D&D General The rapier in D&D

[GrimCo]

So basically, if you were a rogue, the best options were a rapier, or a more rapier-y rapier. That's part of what threw me into this chain of thought. I previously envisioned rogues using mostly short swords, or depending on the edition, maybe a long sword, or maybe they have a variant trait that gives them more martial weapons. But with 3e they turned into Errol Flynn.

There was change from 2e Thief to 3.x Rogue. While thief was supposed to be next to wizard far in the back, rogue was more like a mix of light nimble combatant who was intended to get into melee. As i said, unless you went Improved Critical feat (and rogues didn't get to many feats, plus, you burned one for Weapon Finesse) or you were lucky to get your hands on keen rapier, short sword was go to option. Same damage, 5% less chance for potential crit, same crit multiplier. Elven thinblade was Exotic weapon (so again, need a feat for it) and it's finessable long sword with 5% more potential crit chance. Most rogues (and i played mostly rogues and bards in 3e) used shortswords and daggers cause burning 1-2 extra feats was too much, specially if you went two weapon fighting route. Even with level or two of fighter, feats were tight resource not to squander lightly. That's why we also got chain shirt as light armor in 3.x.

Someone said rapiers started with AD&D... I looked it up, they are not in the 2e PHB. Any rapier-type weapon, presumably a 15th century transition weapon, would probably be a "long sword," two words, a Shakespearean-era designation for a typical, one-handed arming sword of any length. DMG 2.5 also does not describe rapiers, and does not mention them in the Renaissance equipment lists, only "early guns." I know they appeared in A Mighty Fortress, which had several fencing proficiencies, in fact.

Obviously, in a fantasy world, this comes down to preference, but from an aesthetic standpoint, most of the weapons are 12th to 15th century, not modern, like a rapier. Flintlock guns (barely) predate the rapier. I've seen anime shows where they have warriors and mages and dragons and such, but they also have bubble tea and cat clocks, which I am fine with as it's own thing, but I don't think of as the usual genre for D&D. But maybe I've just gotten too old, and rapiers and flying ships and clockwork cannons are pretty standard for this type of fantasy now.

Aesthetic wise, D&D is all over the place, mixing weapons and armors from different eras and cultures.

Best thing is, take mechanics and fluff it in a way you like it. Most groups i know did just that.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Nearly everything was immune to critical hits and sneak attack in 3.0, making rogues as useless as ever. That's simulationism for you.

 

[GrimCo]

Nearly everything was immune to critical hits and sneak attack in 3.0, making rogues as useless as ever. That's simulationism for you.

Yea, constructs, undead, oozes first come to mind. Probably more stuff too. But you'll never feel so useless as rogue more than one playing in undead apocalypse type game.

 

[Willie the Duck]

Yea, constructs, undead, oozes first come to mind. Probably more stuff too. But you'll never feel so useless as rogue more than one playing in undead apocalypse type game.

There was some feat, spell, or one-level dip that let you sneak attack creatures of a type otherwise immune*. But up until that came out and if you decided to get it (so, yeah, the whole campaign was built around undead or the like) you would be rocking UMD and some wand that was beneficial to the party. Or just resign yourself to being the character that gets brought out when there's a skill roll to be made (so not that far from your TSR-era role). *not unlike the multiple ways for fighter-types to get full attacks after more than 5' movement. That was the ethos: make a limitation, then add ways around it.

Note, it's pretty easy to see the parallels between this design ethos and this thread (theoretically then further taken to some action in future game/edition design). Someone on the design team noted that undead don't have functioning anatomy and decided 'it'd just make sense*' if precision attacks were ineffective on undead. Never mind the selectivity of implementing 'realism' and the downstream consequences to individual class choices. If we were to do so with rapiers and dragons (in house rule or hypothetical edition X), it wouldn't necessarily mean rapiers couldn't be used, but I hope the game is then set up for weapon switch hitting (hyper-specialization not otherwise optimal, if magic weapons are required they are common enough to have two, etc.). *excepting that two iconic forms of undead--zombies and vampires--are in fact traditionally/thematically defeated by a weapon to a specific point of their anatomy.

