D&D General The rapier in D&D

[SkidAce]

Hmmm. After I say things like that my mind always goes "But what about..."


Carcass Maker
Weapon (longsword), rare

This weapon is a magical longsword of normal size (medium). When used in both hands its magical property kicks in and allows the wielder to do full damage against Large or larger foes.

 

[Micah Sweet]

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

Some versions of D&D-like games do a better job than others, and even in 5e the statblock allows for resistance and vulnerability to certain kinds of attacks. Saying it can't do it is a choice.

 

[GrimCo]

If i would ever go and try to inject more "realism" i would still simplify it. Creature has resistance to all damage from all weapons, magic ones included, one size smaller and immunity to damage from weapons 2 or more size smaller. Wanna hunt huge or gargantuan creatures? Get some siege weaponry or use artillery ( aka use magic ). Medium creature going vs large? Get that pole arm or at least greatsword.

 

[kermit4karate]

If i would ever go and try to inject more "realism" i would still simplify it. Creature has resistance to all damage from all weapons, magic ones included, one size smaller and immunity to damage from weapons 2 or more size smaller. Wanna hunt huge or gargantuan creatures? Get some siege weaponry or use artillery ( aka use magic ). Medium creature going vs large? Get that pole arm or at least greatsword.

As a rule of thumb, I'm all for simplifying. I've been following this thread from the shadows listening to the ideas.

I've never done this myself as a DM, but I've considered some of the same things about huge, armored and gargantuan creatures, how players with tiny weapons like a dagger could eventually wear them down and how that doesn't make a lick of sense....

What about having certain creatures (i.e. dragons with their scales) absorb the first few HP of damage from each slashing, bludgeoning or piercing attack? If 100 zero-level farmers manage to score a few hits with their clubs and spears, and on average they do 3-4 HP damage each, most wouldn't end up inflicting any damage at all, or perhaps a point or two.

 

[Peter BOSCO'S]

What about having certain creatures (i.e. dragons with their scales) absorb the first few HP of damage from each slashing, bludgeoning or piercing attack? If 100 zero-level farmers manage to score a few hits with their clubs and spears, and on average they do 3-4 HP damage each, most wouldn't end up inflicting any damage at all, or perhaps a point or two.

That is called Heavy Armor Mastery in 5e and if lets you subtract your PB from hits doing bludgeoning, slashing, and piercing.

As a feature for a monster call it 'Heavy Natural Armor Mastery' and let it to the exact same thing. However monsters have more hit points than PC's do so this does have balance issues. Maybe try it for Dragons only?

 

[doctorbadwolf]

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.

IME the vibe comes first, but players then just try to find the most effective weapon that can be made to fit that vibe. My swashbuckler rogue doesn’t actually wield a rapier, he wields a light spear-like weapon with a long blade that is the primary weapon of a fencing tradition of his people, combining elements of Spanish Destreza with Japanese Aikido. Using a spear would only work if I made him a monk or used an option that let him attack with a Spellcasting stat, and in the new rules I went ahead and switched to a scimitar for the Nick property because his other weapon is a hand crossbow rather than a dagger, and the new PHB hates rapier dual wielding.

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...

So moving on from being wrong while trying to well actually people?

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.

There is no fencing square in most deadly duels in the early years of the use or rapiers, either. That isn’t at all why long-bladed straight (mostly) stabbing weapons weren’t the sword of choice on ships.

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.

A lunging blade of up to 40ish inches in length seems “especially crazy” for fighting a big thing with long reach? Really?

Dragon or giant, a rapier is a better weapon than a mace or axe, and they’re all worse than polearms.

stabbing something a lot so it bleeds a lot is a perfectly good way to kill a thing that is multiple times larger than you. Preferably in a large group while focusing on survival and wearing it down.

In D&D, we aren’t (generally) playing soldiers at war, we are playing heroic and extraordinary people who can do things like fight unarmed or with daggers so well that they don’t immediately die when someone pulls a sword and shield out.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

As a rule of thumb, I'm all for simplifying. I've been following this thread from the shadows listening to the ideas.

I've never done this myself as a DM, but I've considered some of the same things about huge, armored and gargantuan creatures, how players with tiny weapons like a dagger could eventually wear them down and how that doesn't make a lick of sense....

What about having certain creatures (i.e. dragons with their scales) absorb the first few HP of damage from each slashing, bludgeoning or piercing attack? If 100 zero-level farmers manage to score a few hits with their clubs and spears, and on average they do 3-4 HP damage each, most wouldn't end up inflicting any damage at all, or perhaps a point or two.

I don’t understand why folks want dragons to be in this place in between “can’t be killed without this special thing” and “it’s a big flying lizard it bleeds when ya stab it.”

To me, either go all the way to damage immunity unless some workaround is found (and no, spells aren’t necessarily a workaround), or let the village full of farmers stab it to death if they manage to keep it grounded long enough to do so.

Idk. Just a thing I find odd.

 

[pawsplay]

So moving on from being wrong while trying to well actually people?

Sorry, I've moved on .

A lunging blade of up to 40ish inches in length seems “especially crazy” for fighting a big thing with long reach? Really?

Yes. Sticking four inches of a rapier into something that big is probably not winning that fight for you. And what do you do for a second act?

Dragon or giant, a rapier is a better weapon than a mace or axe, and they’re all worse than polearms.

A rapier isn't even a better weapon than a mace, in general. It's a specialized dueling weapon.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Sorry, I've moved on .

Of course.

Yes. Sticking four inches of a rapier into something that big is probably not winning that fight for you. And what do you do for a second act?

Or a foot. And then you do it again. Creature bleeds profusely. Fairly simple, and more likely to contribute to the group’s success than daggers or a mace.

A rapier isn't even a better weapon than a mace, in general. It's a specialized dueling weapon.

This makes no sense as a response to wha you quoted. In order for the first sentence to be sensible, I would have had to have implied or stated that the rapier is a better weapon than the mace, in general. I didn’t.

And rapiers literally were used in warfare. You’re conflating it being an officer’s or specialized unit weapon with the idea that it just wasn’t suitable for warfare, which is innacurate. The fact that they were never a rank and file weapon is a matter of expense and required time to train, and the fact that any one-handed sword was steadily losing relevance as a regular soldier’s weapon by the height of the rapier’s popularity. The pike, and later bayonet, are just more effective en masse than one-handed swords.

But it also was popular for self defense, not just for dueling.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Sticking four inches of a rapier into something that big is probably not winning that fight for you

Neither is a dagger, a wooden stick, or your fists.

Unless you assume D&D is a superhero game, and the rapier wielder runs up the dragon's back and jabs it up through the eye socket and into the brain pan (see Dragon Age).

Conclusion: D&D and realism do not mix. Any argument based on realism goes nowhere fast.