Where are the rapiers?

[Kobold Avenger]

You remember how for almost every 3e rogue build, getting weapon finesse was essential. In 4e that could be replaced by getting Weapon Proficiency: Rapier.

I could see how the rapier could be more a fighterish weapon, and I certainly see the rapier in as a weapon, because the pictures of human weapons in R&C shows a rapier among them.

Also I generally stat the Chinese Jian (aka Tai-Chi Sword) as a Rapier, though others favour statting it out as a Longsword instead.

 

[Relique du Madde]

Lager Lout: level 3 minion, 20 hp, atk +4 (beer mug, 1d8+2), Reflex +2, AC +3, Fort +4, Will +1

That beer mug is scary.

 

[Quantarum]

I'm having flashbacks of Tim Roth skewering a heavy-sword-wielding Scot with a rapier, in Rob Roy.

I think, in 4e, short sword = rapier = short sword.

I seem to recall Tim Roth getting split in twain by Liam Neeson at the end too.

-Q.

 

[AZRogue]

They might be going for something more simple, such as:

dagger: 1d4*
shortsword: 1d6*

*Choose a weapon that can fit one of these categories, ensuring that it is appropriate for your campaign and/or character concept. That weapon will then deal damage equal to either the dagger or shortsword listed above. Example: Possible shortsword weapons can include the Shortsword, Rapier, Gladius, Xiphos, Thrusting Blade, or Wakizashi.

With this sort of system there wouldn't be such a chance that one weapon is obviously better than another--so much so that most everyone chooses it. Weapons will, instead, fall into simple categories that can be used to represent different weapons of a similar nature. Instead of having a list of a hundred different weapons that are all listed as "sword: 1d6 damage" or the other extreme where each weapon has to be different to justify its existence when there really isn't any need to do so other than the habit of making each one unique.



Maybe other categories will include Sword, Hand Axe, Greatsword, Battle Axe, Polearm, Mace, Club, Staff, etc.

Just a thought. We're really not sure how many weapons will be included or how different they will all be. I imagine that, for simplicity, they will try to keep similar weapons from having different stats when there's no real and obviously necessary reason to make them different (from a mechanical point of view).

 

[Klaus]

I seem to recall Tim Roth getting split in twain by Liam Neeson at the end too.

-Q.

Hey, it's not the rapier's fault that Liam Neeson was like a Scottish Wolverine ("I get knocked down, but I get up again, you ain't never gonna keep me down...").

It's like Homer Simpson boxing.

 

[ArmoredSaint]

Rob Roy wouldn't have had so much trouble with Roth's character if he'd have worn mail...

 

[Steely Dan]

It seems very unlikely there are only a few weapons

I do believe there will be far less weapon choices in 4th Ed (and certainly less overlap).

 

[Pbartender]

Agreed, except you'd have to explain how all the monsters work with a pre-modern society.

Are you kidding? Just like any other pre-modern society, the monsters work because it's fantasy. Aside from that... Vampires in Eastern Europe, Djinni in the Mideast, Fountains of Youth and Cities of Gold in the New World, Dragons in the Far East, witches and sorcerers consorting with demons.

It's not as tricky as you might think.

 

[Cam Banks]

My very first 3.0 campaign was set in Elizabethan England with fey and monsters and Lovecraftian cults added. Matchlocks, rapiers, back-and-breast armor, all of it. No problem whatsoever. The guys over at Evil Hat host the file I was shopping around a few years back.

I imagine it will be just as easy to do this time around.

Cheers,
Cam

 

[Fifth Element]

You, my friend, fail at history.

Hold on, "friend", I'm not saying the two don't coexist in history, I'm saying that rapiers should be much less common in the typical D&D world where everyone and his dog seems to walk around in heavy armour most of the time. More people in heavy armour = rapiers being much less useful.