Undead in 3e had a number of these. The whole no Con score (and bonus points) for undead and constructs was another big 'it just makes sense'/major consequences issue. In this case, it is an issue with the roles undead play. Some (like ghosts, specters, etc.) are wispy and ephemeral (but likely immune to many weapons) and it is okay if they have moderate hit points. Others (liches) are undead mages, so a HD (d12) that averages to the same as a wizard with an 18 Con is likewise reasonable. But deathknights and zombies (iconically slow and clumsy but unstoppable meat sacks) really need lots and lots of HP to fill their roles. Suddenly you got zombies with 3-4 HD per CR, and they, not their vampire or lich master, are the un-turnable threat (because turning is still based on creature HD).

 

[Micah Sweet]

Nearly everything was immune to critical hits and sneak attack in 3.0, making rogues as useless as ever. That's simulationism for you.

"Nearly everything"? Come on. Did you spend all your 3e time fighting undead and constructs, or is this statement maybe a little hyperbolic?

 

[Micah Sweet]

Yea, constructs, undead, oozes first come to mind. Probably more stuff too. But you'll never feel so useless as rogue more than one playing in undead apocalypse type game.

Yet those those things weirdly don't comprise "nearly everything".

 

[Mannahnin]

"Nearly everything"? Come on. Did you spend all your 3e time fighting undead and constructs, or is this statement maybe a little hyperbolic?

It's hyperbolic. But undead, constructs, elementals and oozes were common enough that it was a substantial handicap for rogues. Plus I recall there being a magic armor property which could negate crits and sneak attack, so you might be similarly handicapped against BBEGs who would otherwise be fair game. If you're one of the party's big damage dealers and in a lot of fights your damage is massively crippled just by the nature of the foe, that's painful. Especially if you happen to be on an adventure that heavily features one of these creature types for reasons of theme. You might spend several sessions in a row being bad at a thing you're built to kick butt at.

@Willie the Duck Do you have a source on that way to get around this? I remember we had a high level rogue in a long-running 3.5 campaign and never found such an option.

 

[Willie the Duck]

@Willie the Duck Do you have a source on that way to get around this? I remember we had a high level rogue in a long-running 3.5 campaign and never found such an option.

Not natively. I haven't played 3e in many years. Google helped me find two:

• The Alternative Class Feature Penetrating Strike (Rogue ACF, Dungeonscape, replaces Trap Sense) allows you to deal half of your SA damage to immune targets so long as they re flanked.
• The spell Grave Strike(Cleric1 Paladin 1, Spell Compendium) takes a swift action, but for one round, you can sneak attack undead (but not crit them). One level cleric dip or Use Magic Device (forget how that interacts with swift actions) to use.

 

[Micah Sweet]

It's hyperbolic. But undead, constructs, elementals and oozes were common enough that it was a substantial handicap for rogues. Plus I recall there being a magic armor property which could negate crits and sneak attack, so you might be similarly handicapped against BBEGs who would otherwise be fair game. If you're one of the party's big damage dealers and in a lot of fights your damage is massively crippled just by the nature of the foe, that's painful. Especially if you happen to be on an adventure that heavily features one of these creature types for reasons of theme. You might spend several sessions in a row being bad at a thing you're built to kick butt at.

@Willie the Duck Do you have a source on that way to get around this? I remember we had a high level rogue in a long-running 3.5 campaign and never found such an option.

To me the mistake is marketing the rogue in 3e as a damage-dealer primary in the first place. Before 3e they were skill monkeys. Focusing more attention on that area and getting it right would have been a better use of their design efforts IMO.

 

[Umbran]

Nearly everything was immune to critical hits and sneak attack in 3.0, making rogues as useless as ever. That's simulationism for you.

It's a ROCK! It doesn't have any vulnerable spots!