D&D General The rapier in D&D

[Micah Sweet]

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-.

You means like Level Up's rules for climbing other creatures?

 

[Paul Farquhar]

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.

Most of the house rules in my game come from the players. But this sort of thing can be very disruptive. The OP clearly hates rapiers, and so is wilfully blind to the fact that the reasons they want to remove them from the game also apply to a shedload of other things as well. House rules should be fair and impartial, not based on personal prejudices and misunderstandings.

 

[Micah Sweet]

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.

There are plenty of games right now with more realistic combat rules than official D&D. How can those exist if, "no game meant to be played at a table is ever going to be particularly realistic"?

 

[Micah Sweet]

Most of the house rules in my game come from the players. But this sort of thing can be very disruptive. The OP clearly hates rapiers, and so is wilfully blind to the fact that the reasons they want to remove them from the game also apply to a shedload of other things as well. House rules should be fair and impartial, not based on personal prejudices and misunderstandings.

At the very least, they should be mutually agreed upon.

 

[AlViking]

There are plenty of games right now with more realistic combat rules than official D&D. How can those exist if, "no game meant to be played at a table is ever going to be particularly realistic"?

Then it's a good thing that if you want more realistic combat rules you have options. Doesn't mean I, or most people I play with or have played with, have ever expressed a desire for more complicated combat rules.

Combat rules will never be able to come particularly close to real world combat, you'd need a supercomputer for every attack.

 

[Steampunkette]

You means like Level Up's rules for climbing other creatures?

That's part of it, sure. But also the idea that you -can't- threaten someone 5ft away with a dagger. 'Cause it flattens the idea of reach pretty heavily.

In a fight between a guy armed with a knife and a guy armed with a sword, all other aspects being equal, guy with the sword is gonna kill the guy with a knife because of the reach advantage.

That's not to say it's gonna be a clean instantaneous death. Or that the guy with the knife can't also kill the guy with the sword by fighting through the pain and blood loss to get close in enough to take a stab or two.

But, y'know. Me holding a rapier and a foe holding a rondel, he's not getting close enough to me to stab without paying for it in advance. That's -why- rapiers kept getting longer and longer.

Most of the house rules in my game come from the players. But this sort of thing can be very disruptive. The OP clearly hates rapiers, and so is wilfully blind to the fact that the reasons they want to remove them from the game also apply to a shedload of other things as well. House rules should be fair and impartial, not based on personal prejudices and misunderstandings.

Now, now, let's not be hasty...

This is why most of my settings don't have gnomes in them, after all!

 

[Micah Sweet]

Then it's a good thing that if you want more realistic combat rules you have options. Doesn't mean I, or most people I play with or have played with, have ever expressed a desire for more complicated combat rules.

Combat rules will never be able to come particularly close to real world combat, you'd need a supercomputer for every attack.

How particularly close do they need to be to meet your standard (that you wouldn't play anyway)? Necessary abstractions for play are necessary, but you can definitely have more realistic rules than modern WotC D&D and still be playable. As you say, "realistic enough" is a different mark for different people. Personally my goal is to be as realistic as possible (in a practical way), so that the fiction can be faithfully emulated by the mechanics. Gamifying reality and fiction is a huge part of why I engage in this hobby in the first place.

 

[Micah Sweet]

That's part of it, sure. But also the idea that you -can't- threaten someone 5ft away with a dagger. 'Cause it flattens the idea of reach pretty heavily.

In a fight between a guy armed with a knife and a guy armed with a sword, all other aspects being equal, guy with the sword is gonna kill the guy with a knife because of the reach advantage.

That's not to say it's gonna be a clean instantaneous death. Or that the guy with the knife can't also kill the guy with the sword by fighting through the pain and blood loss to get close in enough to take a stab or two.

But, y'know. Me holding a rapier and a foe holding a rondel, he's not getting close enough to me to stab without paying for it in advance. That's -why- rapiers kept getting longer and longer.

Now, now, let's not be hasty...

This is why most of my settings don't have gnomes in them, after all!

Reach rules could definitely stand to be more granular, I agree, and maybe some weapons could have a bleed effect built in, perhaps gated by character level. I borrowed the idea of weapon abilities gated by level from a 5e science fiction game (not sure which one off the top of my head).

 

[kermit4karate]

Most of the house rules in my game come from the players. But this sort of thing can be very disruptive. The OP clearly hates rapiers, and so is wilfully blind to the fact that the reasons they want to remove them from the game also apply to a shedload of other things as well. House rules should be fair and impartial, not based on personal prejudices and misunderstandings.

"House rules" is a big, nebulous term. The house rules in my games are anything but disruptive, and most have been introduced or suggested by me, not my players. They're always obviously only ever made in a group's best interests.

They've enhanced enjoyment and facilitated comaraderie; otherwise, why use them?

I don't obsess over realism in any games, D&D or otherwise, regardless of the rules. I obsess over facilitating fun for everyone playing the game with me. If/when it helps to inject more realism into a game, I do. If/when it doesn't, I don't.

 

[Micah Sweet]

"House rules" is a big, nebulous term. The house rules in my games are anything but disruptive, and most have been introduced or suggested by me, not my players. They're always obviously only ever made in a group's best interests.

They've enhanced enjoyment and facilitated comaraderie; otherwise, why use them?

I don't obsess over realism in any games, D&D or otherwise, regardless of the rules. I obsess over facilitating fun for everyone playing the game with me. If/when it helps to inject more realism into a game, I do. If/when it doesn't, I don't.

I do obsess over realism, but it has to be tempered by fun for the table, true.