D&D General The rapier in D&D

[kermit4karate]

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

Good point. Perhaps I should have said "prioritize" instead of obsess. I obsess over all of it, but I prioritize fun for the table.

 

[AlViking]

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.

The thing about injuries is that they're quite often simply random. There's the story of the guy who had the iron spike driven through their head and survived while roosters apparently kill people on a somewhat regular basis. A lot of people sadly die from a single gunshot wound while in 2018 a guy was shot 30 times and survived. So how do you calculate damage and odds of survival realistically if you want to also account for those outliers? There's always going to be a spectrum from abstraction to reality and a game can't be 100% realistic. Where you want to be on that spectrum is always going to be a trade-off of simplicity, complexity and preference.

Going back to the 1e rules of weapons vs armor. First, there's a lot of issues of how accurate that chart was. But even if we do use it what kind of armor a human used was simple, what kind of armor does an owlbear have, or a rhino qualifies for is a different issue. If the rules don't answer it, people just have to guess because there's really not a good answer even before we start factoring in things akin to dexterity modifiers adding to AC. The attempts that we had long ago didn't really add enough to the game to justify the extra complexity for me and where I draw the line is something I can't answer without detailed rules and examples. All I can really say is that I'm okay with the current rules.

 

[Micah Sweet]

The thing about injuries is that they're quite often simply random. There's the story of the guy who had the iron spike driven through their head and survived while roosters apparently kill people on a somewhat regular basis. A lot of people sadly die from a single gunshot wound while in 2018 a guy was shot 30 times and survived. So how do you calculate damage and odds of survival realistically if you want to also account for those outliers? There's always going to be a spectrum from abstraction to reality and a game can't be 100% realistic. Where you want to be on that spectrum is always going to be a trade-off of simplicity, complexity and preference.

Going back to the 1e rules of weapons vs armor. First, there's a lot of issues of how accurate that chart was. But even if we do use it what kind of armor a human used was simple, what kind of armor does an owlbear have, or a rhino qualifies for is a different issue. If the rules don't answer it, people just have to guess because there's really not a good answer even before we start factoring in things akin to dexterity modifiers adding to AC. The attempts that we had long ago didn't really add enough to the game to justify the extra complexity for me and where I draw the line is something I can't answer without detailed rules and examples. All I can really say is that I'm okay with the current rules.

That you're happy running a particular rule set for your players is the most important thing, followed closely by how happy the players are with your play. My table has no effect on yours.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

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-.

Yeah I have considered adopting a similar take in my game. Currently space is tracked in yards, and daggers and such have a reach of 1, other one-handed weapons have a reach of 2, and rapiers can lunge for 3, etc.

Using very close, close, etc would simplify. Especially since currently you can “engage” which is kinda like entering a dogfight in wotc Star Wars, and helps defenders defend, so simplifying the physical range a little would really help the overall simplicity.

 

[Steampunkette]

Yeah I have considered adopting a similar take in my game. Currently space is tracked in yards, and daggers and such have a reach of 1, other one-handed weapons have a reach of 2, and rapiers can lunge for 3, etc.

Using very close, close, etc would simplify. Especially since currently you can “engage” which is kinda like entering a dogfight in wotc Star Wars, and helps defenders defend, so simplifying the physical range a little would really help the overall simplicity.

1-yard hexes would be SO sexy as a map scaling now that you mention it...

Most d4 weapons would be "Melee" where you have to be right next to someone. Swords and Battleaxes and the link with 4 feet or so of reach allows you to hit someone two hexes away. Polearms allow you to fight at two to three hexes out but not the neighboring hex...

Would be very swank.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

1-yard hexes would be SO sexy as a map scaling now that you mention it...

Most d4 weapons would be "Melee" where you have to be right next to someone. Swords and Battleaxes and the link with 4 feet or so of reach allows you to hit someone two hexes away. Polearms allow you to fight at two to three hexes out but not the neighboring hex...

Would be very swank.

I have come across games that use hex grids for personal scale stuff. Gloomhaven does now that I think of it. It does simplify distance measurements and encourages you to come up with maps with less boxy buildings.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

1-yard hexes would be SO sexy as a map scaling now that you mention it...

Most d4 weapons would be "Melee" where you have to be right next to someone. Swords and Battleaxes and the link with 4 feet or so of reach allows you to hit someone two hexes away. Polearms allow you to fight at two to three hexes out but not the neighboring hex...

Would be very swank.

Yeah I love 1 yard hex maps. I’m torn between it and 13th age or Daggerheart style ranges.

Since my game uses dice pools I would only penalize melee with polearms with a -1d penalty, since you absolutely can short-grip the haft or use it like a quarter staff.

But my game also assumes that no one is using formation armaments but are rather using shorter polearms that are actually useful in single combat, so the disadvantage up close is reduced in reality.

But! I really want melee weapons to have more variance in reach and have the matter, compared to D&D and most other d20 games.

 

[pawsplay]

Carolean Army circa 1700-1720’s, but if you’re now going to pretend that rapiers weren’t a common officer’s sword for literally a couple centuries then I don’t have much else to say here

Very good. So let's go ahead and note that the Caroleans were musketeers and pikeman. Relate that to the present discussion in any way you wish. I, personally, would choose the musket against a dragon.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Very good. So let's go ahead and note that the Caroleans were musketeers and pikeman. Relate that to the present discussion in any way you wish. I, personally, would choose the musket against a dragon.

Oof.

I’m good. We don’t need to continue interacting. Have a good one.

(They also had cavalry using rapiers, and the musketeers didn’t have bayonets because they were trained to use their rapiers in close quarters. So ya know, rapiers used in battle. )

 

[ECMO3]

TBH I don't know why Rapier is a different weapon than Longsword.