D&D General The rapier in D&D

[Steampunkette]

Does it? I could be convinced (I'd kind of like to be) but I'm somewhat sceptical. I did a bit of quick digging earlier. I couldn't find all that much that was recent on Google Scholar but this article from 2014 talks about the social conditions in which people started wearing swords more often in streetlife the the late 15th century but then talks about how the rapier eventually developed out of that.

The Rapier and Small Sword, 1460-1820 by A.V.B. Norman. Published in 1979. A.V.B. Norman was the Master of the Armouries in the Tower of London where lots of weapons and manuscripts on fighting styles are stored and did his research over the course of a decade before releasing the book.

It's literally in the first post of mine you quoted in the thread when you accused me of being "Aggressive".

Did you just not read that post, at all, or just skim it before responding?

It doesn't give a date for that but what it describes as a rapier seems to strongly suggest a distinction between the cut and thrust swords that were closer to battlefield weapons and the longer thrust oriented rapier more familiar from the 15th century.

How do you know they did this? I was trying to find out why they did this - out of basic interest - and I can't find anything to suggest the name was changed let alone why.

Because the link in the Virtus Martialus post lists it's title as a Sidesword and at no point in his article does he describe it as a rapier or make any note of the Met calling it a rapier, erroneously or otherwise.

He even includes several pictures from the Met's website in his description and discourse on the weapon.

I've also found Reddit posts by HEMA and SCA individuals lamenting that it's called a Rapier dating back 10 months, which is December of 2024.

So in June it must've been listed as a Sidesword, and by December it must've been listed as a Rapier. Ipso Facto: Reclassification by the Met.

 

[GrimCo]

In game terms, who cares really? 5e has such a basic list of weapon, they could cut it down to - Weapon: Swords
martial, one handed, finesse, 1d8 - in this category you have your sabres, rapiers, shamshirs, elven thinblades etc
martial, one handed, 1d8 - arming swords, falcatas, kopesh and all the other one handed swords
martial, versatile, 1d8/d10 - katana, longsword, bastard sword etc

Do same for blunt weapons and axes and let it go. When picking weapon, players usually go for mechanics first. How it looks (as in, what real world weapon it emulates) comes second.

 

[Micah Sweet]

In game terms, who cares really? 5e has such a basic list of weapon, they could cut it down to - Weapon: Swords
martial, one handed, finesse, 1d8 - in this category you have your sabres, rapiers, shamshirs, elven thinblades etc
martial, one handed, 1d8 - arming swords, falcatas, kopesh and all the other one handed swords
martial, versatile, 1d8/d10 - katana, longsword, bastard sword etc

Do same for blunt weapons and axes and let it go. When picking weapon, players usually go for mechanics first. How it looks (as in, what real world weapon it emulates) comes second.

That is a perfectly valid solution. Personally, I prefer to go the other way: expand the equipment list to allow for increased granularity and choice.

 

[GrimCo]

That is a perfectly valid solution. Personally, I prefer to go the other way: expand the equipment list to allow for increased granularity and choice.

Sure, you can go that way. But then you run into problem where people just pick weapons that are useful against most opponents and ditch niche/situationaly useful weapons.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Sure, you can go that way. But then you run into problem where people just pick weapons that are useful against most opponents and ditch niche/situationaly useful weapons.

I limit availability of weapons based on the local region and the era of play. Beyond that, my players generally don't make decisions for their PCs for especially gamist reasons.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

5E followed this example, though increases the die size to d10 instead of adding a +1. So in this way the 5e longsword has come to resemble the historical one a little more, though you'll still normally see people wielding a "real" two hander if they don't want a shield.

Obviously real world sword dimensions are highly variable and categorization can be a bit murky about the edges, especially in transitional periods as one common form is being replaced by another, but D&D calling a single handed blade a longsword has been a bit of a meme and lighthearted complaint among sword nerds for decades. OSR game 5 Torches Deep calls its single handed swords "arming swords" and its two handed swords "longswords".

Yes, I know historically D&D has used the term longsword wrong, but my point was that it currently really doesn't. Weapon stats make longsword to be hand-and-a-half swords that they historically were. Granted due certain other nuances of what is optimal actually using versatile weapons with two hands is rarely done, but that really is not an issue in the weapon stats themselves.

And of course historically swords did not often fall into neat categories like game designers and history nerds would like. There were arming swords with slightly longer blades and hilts, smaller great swords and all sort of other variations that might or might not be classified as longswords.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

In game terms, who cares really? 5e has such a basic list of weapon, they could cut it down to - Weapon: Swords
martial, one handed, finesse, 1d8 - in this category you have your sabres, rapiers, shamshirs, elven thinblades etc
martial, one handed, 1d8 - arming swords, falcatas, kopesh and all the other one handed swords
martial, versatile, 1d8/d10 - katana, longsword, bastard sword etc

Do same for blunt weapons and axes and let it go. When picking weapon, players usually go for mechanics first. How it looks (as in, what real world weapon it emulates) comes second.

