On Rapiers. . . . [Archive] - Wizards Community

On Rapiers. . . . [Archive] - Wizards Community

Post/Author/DateTime Post
058
10-15-06, 09:50 PM This has always bothered me: Why, in all the Nine Hells, are rapiers "medium" melee weapons? Not only do they weigh less than other light-weapons, but they are pretty much the epitome of "weapon finesse". As far as I know, there are no provisions in the Weapon Finesse Feat to allow for Rapiers as taking Dex as opposed to Strength. Also, as Medium rather than light, they are problematic for two-weapon fighting.

This confounds me to no end; rapiers are light and designed to be used quickly, and were often used effectively with another weapon in the other hand. Has anyone a good reason as to why they are not considered "Light"?
Archangel62
10-15-06, 09:54 PM If you read the rapier description it states specifically that it can be finessed. The reason it is medium is to avoid the logical problems of them being used for two weapon fighting.
058
10-15-06, 09:58 PM But there are no logical problems with using them in two-weapon fighting. People often used a rapier and a dagger, (in extreme situations) a rapier and a cloak, and often two rapiers in duels and the like. It makes no sense to have a two-weapon fighting penalty.

Oh, and thanks for clarifying the finesse thing--I was positive I had read something like that somewhere, but I'm not feeling like flipping through the handbook right now.
Ryu Katsuragi
10-15-06, 10:23 PM Yes, rapiers were often used with an off-hand dagger. That is why daggers are light, and therefore reduce the penalties. Duh.

And why? Because then suddenly, light weapons are never used, because everyone can just pick up double bastard swords, or double scimitars, or any one-handed weapon. You can still wield two rapiers. Just going to take a slightly bigger penalty. Don't like it? Take Oversized Two-Weapon Fighting, and Tempest. It's what I did. I'm loving it.
058
10-15-06, 10:58 PM Those must be Feats not in the base Player's Handbook, which is pretty much all I have access to.

The point that I'm making is that folk used two rapiers *effectively*, which is pretty difficult to do if they have -10 or -6 on attack rolls.
Glensather
10-16-06, 12:01 AM Two-Weapon Fighting, -4/-4.
Level 4 Fighter - Atk Bonus after penalties, 0/0
Let's assume they have 16 DX and use Weapon Finesse - +3/+3
The rapiers are Masterwork - +4/+4
Weapon Focus (Rapier) - +5/+5
Let's take it a step further:
Weapon Spec. (Rapier) + 14 ST = 1d6+4 damage.

Level 4 Fighter -
Melee 2 Rapiers +5/+5 (1d6+4)

Most expert fencers that used twin rapiers were probably level 4 or so. As you can see, they could easily wield two rapiers with ease, and with a bonus - and they aren't even magical!

You forget that most of those duelists probably trained specifically with those weapons.
polt
10-16-06, 08:53 AM If you want logic, don't play D&D man :D
Selgard
10-16-06, 09:19 AM Quote:
Two-Weapon Fighting, -4/-4.
Level 4 Fighter - Atk Bonus after penalties, 0/0
Let's assume they have 16 DX and use Weapon Finesse - +3/+3
The rapiers are Masterwork - +4/+4
Weapon Focus (Rapier) - +5/+5
Let's take it a step further:
Weapon Spec. (Rapier) + 14 ST = 1d6+4 damage.

Level 4 Fighter -
Melee 2 Rapiers +5/+5 (1d6+4)
________________________________________ __________
Medium dualed rapiers:
+5/+5

If they were light weapons?
+7/+7

Which is why they aren't light weapons. :)
(assuming characteristics identical to above)
Judging Eagle
10-16-06, 10:13 AM But there are no logical problems with using them in two-weapon fighting. People often used a rapier and a dagger, (in extreme situations) a rapier and a cloak, and often two rapiers in duels and the like. It makes no sense to have a two-weapon fighting penalty.

Oh, and thanks for clarifying the finesse thing--I was positive I had read something like that somewhere, but I'm not feeling like flipping through the handbook right now.

