Making a fencer.

[BiblioRook]

Gosh, it's been so long since I found myself in a game that my character finagling is quite a bit rusty (technically still not in a game now, but I just had something of a character creation itch that needed scratched). Even at my most active however I never was much of a fighter (not the class necessarily but more of, well you know) usually being more comfortable as as sneak or a spellslinger of sorts.
Now in the real world however I consider myself something of a fencer and always wished I could bring that more into the gaming world, so I'm curious how people more savvy then I would go about putting together a good in-game fencer.

I actually have some interesting ideas for how to build a fencer in 3.5 but most if not all of those tricks don't carry over into Pathfinder, I'm honestly interested to see what people would have to say for ether system though. If I had to single out attributes to focus on on what to me a fencer in the game world would be, I guess I would like to see something focused mainly on parrying (dodging/blocking) and reposing (counter-attacking).

[Extra Anchovies]

If third-party content is allowed, Dreamscarred Press's supplements Path of War (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/path-of-war) and Path of War: Expanded (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?423981-Dreamscarred-Press-Path-of-War-Expanded!-(Discussion-Thread-VI)) provide some excellent support for one-hand-free combat. If you're familiar with Tome of Battle, PoW is a Pathfinder update of the maneuver subsystem from ToB. A Warlord (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/path-of-war/classes/warlord) or Warder (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/path-of-war/classes/warder) focused on the Scarlet Throne (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/path-of-war/disciplines-and-maneuvers/scarlet-throne-maneuvers) discipline with the Scarlet Throne Style feat chain (found in this document (https://docs.google.com/document/d/1EPARqt5jpie03MIXStgFrNK_si6g218bjT4TFbcizPY/edit)) can be really effective. Scarlet Throne Style lets you treat a single one-handed weapon as two-handed for Power Attack purposes, and the other two feats in the chain give you parrying and riposting abilities. The Landsknecht (https://docs.google.com/document/d/14EfP9e8WfQG19MEYJ7Ts-fN5e-w1HrCgPHTfAnI5B68/edit) prestige class provides some nice stuff as well, including 1.5*Str to damage when fighting with a single weapon in one hand. I'd personally recommend Bushi (https://docs.google.com/document/d/1hHsiSKoL2nR4oWgzPKQwXfqYENuNkDmBiX323SlTPfc/edit) Warder 5 or 7/Landsknecht 10/Warder +5 or +3, because Bushi and Warder each cover one of the feat prerequisites for Landsknecht, but you may want to do without Bushi because it has a strong samurai flavor.

[Jay R]

As a long-term SCA fencer who loves playing Flashing Blades, I would never make a fencer in D&D. Rapiers are lousy against armored opponents.

It's worth remembering that the primary weapon of a musketeer is not a rapier.

It's a musket.

[Geddy2112]

As a long-term SCA fencer who loves playing Flashing Blades, I would never make a fencer in D&D

I agree, but pathfinder has a ton of support for 1 handed swordfighters and several classes and builds can be deadly effective.

I have fenced for over 10 years, and although I favor epee, a saberist is probably the strongest build in pathfinder. Bards, swashbucklers and the magus make the best fencers, although certain fighters, monks, and even oracles can also do decently well. It depends on how much magic you want to use, if any.

Instead of a saber you would use a scimitar(same thing) through Dervish Dance (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/feats/combat-feats/dervish-dance-combat) so you could add dex to damage. It is a fairly effective Magus (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/base-classes/magus) build as you can critfish and shocking grasp through your weapon. Bards get Dervish Dancer (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/core-classes/bard/archetypes/paizo---bard-archetypes/dervish-dancer) and dawnflower-dervish (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/core-classes/bard/archetypes/paizo---bard-archetypes/dawnflower-dervish) as options, and swashbucklers get musketeer (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/hybrid-classes/swashbuckler/archetypes/paizo---swashbuckler-archetypes/musketeer) for a Dumas style 3 musketeers, or whirling dervish (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/hybrid-classes/swashbuckler/archetypes/paizo---swashbuckler-archetypes/whirling-dervish-swashbuckler-archetype)


For a more rapier themed fencer, thearcane duelist (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/core-classes/bard/archetypes/paizo---bard-archetypes/arcane-duelist) is a solid bard choice. There is also the duelist (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/prestige-classes/core-rulebook/duelist) prestige class that is worth looking at.

With any fencer build, you will likely be critfishing and making your blade Keen as soon as possible. Rapiers and scimitars have an 18-20 crit range, meaning 15-20(25% chance) once made keen. So feats and efforts to improve your critical hits are strong for any build.

[A_S]

As a long-term SCA fencer who loves playing Flashing Blades, I would never make a fencer in D&D. Rapiers are lousy against armored opponents.
I mean, using the biggest sword you can find with two hands and running directly at your opponents also isn't exactly the most historically well-supported combat style, but there's no shortage of that in D&D...