That is a perfectly valid solution. Personally, I prefer to go the other way: expand the equipment list to allow for increased granularity and choice.

The issue is that D&D does not really have the mechanical depth to actually represent the nuanced differences between various weapons. So if you have a lot of weapons what happens is that some are just better than others and then you're "forced" to use those. And the result is that by expanding the mechanical weapon choices available, you actually decrease the weapons variety that appears in the fiction. But if you just have "light sword" or something like that, which can in the fiction be a gladius, rapier, cutlass, wakizashi etc. then in the fiction we see variety of weapons, instead of everyone just having the rapier because it has the best stats.

I like the idea of different weapons having different roles, but I think in game like D&D those differences should be more like choosing between "big sword" and "small sword" rather than ranseur and partisan.

 

[Micah Sweet]

The issue is that D&D does not really have the mechanical depth to actually represent the nuanced differences between various weapons. So if you have a lot of weapons what happens is that some are just better than others and then you're "forced" to use those. And the result is that by expanding the mechanical weapon choices available, you actually decrease the weapons variety that appears in the fiction. But if you just have "light sword" or something like that, which can in the fiction be a gladius, rapier, cutlass, wakizashi etc. then in the fiction we see variety of weapons, instead of everyone just having the rapier because it has the best stats.

I like the idea of different weapons having different roles, but I think in game like D&D those differences should be more like choosing between "big sword" and "small sword" rather than ranseur and partisan.

A5e has more mechanical depth in this area, and I've added more. I'm with you on WotC's game. It's pretty weak tea IMO.

 

[pawsplay]

Anyhow, moving on from trying to explain repeatedly to people that the term rapier comes directly from the Italian and Spanish word ropera ("for dressing") and not from some arbitrary sword classification, and how transitional forms appear later in the 15th century and the rapier proper only in the the early 16th century, and becoming popular much later outside the Romantic cultural sphere...

It has just struck me that a one-handed finesse sword intended primarily for civilian defense, almost universally acknowledged as unsuitable for the battlefield, used primarily to thrust with some limited cutting capability, is a strange thing to bring to a dragon fight. It's not long enough to kill, and not durable enough to weaken. Other D&D type fights:

Bandits: Kind of a wash. The German and English masters in the 15th century on still argued for the superiority of the broadsword. This particularly makes sense if your party is outnumbered and the bandits are using any kind of armor or shields. However, in a fairly open environment, with mostly one-on-one engagement, the rapier masters would prefer the rapier, and staked their life on it. So, if they aren't right, they were at least not consistently wrong.

Pirates: There is no fencing square on a moving boat. People on boats used cutlasses. Officers might use sabers or broadswords. Only a dandy would use a rapier in a pirate fight.

Zombies: I'm going to argue here that a typical arming sword or any other medieval type sword is going to be much better here than a rapier. Poking holes in a dead person just isn't a convincing tactic, and if they just keep coming, a rapier's reach isn't going to help much.

Ogre: The rapier is arguably not a bad choice here. A torso kill is certainly possible. Still, I would prefer a typical cut-and-thrust sword in case I need to target their limbs or try to deflect or parry. Really, I want a zwiehander or some kind of spear in this situation. This is also a good situation for the heavy crossbow or even a human-portable arbalest of large size.

Giant scorpion: I don't want to use a rapier to fence with a giant scorpion. I don't even want to think about it. Spears, tridents, long axes, crossbows, longbows all seem like incredibly better choices. If I do need to use a blade, a typical arming sword would be okay but I would really prefer a scimitar or falchion with some reach, because I need something I can fend with. I really want to lop off the stinger entirely before I get close.

Golem: A rapier is not going to help you here. Some kind of two-handed maul seems like the only thing that is really going to get some purchase here. Warhammer/war pick would also be okay, if I had some way to get close. If I had a longsword and nothing else, I might turn it around and try to use the murderstroke (using the pommel as a mace, basically) to try to get some momentum. Bow is probably not going to do much here, but a heavy crossbow or arbalest might be able to damage some golem types.

Frost giant: LOL. Any type of melee here seems crazy, but the rapier seems especially crazy. There is no way to lunge and stab a giant through the heart, so I hate the rapier for this. Definitely I want something with a lot of hacking or smashing potential. Realistically, a shield doesn't seem like it would help much, but maybe a magic shield would be somewhat effective.

 

[SkidAce]

DnD simply does not emulate the characteristics of foes that would call for different types of weapons.

Therefore for characters it is a matter of style.

"If" I was going to fix this*, it would be very simple, either;

A, foe defenses strong versus types: slashing, blunt, piercing, weapon size (i.e. small/medium weapons do half damage versus large creatures) OR

B, Fire Emblem style: Lance beats Sword beats Axe beats Lance.



*not sure the juice is worth the squeeze