Do you want to use two rapiers, or a rapier and an other light weapon?

Two Rapiers takes more training than a rapier + dagger.

Making a Rapier a medium weapon that is finessable makes enough sense. They're light and fast, but it's not like you could use one in each hand with as much ease as two daggers would or two short sword/gladii.
wordserpent
10-16-06, 10:31 AM This has always bothered me: Why, in all the Nine Hells, are rapiers "medium" melee weapons....
This confounds me to no end; rapiers are light and designed to be used quickly, and were often used effectively with another weapon in the other hand. Has anyone a good reason as to why they are not considered "Light"?

Actual rapiers had long blades that ranged from 36 to 45 inches in length, that was just the length of the blade not counting the guard and hilt.
Millennium
10-16-06, 02:41 PM But there are no logical problems with using them in two-weapon fighting. People often used a rapier and a dagger, (in extreme situations) a rapier and a cloak, and often two rapiers in duels and the like. It makes no sense to have a two-weapon fighting penalty.
Actually, the case-of-rapier style was almost never used in duels, and those who tried to use it generally got themselves killed very quickly. It was a toy style that the masters experimented with when they got bored, but nothing more.

Want to know why? Here's a hint: weight has nothing to do with the issue. Your off hand is actually usually a little stronger than your dominant hand anyway. The real problem is size. Rapiers may weigh less than some 'light' weapons, but they're a lot bigger. This makes them a lot more awkward to use, particularly as a secondary weapon, and that is why they retain the TWF penalty.
RobbyPants
10-16-06, 03:55 PM If you read the rapier description it states specifically that it can be finessed. The reason it is medium is to avoid the logical problems of them being used for two weapon fighting.
The other reason being grappling.

You can use a light weapon when grappled, but the blade of a rapier is about as long as your arm, making it impossible to stab someone who's grappling you with a rapier.
MerlintheTuna
10-16-06, 04:09 PM The other reason being grappling.

You can use a light weapon when grappled, but the blade of a rapier is about as long as your arm, making it impossible to stab someone who's grappling you with a rapier.

And the other other reason being disarming. As the quintessential "Hoo! Hah! Hoo-hah!" kind of weapon, it wouldn't make sense to give the rapier a penalty to disarming by making it a light weapon. (Note that this also affects sundering, but eh. I'm not complaining.)
058
10-16-06, 04:26 PM The other reason being grappling.

You can use a light weapon when grappled, but the blade of a rapier is about as long as your arm, making it impossible to stab someone who's grappling you with a rapier.

This, I have to say, is pretty much the best answer I've seen.
X-Codes
10-16-06, 04:55 PM Actually, the case-of-rapier style was almost never used in duels, and those who tried to use it generally got themselves killed very quickly. It was a toy style that the masters experimented with when they got bored, but nothing more.

Want to know why? Here's a hint: weight has nothing to do with the issue. Your off hand is actually usually a little stronger than your dominant hand anyway. The real problem is size. Rapiers may weigh less than some 'light' weapons, but they're a lot bigger. This makes them a lot more awkward to use, particularly as a secondary weapon, and that is why they retain the TWF penalty.
I've never even heard of people experimenting with it. Maybe in the early days before they decided that rapier & dagger was a better style, if you even wanted to do that.

I've actually used a foil, and I can tell you that using two of them is pretty well out of the question. I can also tell you that using strength rather than finesse to guide your attacks is just as effective as vice-versa. In addition to all that wielding two weapons is generally considered inferior to simply using a single rapier, because in order to bring that second weapon into play you have to stand chest foreward, making yourself a bigger target.

Much of D&D is based in realism, so theres some stuff that makes sense. Theres some more stuff that doesn't, however.
fatal error
10-16-06, 09:19 PM This, I have to say, is pretty much the best answer I've seen.

