off-hand for flavor reasons.)

I'd assume the wakizashi is an o-wakizashi with a tsuka long enough for two-handed use and use longsword stats for it as well. That way the feat isn't wasted.

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

Well, Myamoto Musashi and his Niten Ichi-Ryu (using katana and wakizashi together) was a notable exception, though I'd agree that it's certainly unusual and specialized enough of a style to require a feat. (Unfortunately in 5E once you go through the trouble of using a feat on it, you might as well use two katana/longswords. There's nothing in base 5e that really supports one long weapon and one short one, outside of someone taking Dual Wielder and taking the damage hit to their off-hand for flavor reasons.)

You could probably just use Scimitar stats for both Katana and Wakizashi if character concept was heavily invested in dual-wielding them.
Although I was under the impression that even after he developed the style, Musashi never actually used in against a skilled opponent, sticking with the 2-handed style when duelling his peers.

Vikings and medieval combatants aren't really known for dual-wielding their swords, but that is generally because it would mean giving up using a shield. Dual-wielding as a style wasn't generally well-represented on the battlefield where shields were used. It was more common in civilian situations where a shield would not be available due to convenience, laws or social pressure.

 

[Coroc]

Apart from some fancy twirling when someone was dual wielding IRL one weapon is used to attack and the other to defend. Since your attacking body side is upfront in swordsmanship when you are not using a shield, there is no use in switching between the weapons for a more effective attack other than a trick or feint manoever from time to time.
This is because to be attacking effective with two weapons you would have to change your leading foot all the time which is time consuming. You simply are quicker not doing it.
With the rapier main gauche Combo it is another reason. These blades are heavy and piercing only. So you want to have a method for parrying, but without taking the Point of your rapier to much of your opponent. The solution is parrying it with your left hand. Most main gauche daggers have long crossbars some have integrated retractable blade catchers.
If your main gauche was not available you would just use your cloak dagger or gloved Hand to parry a rapier.

 

[Irda Ranger]

For my table the Rapier is a heavy broad sword made for piercing through armor and the long sword is a bastard or a hand and a half sword meant for slashing.

Same here

 

[Ancalagon]

Apart from some fancy twirling when someone was dual wielding IRL one weapon is used to attack and the other to defend.

Yup. The two-weapon fighting style doesn't reflect how most two-weapon fighting was done.

Incidentally, this is something that warhammer frpg (2nd ed) understood far better than D&D.

 

[Kalshane]

You could probably just use Scimitar stats for both Katana and Wakizashi if character concept was heavily invested in dual-wielding them.
Although I was under the impression that even after he developed the style, Musashi never actually used in against a skilled opponent, sticking with the 2-handed style when duelling his peers.

True. He stuck to traditional single-sword for duels (and supposedly switching to a wooden sword at that, starting with his duel with Sasaki Kojiro) and went with two (steel) swords in situations where he was outnumbered.