D&D General The rapier in D&D

[Steampunkette]

One thing I -kinda- like about Daggerheart is the ranges.

Melee range is 1-3ft. You're practically grappling levels of close. This is the range of stabbing someone with a dagger.

Very close is 5-10ft away from your target. Then you get close at 10-30, far at 30-100, and very far out to 300ft.

I very much feel like D&D could use some rules about enemies getting all up into your space rather than standing in respectful 5ft distances, and weapons having effective ranges.

Daggers being usable as melee weapons only if you're in your target's square. Polearms being -unusable- at that range, things like that. And opportunity attacks for entering another creature's square.

It'd be a really great way to make Daggers both weak -and- strong. Since if you can get past the Polearm Master/Sentinel's reach and get into his face, he has to drop the polearm to respond. But getting there is probably gonna -hurt-.

 

[AlViking]

“Realistically” nothing short of a rocket launcher would harm a dragon. But D&D is not a dragons vs rocket launchers game. Rapier is no more unrealistic than anything else on the D&D weapon list. A wooden stick wouldn’t damage a tank, it sure wouldn’t touch a dragon.

But that assumption is based on how you personally envision dragons. It's the same logic that is used by Jurassic Park that makes dinosaurs immune to small arms fire. A T-Rex may still eat you if you shoot it a bunch of times with a rifle, but it's not bulletproof and it will likely die from it's injuries later.

You want “realistic” fights against dragons and other giant monsters? Then you need to play a different game, because D&D don’t do that.

We can't fight "realistic" dragons because a realistic dragon can't exist. Meanwhile, it is also not a single individual fighting an ancient dragon unless they're the penultimate fighter, somewhere close to level 20. Even then I wouldn't put my money on the fighter very often. In my game I wouldn't ever put any money on the individual because no ancient dragon is ever going to get within stabbing distance in the first place.

Dragons are totally fictional an made up. Because of that we have absolutely no way of knowing how hard they are to kill without game rules that tell us. It's much like a wizard is never late, nor is he early, he arrives precisely when he means to. A dragon is precisely as difficult to kill as it is designed to be.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Sure, but then again, if these things are supposed to be killable by human scale weapons, they probably should not be absurdly large.

If you look at the iconic D&D art, you can see the game is at its heart about fighting dragons with swords and bows. Take that away and it ain’t D&D anymore.

But these dragons aren’t all that big - around 40 ft. or so.

So we are really talking about weapons being ineffective when fighting kaiju, not dragons. And, because a game needs to have some level of fairness, that means spells must be similarly ineffective. So you need to come up with a way the PCs can fight kaiju, if you want that in your game. Maybe using bastions?

 

[AlViking]

One thing I -kinda- like about Daggerheart is the ranges.

Melee range is 1-3ft. You're practically grappling levels of close. This is the range of stabbing someone with a dagger.

Very close is 5-10ft away from your target. Then you get close at 10-30, far at 30-100, and very far out to 300ft.

I very much feel like D&D could use some rules about enemies getting all up into your space rather than standing in respectful 5ft distances, and weapons having effective ranges.

Daggers being usable as melee weapons only if you're in your target's square. Polearms being -unusable- at that range, things like that. And opportunity attacks for entering another creature's square.

It'd be a really great way to make Daggers both weak -and- strong. Since if you can get past the Polearm Master/Sentinel's reach and get into his face, he has to drop the polearm to respond. But getting there is probably gonna -hurt-.

They had rules way back in 1e about different weapons being more or less effective against different types of armor. We ignored them because it only made sense against humanoid targets that required armor. There were also rules that gave your weapon more damage against larger creatures which we liked because we liked big weapons.

But neither rule made it past 1e, chasing after "realism" just adds unending overhead and complexity. It' a rabbit hole that just doesn't fit the goals of the game because no game meant to be played at a table is ever going to be particularly realistic. Obviously where you draw the line is a matter of preference, my preference is to keep it fairly simple because the alternative gets clunky or develops holes quickly.