You mean, "This, in addition to the fact that all the reasons I wanted it to be light are covered in the special rules for it (or are outright false [dual wielding rapiers]) and there are a myriad of others reasons for it not to be light." Right?
Ranger REG
10-16-06, 09:22 PM This has always bothered me: Why, in all the Nine Hells, are rapiers "medium" melee weapons? Not only do they weigh less than other light-weapons, but they are pretty much the epitome of "weapon finesse". As far as I know, there are no provisions in the Weapon Finesse Feat to allow for Rapiers as taking Dex as opposed to Strength. Also, as Medium rather than light, they are problematic for two-weapon fighting.

This confounds me to no end; rapiers are light and designed to be used quickly, and were often used effectively with another weapon in the other hand. Has anyone a good reason as to why they are not considered "Light"?
Yeah, it's the size, not weight, that matters in D&D rules.

Oh, and read the Weapon Finesse feat description again. It allows rapier and spiked chain to benefit from the feat if taken. (In 3.5e, you need not select a weapon, all weapons fall under the criteria of the feat automatically gains the benefit).
058
10-16-06, 09:59 PM You mean, "This, in addition to the fact that all the reasons I wanted it to be light are covered in the special rules for it (or are outright false [dual wielding rapiers]) and there are a myriad of others reasons for it not to be light." Right?

No, I mean that it's the best answer I've seen. Duel-wielding rapiers aren't a falsity (source being Wikipidia, which is admitedly incorrect on some issues, but usually not on historical types). The inability to use a rapier while grappling is the best reason that it isn't a light weapon.

As a semantic note, using the adjective "light" to describe the weapon class seems like a bad idea if the qualifying factor is, in fact, size and distribution of the weight, rather than the weight itself.
antsterr
10-17-06, 02:37 AM I'd also add that D&D weapons stats, while trying to stay somewhat realistic, are more aimed at balance. If a rapier was to be a light weapon it would be over powered due to it's damage, crit range or what ever. If you wanted it to be a light weapon you'd need to drop it to either 1D4 damage or only have it 19-20 crit, effectively treating it as a kukri or short sword. So don't strain on realism too much, it's mostly about balance. If you want one weapon to be better then another weapon there is always the Palladium RPG.

I do agree that dual wielding two rapiers should be possible but much harder then a rapier and a dagger.
058
10-17-06, 07:25 AM It shoud be noted that the fencing style for which two rapiers seems to be unsuited is not the way rapiers have always been used. Over the centuries, duelists concentrated more and more on the thrust than the slash, and the weapon design changed accordingly. It was, originally, a relatively thick-bladed weapon, and wasn't used in the same fighting stance as today.
pres_man
10-17-06, 10:11 AM In my games, I made the rapier a light exotic weapon that can be wielded as a one-handed martial weapon. Since it is truly a light weapon, you don't get any benefit from two-handing it, or power attack.
RobbyPants
10-17-06, 10:22 AM In my games, I made the rapier a light exotic weapon that can be wielded as a one-handed martial weapon. Since it is truly a light weapon, you don't get any benefit from two-handing it, or power attack.
What might be a little more advantageous would be to treat it as a one-handed martial weapon, but allow it to be used in your off hand without penalty if you take a feat (such as EWP).

The reasons for this are twofold:

Sometimes it's not to your advantage to have a light weapon. You wouldn't want disarming penalties that you didn't have before spending the feat!
As I posted earlier, light or not, you can't effectively use a rapier in a grapple.

This, I have to say, is pretty much the best answer I've seen.
Thanks :D

I didn't feel like arguing one way or the other with TWF rapiers, but I thought that was another pertanent reason.
Oneiros
10-18-06, 01:55 PM Yes! The rapier should be light, for they wither in the awesome mightiness of the ultimate one-handed weapon - the katana!

What're you looking at me that way for? :D
trapspringer
10-18-06, 02:24 PM Frankly, I think the rapier would pwn up on the katana one on one. I've seen this fight many times with my period fencing crew.

That said, the katana is a vastly superior battlefield weapon.

058, read the got-dam rules.
058
10-18-06, 05:29 PM I do apologize for not committing everything in the handbook to memory.
Ranger REG
10-19-06, 03:27 AM As a semantic note, using the adjective "light" to describe the weapon class seems like a bad idea if the qualifying factor is, in fact, size and distribution of the weight, rather than the weight itself.
Well, "small" was already taken for one of the finite size categories.

