Where are the rapiers?
- Thread starter Zaran
- Start date
Ruin Explorer
Legend
JVisgaitis said:
What? He'd do better than a guy with a shortsword or a dagger, that's for sure. Also, rapiers and greatswords DID exist at the same time. This has been mentioned before, and I don't think it's crazy to suggest that people who randomly claim otherwise might want to read a little more history, in the nicest way possible. By the time of greatswords, by the way, very few people, if any, used chainmail. Just sayin'. Plus a rapier would/does go through chainmail like it's not there.
The real world effectiveness of rapiers is a moot point. The characters are heroes. I don't need to enforce real world power balance between rapier wielders and plate wearers any more than I need to enforce the real world power balance between half naked norsemen with axes and disciplined, armored swordsman, or between kung fu monks and chevaliers.
When a kung fu monk fights a knight of the crusades, the monk doesn't have to leave his genre, come to the middle east, and get chopped into pieces. Nor does the knight have to leave HIS genre, come to china, and have a monk leap into the air, balance on his sword blade, and spit a poison dart through the eyelets of his helmet. They each get to stay in their own genre, and accomplish the cool things that their character type tends to do within their own world.
If we wanted to accomplish genuinely realistic small unit combat, we'd give everyone a sword, a shield, and some reinforced chain. And maybe a bow. We'd delete the rogue entirely, we'd delete the heavier armor worn by the fighter (or at least impose significant fatigue penalties if he wore it all day in the sun), we'd delete most of the ranger's abilities... we could go on and on. But we don't do that. Each character class is a hero of a particular type of story. D&D is cool because it brings those stories together. I can be a swashbuckler who can charge with unerring balance across a storm tossed ship to duel a pirate lord. You can be a plate armored fighter who stands in the breach of the castle wall like a pillar.
Your enjoyment of your character should not be dependent on other people NOT being allowed to play their characters, except under the most egregious of circumstances.
[/rant over]
When a kung fu monk fights a knight of the crusades, the monk doesn't have to leave his genre, come to the middle east, and get chopped into pieces. Nor does the knight have to leave HIS genre, come to china, and have a monk leap into the air, balance on his sword blade, and spit a poison dart through the eyelets of his helmet. They each get to stay in their own genre, and accomplish the cool things that their character type tends to do within their own world.
If we wanted to accomplish genuinely realistic small unit combat, we'd give everyone a sword, a shield, and some reinforced chain. And maybe a bow. We'd delete the rogue entirely, we'd delete the heavier armor worn by the fighter (or at least impose significant fatigue penalties if he wore it all day in the sun), we'd delete most of the ranger's abilities... we could go on and on. But we don't do that. Each character class is a hero of a particular type of story. D&D is cool because it brings those stories together. I can be a swashbuckler who can charge with unerring balance across a storm tossed ship to duel a pirate lord. You can be a plate armored fighter who stands in the breach of the castle wall like a pillar.
Your enjoyment of your character should not be dependent on other people NOT being allowed to play their characters, except under the most egregious of circumstances.
[/rant over]
Ruin Explorer
Legend
Cadfan said:
True dat.
Ignoring the real world effectiveness of the rapier, wasn't the rapier wielding rogue an aspect of metagaming?
In pre-3E, the iconic thief cerntainly wasn't wielding a rapier. The old swashbuckler kit from 2E was from the fighter handbook while the 3E prestige class (the iconic rapier wielding archtype) always assumed you were coming from the rogue-class.
It may or may not be reverting back to the fighter.
Then again, I must repeat, we're assuming proficiency works the same way (I'm almost positive that we wont see the -4 non-proficiency penalty as that represents a 8 level drop in effectiveness) and I'm almost 100% positive this isn't true.
In pre-3E, the iconic thief cerntainly wasn't wielding a rapier. The old swashbuckler kit from 2E was from the fighter handbook while the 3E prestige class (the iconic rapier wielding archtype) always assumed you were coming from the rogue-class.
It may or may not be reverting back to the fighter.
Then again, I must repeat, we're assuming proficiency works the same way (I'm almost positive that we wont see the -4 non-proficiency penalty as that represents a 8 level drop in effectiveness) and I'm almost 100% positive this isn't true.
JVisgaitis
Explorer
BulletMagnet said:You my friend, obviously have not seen Rob Roy....
Yes I have. The scotsman (don't remember his name) was unarmored. Totally different scenario. Plus, its a movie.
I'm hoping for something along the lines of:
Shortsword: a bladed weapon with a length of x-y inches. Shortswords include the gladius, the xiphos, blah, blah, blah.
The same could be done for long swords, daggers, two-handed swords, etc....
I really believe that the weapons listed are weapon groups that are all governed by the same mechanics. Weapon focus shortsword applies to every weapon in the shortsword category, for example.
As to rogues and rapiers, I prefer dagger wielding rogues. I never really thought of rapiers as rogue weapons until I saw so many RPGA rogues wielding them. For me it was the dagger (both slashing and piercing) and improved unarmed strike for the bludgeon.
Shortsword: a bladed weapon with a length of x-y inches. Shortswords include the gladius, the xiphos, blah, blah, blah.
The same could be done for long swords, daggers, two-handed swords, etc....
I really believe that the weapons listed are weapon groups that are all governed by the same mechanics. Weapon focus shortsword applies to every weapon in the shortsword category, for example.
As to rogues and rapiers, I prefer dagger wielding rogues. I never really thought of rapiers as rogue weapons until I saw so many RPGA rogues wielding them. For me it was the dagger (both slashing and piercing) and improved unarmed strike for the bludgeon.
JVisgaitis
Explorer
Ruin Explorer said:
Not the chainmail I've seen. And yes, I've read quite a bit of history thank you very much.
ruleslawyer
Registered User
Actually, I think this implied statement was exactly what he was referencing. Rapiers evolved in part because of plate armor. Blades got thinner and adapted for piercing, rather than slashing, in order to slip past increasingly heavy armor.Fifth Element said:
Rapier vs. chain, OTOH, is not a great option.
