Scimitar and rapier

[Spacehamster]

Is it just me that thinks they got the stats on these two weapons backward? Is not a rapier a lighter finesse weapon then a scimitar? So at least imo scimitar should be finesse and 1d8, rapier finesse and light 1d6.

Spacehamster to infinity and beyond!

[Stan]

You have to take into account the whole table and avoid duplication. Short sword is finesse, light, and piercing with 1d6 damage. To make the rapier different they gave it more damage but dropped the light. This is more about game mechanics than reality. But you could say it's more of a renaissance rapier than a modern fencing rapier.

[Raxxius]

Is it just me that thinks they got the stats on these two weapons backward? Is not a rapier a lighter finesse weapon then a scimitar? So at least imo Schmitt should be finesse and 1d8, rapier finesse and light 1d6.

Spacehamster to infinity and beyond!

Finesse is a bit of a made up concept, all martial weapons require strength and dex to use.

I guess the scimitar is light for the dervish style 2 weapon fighter like the prince of persia or that drow chap from FR who use high speed and curved blades. 2 Rapiers isn't really seen in fiction, and even if you duel with 2 rapiers irl, your off hand weapon would be used for defense more than not.

Also rapiers aren't that light, only really being slightly lighter than arming swords. They're thinish but very long weapons.

[Spacehamster]

Well think I'll switch them around or add a heavier scimitar that you need the dual wielder feat to use cause however much I try I can't get wielding two rapiers look cool in my head. :p

[Theodoxus]

Not a fan of Nightcrawler, eh? Fair enough :) Naming convention isn't tied to weapon attributes though. No reason you can't have a light, finesse slash; light, finesse bludgeon and light, finesse piercing weapon. They'll all do 1d6. Take out the light, they all do 1d8. Doesn't really matter what they look like or called... just attributes :)

[Spacehamster]

Not a fan of Nightcrawler, eh? Fair enough :) Naming convention isn't tied to weapon attributes though. No reason you can't have a light, finesse slash; light, finesse bludgeon and light, finesse piercing weapon. They'll all do 1d6. Take out the light, they all do 1d8. Doesn't really matter what they look like or called... just attributes :)

True that, just feels compared to 3.5 that all weapons are so similar. No different threat range or multipliers and so on. Only bit of beef I got with an otherwise promising edition. :)

[Shadow]

Well think I'll switch them around or add a heavier scimitar that you need the dual wielder feat to use cause however much I try I can't get wielding two rapiers look cool in my head. :p

They're deisgned the way that they are for a reason.
The rapier gives rogues an option for a 1d8 weapon with which they can sneak attack (unlike the longsword), but they can't TWF with even one of them without feat support.
The scimitar gives TWF fighters/rangers the option of a 1d6 slashing weapon allowable with TWF without feat support.

If you want a 1d8 slashing weapon for dual wielder, the longsword already exists. Yours is just curved.

[INDYSTAR188]

Spacehamster to infinity and beyond!

I really like your commitment to this.

[Hytheter]

Not a fan of Nightcrawler, eh?

Doesn't Nightcrawler use sabers rather than rapiers?

[Sartharina]

"Light" isn't about the weight as much as how the weapon fits in the hand and interferes (or doesn't) with movement of the other hand. Even though a Rapier's lightweight, it's long and meant for precise, staccato thrusts that precludes using an offhand weapon. While a scimitar is slightly heavier, it's slightly shorter, and the balance and curve of its blade lends it to operate fluidly in concert with another weapon in the other hand. The curve of the blade is also likely why it's a Finesse weapon - the curve of the blade gives it good cutting power without tremendous need for force against it - you just need to have the control to keep the blade firmly pressed against whatever you're cutting - it slices, not hacks.

[Theodoxus]

Doesn't Nightcrawler use sabers rather than rapiers?

Could be - every Marvel image of him has pretty thin sabers... I always thought they were rapiers, and he's a very dextrous 'swishy-poke' kinda guy... but you're probably right... My point stands though - thin saber or rapier, there's an iconic dude using a pair of them. (well, three - damn that tail!)

[DDogwood]

Umm, Drizz't clones don't dual-wield rapiers. That's why scimitars need to be light.

[Theodoxus]

Umm, Drizz't clones don't dual-wield rapiers. That's why scimitars need to be light.

yes, because supporting Drizz't clones should be priority.