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
058 10-15-06, 09:50 PM	This has always bothered me: Why, in all the Nine Hells, are rapiers "medium" melee weapons? Not only do they weigh less than other light-weapons, but they are pretty much the epitome of "weapon finesse". As far as I know, there are no provisions in the Weapon Finesse Feat to allow for Rapiers as taking Dex as opposed to Strength. Also, as Medium rather than light, they are problematic for two-weapon fighting. This confounds me to no end; rapiers are light and designed to be used quickly, and were often used effectively with another weapon in the other hand. Has anyone a good reason as to why they are not considered "Light"?
Archangel62 10-15-06, 09:54 PM	If you read the rapier description it states specifically that it can be finessed. The reason it is medium is to avoid the logical problems of them being used for two weapon fighting.
058 10-15-06, 09:58 PM	But there are no logical problems with using them in two-weapon fighting. People often used a rapier and a dagger, (in extreme situations) a rapier and a cloak, and often two rapiers in duels and the like. It makes no sense to have a two-weapon fighting penalty. Oh, and thanks for clarifying the finesse thing--I was positive I had read something like that somewhere, but I'm not feeling like flipping through the handbook right now.
Ryu Katsuragi 10-15-06, 10:23 PM	Yes, rapiers were often used with an off-hand dagger. That is why daggers are light, and therefore reduce the penalties. Duh. And why? Because then suddenly, light weapons are never used, because everyone can just pick up double bastard swords, or double scimitars, or any one-handed weapon. You can still wield two rapiers. Just going to take a slightly bigger penalty. Don't like it? Take Oversized Two-Weapon Fighting, and Tempest. It's what I did. I'm loving it.
058 10-15-06, 10:58 PM	Those must be Feats not in the base Player's Handbook, which is pretty much all I have access to. The point that I'm making is that folk used two rapiers effectively, which is pretty difficult to do if they have -10 or -6 on attack rolls.
Glensather 10-16-06, 12:01 AM	Two-Weapon Fighting, -4/-4. Level 4 Fighter - Atk Bonus after penalties, 0/0 Let's assume they have 16 DX and use Weapon Finesse - +3/+3 The rapiers are Masterwork - +4/+4 Weapon Focus (Rapier) - +5/+5 Let's take it a step further: Weapon Spec. (Rapier) + 14 ST = 1d6+4 damage. Level 4 Fighter - Melee 2 Rapiers +5/+5 (1d6+4) Most expert fencers that used twin rapiers were probably level 4 or so. As you can see, they could easily wield two rapiers with ease, and with a bonus - and they aren't even magical! You forget that most of those duelists probably trained specifically with those weapons.
polt 10-16-06, 08:53 AM	If you want logic, don't play D&D man :D
Selgard 10-16-06, 09:19 AM	Quote: Two-Weapon Fighting, -4/-4. Level 4 Fighter - Atk Bonus after penalties, 0/0 Let's assume they have 16 DX and use Weapon Finesse - +3/+3 The rapiers are Masterwork - +4/+4 Weapon Focus (Rapier) - +5/+5 Let's take it a step further: Weapon Spec. (Rapier) + 14 ST = 1d6+4 damage. Level 4 Fighter - Melee 2 Rapiers +5/+5 (1d6+4) ________________________________________ __________ Medium dualed rapiers: +5/+5 If they were light weapons? +7/+7 Which is why they aren't light weapons. :) (assuming characteristics identical to above)
Judging Eagle 10-16-06, 10:13 AM	But there are no logical problems with using them in two-weapon fighting. People often used a rapier and a dagger, (in extreme situations) a rapier and a cloak, and often two rapiers in duels and the like. It makes no sense to have a two-weapon fighting penalty. Oh, and thanks for clarifying the finesse thing--I was positive I had read something like that somewhere, but I'm not feeling like flipping through the handbook right now. Do you want to use two rapiers, or a rapier and an other light weapon? Two Rapiers takes more training than a rapier + dagger. Making a Rapier a medium weapon that is finessable makes enough sense. They're light and fast, but it's not like you could use one in each hand with as much ease as two daggers would or two short sword/gladii.
