Why a rapier is bad for an adventurer

[GreyLord]

The first time I read a book about ancient warfare I was surprised by how much the word "firepower" was used. How missile weapons (slings and bows, back then) were the primary dominant weapons millennia ago, and melee basically always secondary.

The ability to hit the other person from farther away than they can hit you is, if not all-important, very close to it.

Bows were awesome in AD&D. Bow specialists who had 4 shots in a round were even more awesome. A hasted bow specialist with Flaming Arrows or other special arrows (arrow of Death anyone?) with 8 attacks per round were even more awesome.

They tended to get old fast though.

 

[Piperken]

I would tend to take Matt's word more that the average Youtuber, given what he does and what he's studied.

I'm aware of his interests; he and others in that space do well because they're passionate about their subject and have developed a following, which doesn't happen overnight.

Still, as others correctly pointed out quite early, these are two different weapons, from two different time periods in use, with origins from different purposes; that's hardly a proper foundation for comparing them, and from there to reach a conclusion as to which is better for war (much less adventuring).

 

[TheHand]

As an aside, this discussion reminds me that I’be always wanted to have weapon damage be class based, with variations for 2-handers vs 1-handed/shield. That way your character could flavor their weapon to anything they think fits their character without losing optimization.
But I know individual weapon damage is too integral to D&D’s identity, not to mention a lot of people would hate it, so it’s more a “what-if” thought exercise for me.
Carry on! en garde!

 

[Mannahnin]

As an aside, this discussion reminds me that I’be always wanted to have weapon damage be class based, with variations for 2-handers vs 1-handed/shield. That way your character could flavor their weapon to anything they think fits their character without losing optimization.
But I know individual weapon damage is too integral to D&D’s identity, not to mention a lot of people would hate it, so it’s more a “what-if” thought exercise for me.
Carry on! en garde!

I will once more (as if compulsively) recommend The Nightmares Underneath, as I do in so many discussions about D&D house rules, because this is yet another commonly-discussed house rule that it incorporates.

In TNU damage with weapons is based on your HD, upgraded one die size for two-handers (except for a couple of classes), downgraded one for improvised or shoddy weapons. Certain classes also get damage bonuses (Fighters, for example, always score regular damage, and get to do double damage whenever they hit).

 

[Cruentus]

As an aside, this discussion reminds me that I’be always wanted to have weapon damage be class based, with variations for 2-handers vs 1-handed/shield. That way your character could flavor their weapon to anything they think fits their character without losing optimization.
But I know individual weapon damage is too integral to D&D’s identity, not to mention a lot of people would hate it, so it’s more a “what-if” thought exercise for me.
Carry on! en garde!

I’ve seen it used in OSR games as house rules - each character does their HD in damage regardless of the weapon they are wielding. Every 3 levels for fighter, 4 for clerics, and 5 for wizards, the weapon would bump up a HD (so the wizard’s sword would go from doing d4 to d6 at 6th level, for example). Any character could wield any weapon, and they usually coupled it with a weapon ‘ability’ - spears would have reach, two handed weapons would have wounding (roll 2 dice for damage, take the higher), maces would have crush, etc.

It was an interesting combination of freedom around weapons, and having some differentiation among weapons.

On the Rapier front, the earliest I saw it appear was 2e and it did d6+1 to s/m creatures. Then it disappeared till 5th (?), where it did d8 for no reason I could tell, other than to give Dex/Finesse builds a d8 weapon. If it were d6 damage, then I’d be less fussed about it, what with Dex builds being very strong anyway.

 

[UngainlyTitan]

I’ve seen it used in OSR games as house rules - each character does their HD in damage regardless of the weapon they are wielding. Every 3 levels for fighter, 4 for clerics, and 5 for wizards, the weapon would bump up a HD (so the wizard’s sword would go from doing d4 to d6 at 6th level, for example). Any character could wield any weapon, and they usually coupled it with a weapon ‘ability’ - spears would have reach, two handed weapons would have wounding (roll 2 dice for damage, take the higher), maces would have crush, etc.

It was an interesting combination of freedom around weapons, and having some differentiation among weapons.

On the Rapier front, the earliest I saw it appear was 2e and it did d6+1 to s/m creatures. Then it disappeared till 5th (?), where it did d8 for no reason I could tell, other than to give Dex/Finesse builds a d8 weapon. If it were d6 damage, then I’d be less fussed about it, what with Dex builds being very strong anyway.

No, it was in the 3.0 and 3.5 rules as a d6 weapon with an 18-20 critical range, for the medium version and 1d4 for the small.

It looks like 1d8 rapiers start with fourth edition.

 

[Cruentus]

No, it was in the 3.0 and 3.5 rules as a d6 weapon with an 18-20 critical range, for the medium version and 1d4 for the small.

It looks like 1d8 rapiers start with fourth edition.

For those interested: Ad&d 2e Arms and Equipment Guide, p102 & p109. Rapier 1d6+1/1d8+1, M, P, SF: 4

Thanks for the 3e spots. Seems they’ve appeared more than I thought.