[Spacehamster]

On another note, is the quarter staff a finesse weapon? Don't have the PHB around atm.

[Gnomes2169]

"Light" isn't about the weight as much as how the weapon fits in the hand and interferes (or doesn't) with movement of the other hand. Even though a Rapier's lightweight, it's long and meant for precise, staccato thrusts that precludes using an offhand weapon. While a scimitar is slightly heavier, it's slightly shorter, and the balance and curve of its blade lends it to operate fluidly in concert with another weapon in the other hand. The curve of the blade is also likely why it's a Finesse weapon - the curve of the blade gives it good cutting power without tremendous need for force against it - you just need to have the control to keep the blade firmly pressed against whatever you're cutting - it slices, not hacks.

Pretty much this. Honestly, the scimitar (and its bastard sword cousin the falchion) are both badass weapons that can just rip people apart in the hands of a competent blade dancer.

The weight of the blade being more focused on the end of the sword combine woth its curve makes a more fluid, continuous slashing motion than you would be able to find in your typical european long sword. Yes, this cost the weapon a bit of its penetrating/ raw power (since a hacking motion does bring down more force), but if you were fighting a foe without metal armor this was hardly an issue.

This led a fighting style in duels that we call a "dervish," where the person with a scimitar or two in their hands would basically attempt to dance around his foe and cut them with multiple quick, typically non-lethal bloodying strikes and then dance away out of reach. Eventually their opponent would just start to lose too much blood and they would slow down or stumble, which is when the dervish fighter would typically go in for the kill (often with a good slash to the gut or throat that actually cut deeper than skin deep).

This fighting style was especially effective against the european duelist fighting style, since european nobles and rapier/ epee users were taught to think of their fight more on a straight line that they would dance back and forth along, only moving left or right if they saw a weakness, and limiting thelselves to stabs for the most part (rapiers are not often noted for their razor edge for the most part). Sure, the rapier had reach and more force with its stabs (so it was more likely to score a deep or lethal hit when it did land), but it had to be stabbed with, its edge and blade was not suited towards the broad slashes that one would need to utalize the entire blade as a weapon. This made the long, thin blade next to worthless offensively once the enemy was within "dancing" range, as it was unweildy at that range to stab the foe in any vital area or inflict anything more than surface wounds. Really the only hope a rapier weilder had against someone with a scimitar was to keep out of the "dancing" range and to utalize the extra reach of his weapon to get in a solid stab on an arm or leg. (Note: As far as european dualing styles go, the one that would fare best against a dervish (besides a heavily-armored knight... Which wasn't really a thing outside of tourneys, btw) would be a sabre style. The thinner, faster and slashing blade would match better against the scimitar, and saber fights tended to function more on a 3 dimensional plane than the rapier's "back and forth" method. Though I think the saber was more a cavalry weapon, and heavily influanced by the Ottoman (Arabic) states, as european weapons tend to be straighter before their enounters with the Ottoman Empire.)

All of that being said, while the scimitar was an awesome dueling/ skirmishing weapon (and since that's how Drizzt typically uses it, I'm giving R.A. Salvatore a feather to put in his hat for research well done), it was simply one of the worst weapons to use in a formation. The fighting style does not mesh with back-to-back and shoulder-to-shoulder warfare like a straighter weapon (spear, longsword, rapier, gladius, etc) would be able to, so the scimitar did not see much use beyond the dueling ground or ambushes, where the light, dancing combat style was useful and did not bounce off of a wall of flesh and steel.

Overall, I'd say that the rapier and scimitar fit to where they are placed. Both are finess weapons, and though the scimitar is more fluid and better for skirmishing (light, 1d6), the rapier does edge it out in range and has more force behind its blows (1d8). However, I would like to see a more "dervish style" bend to the scimitar eventually, perhaps if they start developing/ differentiating the weapons somehow or make a feat for it (that would likely work with all light slashing weapons), we could see more of the "cut and run" tactics.

[Knaight]

"Light" isn't about the weight as much as how the weapon fits in the hand and interferes (or doesn't) with movement of the other hand. Even though a Rapier's lightweight, it's long and meant for precise, staccato thrusts that precludes using an offhand weapon. While a scimitar is slightly heavier, it's slightly shorter, and the balance and curve of its blade lends it to operate fluidly in concert with another weapon in the other hand. The curve of the blade is also likely why it's a Finesse weapon - the curve of the blade gives it good cutting power without tremendous need for force against it - you just need to have the control to keep the blade firmly pressed against whatever you're cutting - it slices, not hacks.