wordserpent 10-16-06, 10:31 AM	This has always bothered me: Why, in all the Nine Hells, are rapiers "medium" melee weapons.... This confounds me to no end; rapiers are light and designed to be used quickly, and were often used effectively with another weapon in the other hand. Has anyone a good reason as to why they are not considered "Light"? Actual rapiers had long blades that ranged from 36 to 45 inches in length, that was just the length of the blade not counting the guard and hilt.
Millennium 10-16-06, 02:41 PM	But there are no logical problems with using them in two-weapon fighting. People often used a rapier and a dagger, (in extreme situations) a rapier and a cloak, and often two rapiers in duels and the like. It makes no sense to have a two-weapon fighting penalty. Actually, the case-of-rapier style was almost never used in duels, and those who tried to use it generally got themselves killed very quickly. It was a toy style that the masters experimented with when they got bored, but nothing more. Want to know why? Here's a hint: weight has nothing to do with the issue. Your off hand is actually usually a little stronger than your dominant hand anyway. The real problem is size. Rapiers may weigh less than some 'light' weapons, but they're a lot bigger. This makes them a lot more awkward to use, particularly as a secondary weapon, and that is why they retain the TWF penalty.
RobbyPants 10-16-06, 03:55 PM	If you read the rapier description it states specifically that it can be finessed. The reason it is medium is to avoid the logical problems of them being used for two weapon fighting. The other reason being grappling. You can use a light weapon when grappled, but the blade of a rapier is about as long as your arm, making it impossible to stab someone who's grappling you with a rapier.
MerlintheTuna 10-16-06, 04:09 PM	The other reason being grappling. You can use a light weapon when grappled, but the blade of a rapier is about as long as your arm, making it impossible to stab someone who's grappling you with a rapier. And the other other reason being disarming. As the quintessential "Hoo! Hah! Hoo-hah!" kind of weapon, it wouldn't make sense to give the rapier a penalty to disarming by making it a light weapon. (Note that this also affects sundering, but eh. I'm not complaining.)
058 10-16-06, 04:26 PM	The other reason being grappling. You can use a light weapon when grappled, but the blade of a rapier is about as long as your arm, making it impossible to stab someone who's grappling you with a rapier. This, I have to say, is pretty much the best answer I've seen.
X-Codes 10-16-06, 04:55 PM	Actually, the case-of-rapier style was almost never used in duels, and those who tried to use it generally got themselves killed very quickly. It was a toy style that the masters experimented with when they got bored, but nothing more. Want to know why? Here's a hint: weight has nothing to do with the issue. Your off hand is actually usually a little stronger than your dominant hand anyway. The real problem is size. Rapiers may weigh less than some 'light' weapons, but they're a lot bigger. This makes them a lot more awkward to use, particularly as a secondary weapon, and that is why they retain the TWF penalty. I've never even heard of people experimenting with it. Maybe in the early days before they decided that rapier & dagger was a better style, if you even wanted to do that. I've actually used a foil, and I can tell you that using two of them is pretty well out of the question. I can also tell you that using strength rather than finesse to guide your attacks is just as effective as vice-versa. In addition to all that wielding two weapons is generally considered inferior to simply using a single rapier, because in order to bring that second weapon into play you have to stand chest foreward, making yourself a bigger target. Much of D&D is based in realism, so theres some stuff that makes sense. Theres some more stuff that doesn't, however.
fatal error 10-16-06, 09:19 PM	This, I have to say, is pretty much the best answer I've seen. You mean, "This, in addition to the fact that all the reasons I wanted it to be light are covered in the special rules for it (or are outright false [dual wielding rapiers]) and there are a myriad of others reasons for it not to be light." Right?