 

[Steampunkette]

They had rules way back in 1e about different weapons being more or less effective against different types of armor. We ignored them because it only made sense against humanoid targets that required armor. There were also rules that gave your weapon more damage against larger creatures which we liked because we liked big weapons.

But neither rule made it past 1e, chasing after "realism" just adds unending overhead and complexity. It' a rabbit hole that just doesn't fit the goals of the game because no game meant to be played at a table is ever going to be particularly realistic. Obviously where you draw the line is a matter of preference, my preference is to keep it fairly simple because the alternative gets clunky or develops holes quickly.

Sure. And 3e had Polearms unable to attack the square next to you. It's a whole thing where different editions do things differently.

S'why I said I kinda like the idea rather than "This needs to be in 6e!!!"

I just think it'd be a more reasonable general rule for realistic reach of weapons rather than trying to shrink down damage dice based on enemy size. Mainly because of Blood Pressure.

At 120/80 humans bleed pretty quickly. And even a nick to a major artery can be fatal in minutes. So a dagger can take you out -fast-... However, for an Elephant, 180mmHg is their standard blood pressure. Their heart only beats 30 times a minute, or half as much as the average human, so their blood pressure has to be -much- higher in order to circulate their blood through their enormous body and keep their blood vessels from collapsing.

A humanoid giant would need a similar, or even higher, blood pressure, due to the upright structure of their body. They'd also need ankles that are -super- reinforced with fascia to keep blood from pooling in their legs and feet. Hell. People over 6ft tall already often have to deal with that as a problem in their lives. At 16ft? Woof...

So yeah. A nick to the arteries of the foot/ankle/calf would drain a giant's blood -REAL- fast. But with a dagger you'd practically have to stand on their foot to get a decent shot at pulling it off as a sneak attack.

 

[AlViking]

Sure. And 3e had Polearms unable to attack the square next to you. It's a whole thing where different editions do things differently.

Not being able to attack someone close to you was also unrealistic as far as I know from demoes of fights using them in competition. Admittedly you're not going to do as much damage against an adjacent enemy. On the other hand I am assuming you aren't talking about the pole-arms that were 12 foot long or more that were only useful in military formations.

S'why I said I kinda like the idea rather than "This needs to be in 6e!!!"

Then it would be a rule (or potentially entire edition) I would ignore. It wasn't worth it in 1e I don't see why any similar would be worth it now. Of course there are plenty of games out there that I ignore for various reasons.

I just think it'd be a more reasonable general rule for realistic reach of weapons rather than trying to shrink down damage dice based on enemy size. Mainly because of Blood Pressure.

At 120/80 humans bleed pretty quickly. And even a nick to a major artery can be fatal in minutes. So a dagger can take you out -fast-... However, for an Elephant, 180mmHg is their standard blood pressure. Their heart only beats 30 times a minute, or half as much as the average human, so their blood pressure has to be -much- higher in order to circulate their blood through their enormous body and keep their blood vessels from collapsing.

A humanoid giant would need a similar, or even higher, blood pressure, due to the upright structure of their body. They'd also need ankles that are -super- reinforced with fascia to keep blood from pooling in their legs and feet. Hell. People over 6ft tall already often have to deal with that as a problem in their lives. At 16ft? Woof...

So yeah. A nick to the arteries of the foot/ankle/calf would drain a giant's blood -REAL- fast. But with a dagger you'd practically have to stand on their foot to get a decent shot at pulling it off as a sneak attack.

A humanoid giant doesn't work in real life, there are a few individuals that were 8 foot tall or more but they have difficulty walking and most die young. Any assumptions for a fictional giant must also assume that they don't follow real world rules. On the other hand look at how wolves take down a moose (or bison) which are several times their size. A single wolf doesn't stand much of a chance so they surround the moose, nipping at vulnerable spots. So the rogue isn't standing on the giant's foot but is diving in looking for opportunities to cut the femoral artery or slowly weaken that Achilles tendon depending on the giant. We just don't get into that level of detail because you'd have to have a small library of books to cover all the possible permutations.