Given that using a rapier with a dagger was pretty much routine, this doesn't hold up. As for scimitars, they saw heavy use with shields, largely with cavalry. There's less historical precedent for use of a secondary weapon with a scimitar than with a rapier. Plus, rapiers actually aren't all that light from a pure mass perspective. The distribution just tends to be closer to the hilt than is typical of other swords.

[Gnomes2169]

Given that using a rapier with a dagger was pretty much routine, this doesn't hold up. As for scimitars, they saw heavy use with shields, largely with cavalry. There's less historical precedent for use of a secondary weapon with a scimitar than with a rapier. Plus, rapiers actually aren't all that light from a pure mass perspective. The distribution just tends to be closer to the hilt than is typical of other swords.

Actually, that "dagger" was typically the aptly named sword-breaker, which was dagger like in shape and size only. It had no edge, almost no tip and typically had 1-2 prongs on it that were spaced a little bit from the main "blade". The function of the weapon was to catch the light, thin and fragile blade of a rapier or epee in between the main rod and prong so that the person holding the sword breaker could shatter, bend or disarm his opponent's weapon and leave them weaponless. This did not work against wider or more durrable weapons like a longsword or scimitar, and was only seen in official duels where both parties were weilding rapiers or epees. A buckler or other light shield was far more common in every other situation, as they provided far better protection than a puny dagger look alike.

[Sartharina]

Given that using a rapier with a dagger was pretty much routine, this doesn't hold up. As for scimitars, they saw heavy use with shields, largely with cavalry. There's less historical precedent for use of a secondary weapon with a scimitar than with a rapier. Plus, rapiers actually aren't all that light from a pure mass perspective. The distribution just tends to be closer to the hilt than is typical of other swords.
The dagger with a rapier was for parrying, and taking opportunistic strikes if an enemy got too close for the rapier to be effective. They work in tandem, but not in concert.

Frankly - I wish scimitars were a versatile (D10) weapon on top of finesse+light.

[Gnomes2169]

Frankly - I wish scimitars were a versatile (D10) weapon on top of finesse+light.

I would love the d10 scimitar, but that feels too close to katana fanboyism for me... The falchion being a versatile and finess weapon (1d8/ 1d10) on the other hand, would be in line, methinks. :P

[Knaight]

Actually, that "dagger" was typically the aptly named sword-breaker, which was dagger like in shape and size only. It had no edge, almost no tip and typically had 1-2 prongs on it that were spaced a little bit from the main "blade". The function of the weapon was to catch the light, thin and fragile blade of a rapier or epee in between the main rod and prong so that the person holding the sword breaker could shatter, bend or disarm his opponent's weapon and leave them weaponless. This did not work against wider or more durrable weapons like a longsword or scimitar, and was only seen in official duels where both parties were weilding rapiers or epees. A buckler or other light shield was far more common in every other situation, as they provided far better protection than a puny dagger look alike.

The dagger was a number of different knives that varied by place, they showed up all the time in civilian street fights (as did bucklers, and it was the civilian street fight that tended to have rapiers to begin with), and most of them were perfectly functional against thrusting weapons in general, though daggers just don't have the mass and moment of inertia to be hugely effective against swings. The weapon you mention is a highly specialized dueling weapon, but it was hardly the only one used with a rapier. In any case, the rapier remains a weapon that was actually used with some frequency as two weapons. The scimitar didn't, so much. Part of this is that the scimitar actually was a battlefield weapon and dual wielding has somewhat limited battlefield applications at the best of times, particularly in areas which actually had a tradition of shields.

[Morty]

Repeat after me, folks: D&D weapons don't make sense. They never have and probably never will. Suspend your disbelief and use whichever mechanics you need with whichever description you prefer.

[Spacehamster]

Repeat after me, folks: D&D weapons don't make sense. They never have and probably never will. Suspend your disbelief and use whichever mechanics you need with whichever description you prefer.

Well said sir! Have a cookie!

Spacehamster to infinity and beyond!