Ranger REG 10-16-06, 09:22 PM	This has always bothered me: Why, in all the Nine Hells, are rapiers "medium" melee weapons? Not only do they weigh less than other light-weapons, but they are pretty much the epitome of "weapon finesse". As far as I know, there are no provisions in the Weapon Finesse Feat to allow for Rapiers as taking Dex as opposed to Strength. Also, as Medium rather than light, they are problematic for two-weapon fighting. This confounds me to no end; rapiers are light and designed to be used quickly, and were often used effectively with another weapon in the other hand. Has anyone a good reason as to why they are not considered "Light"? Yeah, it's the size, not weight, that matters in D&D rules. Oh, and read the Weapon Finesse feat description again. It allows rapier and spiked chain to benefit from the feat if taken. (In 3.5e, you need not select a weapon, all weapons fall under the criteria of the feat automatically gains the benefit).
058 10-16-06, 09:59 PM	You mean, "This, in addition to the fact that all the reasons I wanted it to be light are covered in the special rules for it (or are outright false [dual wielding rapiers]) and there are a myriad of others reasons for it not to be light." Right? No, I mean that it's the best answer I've seen. Duel-wielding rapiers aren't a falsity (source being Wikipidia, which is admitedly incorrect on some issues, but usually not on historical types). The inability to use a rapier while grappling is the best reason that it isn't a light weapon. As a semantic note, using the adjective "light" to describe the weapon class seems like a bad idea if the qualifying factor is, in fact, size and distribution of the weight, rather than the weight itself.
antsterr 10-17-06, 02:37 AM	I'd also add that D&D weapons stats, while trying to stay somewhat realistic, are more aimed at balance. If a rapier was to be a light weapon it would be over powered due to it's damage, crit range or what ever. If you wanted it to be a light weapon you'd need to drop it to either 1D4 damage or only have it 19-20 crit, effectively treating it as a kukri or short sword. So don't strain on realism too much, it's mostly about balance. If you want one weapon to be better then another weapon there is always the Palladium RPG. I do agree that dual wielding two rapiers should be possible but much harder then a rapier and a dagger.
058 10-17-06, 07:25 AM	It shoud be noted that the fencing style for which two rapiers seems to be unsuited is not the way rapiers have always been used. Over the centuries, duelists concentrated more and more on the thrust than the slash, and the weapon design changed accordingly. It was, originally, a relatively thick-bladed weapon, and wasn't used in the same fighting stance as today.
pres_man 10-17-06, 10:11 AM	In my games, I made the rapier a light exotic weapon that can be wielded as a one-handed martial weapon. Since it is truly a light weapon, you don't get any benefit from two-handing it, or power attack.
RobbyPants 10-17-06, 10:22 AM	In my games, I made the rapier a light exotic weapon that can be wielded as a one-handed martial weapon. Since it is truly a light weapon, you don't get any benefit from two-handing it, or power attack. What might be a little more advantageous would be to treat it as a one-handed martial weapon, but allow it to be used in your off hand without penalty if you take a feat (such as EWP). The reasons for this are twofold: Sometimes it's not to your advantage to have a light weapon. You wouldn't want disarming penalties that you didn't have before spending the feat! As I posted earlier, light or not, you can't effectively use a rapier in a grapple. This, I have to say, is pretty much the best answer I've seen. Thanks :D I didn't feel like arguing one way or the other with TWF rapiers, but I thought that was another pertanent reason.
Oneiros 10-18-06, 01:55 PM	Yes! The rapier should be light, for they wither in the awesome mightiness of the ultimate one-handed weapon - the katana! What're you looking at me that way for? :D
trapspringer 10-18-06, 02:24 PM	Frankly, I think the rapier would pwn up on the katana one on one. I've seen this fight many times with my period fencing crew. That said, the katana is a vastly superior battlefield weapon. 058, read the got-dam rules.
058 10-18-06, 05:29 PM	I do apologize for not committing everything in the handbook to memory.
Ranger REG 10-19-06, 03:27 AM	As a semantic note, using the adjective "light" to describe the weapon class seems like a bad idea if the qualifying factor is, in fact, size and distribution of the weight, rather than the weight itself. Well, "small" was already taken for one of the finite size categories.