Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Nlogue" data-source="post: 3312949" data-attributes="member: 41806">Just to weigh in on the otherside of the rapier debate:  The rapier (or transitional rapier as a lot of combat historians refer to it) actually replaced the broadsword cause it was far far superior.  First of all the rapier is a dueling weapon and the rise of dueling as a common practice for settling disputes of honor during the Reniassance is why the rapier rose to prominence as the blade of choice.  It proved far more lethal and dangerous than a broadsword in a dueling situation because it could be wielded with devestating speed and placed an emphasis on accurate punturing attacks delivered to the opponent's vital organs.  The rapier gave way later to the smallsword (the lethal version of the foil) in the Restoration, which was even smaller and lighter than the rapier (its basically a lethal little needle of steel that pierces the lungs and heart with ease).  You have to keep in mind that D&D cannot encompass the nuances of mortal combat in any realistic way.  The reason the rapier became so deadly (far deadlier than a broadsword) was the way it was utilized.  A skilled rapier wielder could accurately and quickly strike a target ony one half of an inch wide with consistent skill.  No armor protects one enough to avoid a crippling or lethal stab from a skilled opponent wielding a rapier especially if you cannot even muster a suitable parry or effectively counterattack cause your weapon of choice is a clunky 30 pound piece of steel (ahem:  broadsword).  In fact, armor was abandoned by duelists because they found quick footwork and mobility to be a far more reliable lifesaver in a fight.  In my practical experience the whole armor system in D&D is a little silly, but the way armor is resolved in Game of Thrones makes far more sense.    Another ridiculous myth of combat in D&D is the sheild.  A shield offers its bearer an enormous advantage in melee.  If two trained warriors even in the same ballpark of skill face each other, one with only a longsword, the other with longsword and shield, the chances of the sheildless warrior seeing his next sunrise is very slim indeed.  Even worse is the horrible way Two Weapon Defense is treated in D&D.  Two Weapon Defense should profer far more of an advantage in the game.  Sheilds and bucklers were totally abandoned in favor of a secondary dagger during the Renaissance because duelists found the dagger offered the same protection (when wielded with any mote of skill) and created another threat to your opponent making it far more difficult for them to mount an effective attack on your person.  D&D and realistic combat should never really mesh in my mind, it takes away all the fun.  The rapier and foil would be far more deadly in this case (the fatality rate in duels when the smallsword became popular jumped from roughly 15% to a staggering 80% due to the tiny puncturing weapons' lethality).  And I personally think weilding a broadsword is a lot more fun in many regards.  Sorry to nerd out on the combat.  It's my day job when I'm not writing adventures - I choreograph fights for stage and film, and I hate when the rapier gets smacked down, when in truth its far more dangerous than a broadsword.</blockquote>

Verification