[Gnomes2169]

The dagger was a number of different knives that varied by place, they showed up all the time in civilian street fights (as did bucklers, and it was the civilian street fight that tended to have rapiers to begin with), and most of them were perfectly functional against thrusting weapons in general, though daggers just don't have the mass and moment of inertia to be hugely effective against swings. The weapon you mention is a highly specialized dueling weapon, but it was hardly the only one used with a rapier. In any case, the rapier remains a weapon that was actually used with some frequency as two weapons. The scimitar didn't, so much. Part of this is that the scimitar actually was a battlefield weapon and dual wielding has somewhat limited battlefield applications at the best of times, particularly in areas which actually had a tradition of shields.

I would hardly say that rapiers were the only weapons to be dual wielded with regularity (see, hand axes and short swords, as well as some hunting knives), but I would also like to point out that aside from a few arrogant nobles being arrogant, the rapier was pretty much a dueling only weapon that denoted status, not a weapon that was brought to and used on the battlefield. It was simply too fragile for continuous use, and had a problem with being pulled from the corpse of an enemy (and god help you if you strike bone). So it was more open to the development of sillier fighting styles (two weapon fighting) than more war like weapons such as the longsword, bearded axe or scimitar. This does not prevent such weapons from being dual-weilded (and if fact, by design the fluid nature of a scimitar or saber would suggest that they would be better at the job than the rigid rapier), it just means that such fighting styles saw less use because the weapons were more practically/ usability-minded than the rapier.

And, you know, elf games and somesuch. :P

[DrLemniscate]

I would also like to point out that aside from a few arrogant nobles being arrogant, the rapier was pretty much a dueling only weapon that denoted status, not a weapon that was brought to and used on the battlefield. It was simply too fragile for continuous use, and had a problem with being pulled from the corpse of an enemy (and god help you if you strike bone). So it was more open to the development of sillier fighting styles (two weapon fighting) than more war like weapons such as the longsword, bearded axe or scimitar. This does not prevent such weapons from being dual-weilded (and if fact, by design the fluid nature of a scimitar or saber would suggest that they would be better at the job than the rigid rapier), it just means that such fighting styles saw less use because the weapons were more practically/ usability-minded than the rapier.


Rapiers never really met "more war like weapons".

Early 16th Century, the handcannon is refined, leading to the arquebus and ultimately the musket is invented and starts to see widespread use. Infantry were mostly Pikemen. The only people carrying swords on the battlefield are now Cavalry with sabres.

You never got a chance to use the sword you were carrying, because you would get shot, cut down, or impaled before you got close enough to use it. And if you did get close enough, you were better off using your bayonet (which was developed in the late 16th century).

So the sword falls out of favor. But firearm technology hasn't been refined enough to have practical handguns, like revolvers.

So the civilians still need something for the urban setting self-defense. The Rapier is developed for this purpose. It's much lighter than other swords, and also smaller. So it is a lot easier to carry around, and isn't making as much of a statement. It quickly became the preferred method for Duels, so it caught on with Nobles.

Rapiers are a lot more sturdy than you think they are. I think you are thinking of the later impractical evolutions that led to modern Fencing's foil and epee. They are designed for piercing, not slashing. They don't need to be as bulky as other swords.

Rapiers were commonly used with something in the offhand, but the offhand was not usually used for offense. A buckler, a parrying dagger, or even a swordbreaker all saw use. If the opportunity presented itself, you could make a strike with the offhand weapon.

[Sartharina]

I would hardly say that rapiers were the only weapons to be dual wielded with regularity (see, hand axes and short swords, as well as some hunting knives), but I would also like to point out that aside from a few arrogant nobles being arrogant, the rapier was pretty much a dueling only weapon that denoted status, not a weapon that was brought to and used on the battlefield. It was simply too fragile for continuous use, and had a problem with being pulled from the corpse of an enemy (and god help you if you strike bone). So it was more open to the development of sillier fighting styles (two weapon fighting) than more war like weapons such as the longsword, bearded axe or scimitar. This does not prevent such weapons from being dual-weilded (and if fact, by design the fluid nature of a scimitar or saber would suggest that they would be better at the job than the rigid rapier), it just means that such fighting styles saw less use because the weapons were more practically/ usability-minded than the rapier.

And, you know, elf games and somesuch. :PRapiers were civilian weapons, for civilian defense.


Rapiers never really met "more war like weapons".

