D&D 5E The D&D rapier: What is it?

[Cap'n Kobold]

Right, but using strength to use a weapon implies brute force.

Force, yes. But "brute force" implies a lack of technique and control, which is not the case. The proficiency bonus is the same whether the weapon uses grace and balance or athleticism and power.

The reason a short sword or dagger is finesse is because a dexterous person could use such a weapon to aim for gaps in armor and weak points with care, while a strong person could just ram it through your armor.

Even a weapon as sturdy as a longsword isn't going to shear through solid armour. But a more powerful person is able to change the momentum of a blade faster: adjusting direction mid-swing to avoid an opponent's parry or going from guard to effective attack faster and with less warning.

I mean, we've got to keep in mind that in a world where a strength of ten represents average, a strength of 20 is a giant hulking person.

Big, probably, but bear in mind that in 5e, Strength is athleticism and ability to generate force. Bruce Lee is a good example of a high-str character for example. (And high Dex. And probably decent Con and Cha scores as well).

So if we're going by that understanding, a strong person should be able to use a rapier (a finesse weapon) with equal deadliness as a nimble person. It ought to be a sturdy enough weapon to pierce at least weaker spots in armor by the force of a strong hand. Actually the only weapon in the PHB that's listed as finesse that I can't really imagine working in such a way is the whip, which requires some level of dexterous technique to work as a weapon at all and brute force wouldn't really help you.

A real rapier requires somewhat more strength to use effectively than a longsword: the point is controlled by the muscles of the hand and forearm. It takes quite a lot of power to move the tip of something that long rapidly and with control - whereas the longsword's handle allows two hands to exert a much higher leverage using less force. A less athletic person can compensate by using a smaller, lighter rapier, but they then lose out offensively and defensively in terms of reach.

 

[Blue]

This.

my only beef is that arming sword(longsword in D&D terms) has the same damage.

if rapier is 1d8, then longsword should be 1d10. As you must pay with something ability to use dex in melee combat. And no, "versatile" trait is not worth equal to "finesse" trait.

I don't think 5e has (or wants) the level of granularity to add another bonus to make up the power difference between versatile and finesse. I'm fine with the power difference getting lose as a rounding error.

 

[Blue]

And once you have that feat, you'd be rather silly to wield a 1d4 dagger instead of a 1d8 sword.

As I said, I think the quickest, cleanest solution is to give the dagger a special property. And then I'd add in a 1d4 hatchet - or maybe a pick - with that same special quality for the dwarves. Oh! And give it to the sap for the thugs.

How's this:

Basic TWF: Main hand needs to be a light or finesse weapon. Off hand needs to be a simple light weapon. (Rapier and dagger works, but you give up a little on your off hand with simple, so it's not shortsword. Slight boost for non-feat and extra attack, but TWF is behind the damage curve with extra attack already.)

Feat allows as now: any two one-handed weapons.

 

[Satyrn]

How's this:

Basic TWF: Main hand needs to be a light or finesse weapon. Off hand needs to be a simple light weapon. (Rapier and dagger works, but you give up a little on your off hand with simple, so it's not shortsword. Slight boost for non-feat and extra attack, but TWF is behind the damage curve with extra attack already.)

Feat allows as now: any two one-handed weapons.

Sure. Although this runs counter to my unspoken reason for prefering my suggestion: it rewrites the rules.

I'd prefer to make this weapon combo work by homebrewing new items (with a little semantic sleight of hand that allows a rewritten dagger to be considered a new item, distinct from the dagger as written)

 

[Kalshane]

Sure. Although this runs counter to my unspoken reason for prefering my suggestion: it rewrites the rules.

I'd prefer to make this weapon combo work by homebrewing new items (with a little semantic sleight of hand that allows a rewritten dagger to be considered a new item, distinct from the dagger as written)

Add the Main Gauche: light, finesse, does 1d4 piercing damage. No throwing range. Special property: When you use this as an off-hand weapon for two-weapon fighting, your main weapon doesn't have to be light. If you have this weapon in your off hand and do not attack with it, you gain +1 to AC.

 

[Kalshane]

(Nothing to see here.)

 

[Coroc]

Add the Main Gauche: light, finesse, does 1d4 piercing damage. No throwing range. Special property: When you use this as an off-hand weapon for two-weapon fighting, your main weapon doesn't have to be light. If you have this weapon in your off hand and do not attack with it, you gain +1 to AC.

I do it like that, and it is the only dual wield combo I allow in my current game, and no feat needed for that. But the main gauche in my game always gives +1 AC no matter if you attack, (As does a cloak wound on the off- arm)

 

[iamntbatman]

That main gauche is just a shield with only +1 AC.

 

[Kalshane]

That main gauche is just a shield with only +1 AC.

Last I checked attacking with a shield counted as using an improvised weapon (so no Proficiency bonus unless you have Tavern Brawler); a shield also isn't light, finesse or allow you to use a non-light weapon in your main hand if you attack with it (without possessing the Dual Wielder feat.) Not really the same thing at all.

 

[iamntbatman]

I just don't see what builds people would ever use with that. Giving up another 1 AC (sometimes 2) to be able to choose to do 1d4 only in melee sometimes seems like a really bad tradeoff.