 

[Steampunkette]

Not being able to attack someone close to you was also unrealistic as far as I know from demoes of fights using them in competition. Admittedly you're not going to do as much damage against an adjacent enemy. On the other hand I am assuming you aren't talking about the pole-arms that were 12 foot long or more that were only useful in military formations.

There is a reason knights and soldiers carried swords.

And it wasn't because they were the primary weapon of the battlefield.

Once someone got too close in for a hafted weapon, you dropped it and swapped for something useful in closer quarters.

Then it would be a rule (or potentially entire edition) I would ignore. It wasn't worth it in 1e I don't see why any similar would be worth it now. Of course there are plenty of games out there that I ignore for various reasons.

Shock of shocks.

It's almost like I'm not saying this is something that everyone should have or use, but that it's a more realistic option than reducing damage die by creature size.

Bizarre, I know! It's almost like I'm talking to a different group of people about alternatives to what they either do in their games or are considering, and not making a grand, sweeping, proclamation about what you must do in your games.

Hell. It's almost like I explicitly stated, in the section you quoted, that this isn't something that you'd put into a whole edition of D&D that you're just skimming over in order to try and frame my position as something it totally isn't in order to tell me how awful and terrible such a rule would be at your table or in an ENTIRE EDITION of D&D.

Weird, that.

A humanoid giant doesn't work in real life, there are a few individuals that were 8 foot tall or more but they have difficulty walking and most die young. Any assumptions for a fictional giant must also assume that they don't follow real world rules. On the other hand look at how wolves take down a moose (or bison) which are several times their size. A single wolf doesn't stand much of a chance so they surround the moose, nipping at vulnerable spots. So the rogue isn't standing on the giant's foot but is diving in looking for opportunities to cut the femoral artery or slowly weaken that Achilles tendon depending on the giant. We just don't get into that level of detail because you'd have to have a small library of books to cover all the possible permutations.

"Giants aren't realistic and you shouldn't treat them as if they are."

"Also if they were, people would be more like wolves fighting a moose because that would be more realistic"

 

[AlViking]

There is a reason knights and soldiers carried swords.

And it wasn't because they were the primary weapon of the battlefield.

Once someone got too close in for a hafted weapon, you dropped it and swapped for something useful in closer quarters.

Shock of shocks.

It's almost like I'm not saying this is something that everyone should have or use, but that it's a more realistic option than reducing damage die by creature size.

Bizarre, I know! It's almost like I'm talking to a different group of people about alternatives to what they either do in their games or are considering, and not making a grand, sweeping, proclamation about what you must do in your games.

Hell. It's almost like I explicitly stated, in the section you quoted, that this isn't something that you'd put into a whole edition of D&D that you're just skimming over in order to try and frame my position as something it totally isn't in order to tell me how awful and terrible such a rule would be at your table or in an ENTIRE EDITION of D&D.

Weird, that.

"Giants aren't realistic and you shouldn't treat them as if they are."

"Also if they were, people would be more like wolves fighting a moose because that would be more realistic"

I think it goes without stating that many monsters in D&D could not exist in the real world and are supernatural beings that don't follow real world physiology. It's a fantasy game, not a medieval warfare simulate. While the game is simplified for the sake of making it approachable and to work as a tabletop game, we can also envision dramatic high action fights when we describe how our characters engage the monsters. I'd rather have that than "this is silly and would never work" followed by sad trombone sounds approach to the game.

 

[Micah Sweet]

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.

I don't think the difficulty in fighting dragons with human-sized weapons is sufficient evidence to plausibly make the claim, "D&D and realism do not mix".

 

[Micah Sweet]

True.

No, as you said, there is no such thing. It's not hard, it's impossible.

This thread clearly indicates that "pseudo-realism" is a synonym for whatever whacky ideas and personal bees-in-bonnets the DM happens to have. I wouldn't want to play with a DM who "tweaks" the game that way.

Not in play without the player's knowledge, but otherwise you're basically saying you would never play with a GM who uses houserules or homebrew material.