Early 16th Century, the handcannon is refined, leading to the arquebus and ultimately the musket is invented and starts to see widespread use. Infantry were mostly Pikemen. The only people carrying swords on the battlefield are now Cavalry with sabres.And heavily-armed Shock Troopers with Zweihanders to break pikes. The Renaissance was the height of Full Plate Harness armor, as well.

[DrLemniscate]

And heavily-armed Shock Troopers with Zweihanders to break pikes. The Renaissance was the height of Full Plate Harness armor, as well.

Except Full Plate Armor was incredibly expensive to produce, and often impractical. Yes, it was the height of technology for Full Plate, but was like the development of better horse carriages after the Automobile began to see use.

Armor was still developed and improved upon for those who could afford it. On the battlefield, it was more of a sign of rank. It would have been better if heavy armor fell out of use then, but Jousting had to come along and make it heavier and even less practical. The only reason the modern depictions of Full Plate are so clumsy and impractical is because Jousting provided a use for the heavy armor after its practical battlefield applications, and things like being able to move around freely were no longer needed.

It wasn't just the widespread use of firearms, it was the end of the Feudal era. Nobles were no longer required to supply their own troops for the country's use. Instead, state-funded troops began to arise. This required a cheaper alternative to Full Plate. Leg armor was the first thing to go, eventually leading to three-quarters plate, munitions armor, or even just cuirasses.

Muskets saw so much use because they were cheap to make, and didn't require years of training to use properly. This increased the size of armies, and meant less funds for each individual soldier.

[Morty]

The difference between rapiers and heavier swords which actually saw battlefield use involves something D&D, and many other fantasy RPGs, have always downplayed, namely convenience and custom. Carrying around a two-handed sword was pretty inconvenient - try carrying a broom around you at all times, and then imagine it's made of metal. It would also clearly mean you were expecting to fight, so carrying it around in a populated area could raise concerns. A rapier, on the other hand, you could carry at your side without much of a hassle - same with messers, knives and other small arms. But in D&D, and many other fantasy RPGs, warriors run around armour-clad and carrying long weapons day in and day out. Which isn't a bad thing - it's part of heroic fantasy convention. But it pays to keep it in mind.

[DrLemniscate]

The difference between rapiers and heavier swords which actually saw battlefield use involves something D&D, and many other fantasy RPGs, have always downplayed, namely convenience and custom. Carrying around a two-handed sword was pretty inconvenient - try carrying a broom around you at all times, and then imagine it's made of metal. It would also clearly mean you were expecting to fight, so carrying it around in a populated area could raise concerns. A rapier, on the other hand, you could carry at your side without much of a hassle - same with messers, knives and other small arms. But in D&D, and many other fantasy RPGs, warriors run around armour-clad and carrying long weapons day in and day out. Which isn't a bad thing - it's part of heroic fantasy convention. But it pays to keep it in mind.

Just plugging a relevant quote.



“Has it ever occured to you, Master Ninefingers, that a sword is different from other weapons? Axes and maces and so forth are lethal enough, but they hang on the belt like dumb brutes. But a sword...a sword has a voice.
Sheathed it has little to say, to be sure, but you need only put your hand on the hilt and it begins to whisper in your enemy's ear. A gentle word. A word of caution. Do you hear it?
Now, compare it to the sword half drawn. It speaks louder, does it not? It hisses a dire threat. It makes a deadly promise. Do you hear it?
Now compare it to the sword full drawn. It shouts now, does it not? It screams defiance! It bellows a challenge! Do you hear it?”

[Spacehamster]

Btw does anyone know if there will be more weapons in the DMG? Oh and am I right from what I have read that you do not get 1,5 times STR modifier when using 2h weapons in 5e?

Spacehamster to infinity and beyond!

[SaintRidley]

Yep. Weapons only get your Str/Dex modifier to damage, no multipliers, and that portion of the damage is static on a Crit.

[Spacehamster]

Yep. Weapons only get your Str/Dex modifier to damage, no multipliers, and that portion of the damage is static on a Crit.

Guess they did that to make sword and shield or dualwield a bit more attractive?

[Gnomes2169]

Guess they did that to make sword and shield or dualwield a bit more attractive?

Sword and shield is awesome enough without it, but yeah. Great weapon fighting is strong enough without a (substantial in a bounded system) buff in this edition.