[(Un)Inspired]

Did you have a race already in mind? Perhaps more you wanted the character to be able to do ther than stab with a rapier or saber or something?

If I was gonna play a fencer in pathfinder I'd make a Samsaran Nature Fang Druid VMC Magus.

Do you rember that scene in The Highlander where we flashback to MacCleod drunkly dueling and dying over and over? That's essential what the character is: an immortal duelist who keeps being reborn hundreds of times while traveling the world.

You use the magus arcana to poach piercing strike from the swashbuckler and you use Samsaran to cherry pick the best cleric, paladin, shaman, inquisitor, domain, etc, etc. combat buffs (Divine Power, Holy Sword, Litany of damage or whatever, Holy Ice Weapon).

Nature Fang Druids get an inate attack and damage buff along with a smudge of Sneak Attack and take the crocodile domain for a decent amount more.

You'll hit like a cement truck with a Rapier for a hood ornament, you'll have a good deal of sneak attack so you'll hit even harder if you fight tactically, you'll have a familiar that you can turn into an awesome flanking buddy, and you can fall back on the Druids incredible spell list for occasions when stabbing someone isn't an appropriate option.

[Psyren]

A rapier against an armored foe? That's so unrealistic! Good thing all the dragons aren't wearing any. :smallredface:

Okay yeah, I know, "But Dragons!" fallacy - but we're talking about a game that not only involves enchanted swords, but wholly fictional fighting styles (and even abstracted laws of physics) that could very well be aimed at making such a weapon effective vs. armor. Also, a D&D rapier looks nothing like a real-world one, though a PF rapier is closer to our version.

[(Un)Inspired]

Pathfinder and D&D rapiers look different from one another?

[Extra Anchovies]

Pathfinder and D&D rapiers look different from one another?

D&D rapier:
http://i.imgur.com/2ovrsNe.png

Pathfinder rapier:
http://i.imgur.com/WZcLutH.png

Actual rapier:
http://i.imgur.com/CG3rsso.jpg

So Pathfinder's is pretty darn close. But every time I see that... thing from the 3.5 PHB (which looks more like a Dao (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dao_(sword))) passed off as a rapier, I die a little. I've seen rapiers. I've held rapiers. That is not a rapier. Pathfinder gets it right, though, which is comforting.

[A_S]

I think (perhaps wishfully) that that's more "the guy doing the PHB illustrations was drunk" than "that's how rapiers are in D&D." I mean, that thing clearly does slashing damage, for one.

[ZamielVanWeber]

I think (perhaps wishfully) that that's more "the guy doing the PHB illustrations was drunk" than "that's how rapiers are in D&D." I mean, that thing clearly does slashing damage, for one.

I keep forgetting that the DnD rapiers are actually machetes. Maybe because you actually see people wield rapiers that look like rapiers in other pictures in the PHB.

[(Un)Inspired]

Do a system's weapons resemble the artwork depicting them or do they resemble visual analogues for their written descriptions?

[A_S]

I believe the Rules Compendium is silent on the priority of artwork in the "text trumps table" precedence order.

[Psyren]

I think (perhaps wishfully) that that's more "the guy doing the PHB illustrations was drunk" than "that's how rapiers are in D&D." I mean, that thing clearly does slashing damage, for one.

Problem is, they keep drawing it that way outside the PHB too. Like that tiefling art Marlowe keeps plastering everywhere from MM1.

[Jay R]

I mean, using the biggest sword you can find with two hands and running directly at your opponents also isn't exactly the most historically well-supported combat style, but there's no shortage of that in D&D...

Huh? Zweihänders (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zweih%C3%A4nder)of the German Landesknechts are quite well documented. Pier Gerlofs Donia was even known to use it for Great Cleave[/URL The [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Claymore#Two-handed_.28Highland.29_claymore"]two-handed claymore (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pier_Gerlofs_Donia#Superhuman_strength_and_size) was also used in battle.

It's true that you don't run straight at the opponent. Ideally, you stay in your range and out of his. But you certainly get into melee distance as quickly as you can.


A rapier against an armored foe? That's so unrealistic! Good thing all the dragons aren't wearing any. :smallredface:

Okay yeah, I know, "But Dragons!" fallacy - but we're talking about a game that not only involves enchanted swords, but wholly fictional fighting styles (and even abstracted laws of physics) that could very well be aimed at making such a weapon effective vs. armor. Also, a D&D rapier looks nothing like a real-world one, though a PF rapier is closer to our version.

Fine, and if you want to ignore what a rapier really does, have a great game. But for me, that's not creating a fencer, any more than you create a fencer by calling a spiked chain a fencing weapon. When I design a fencer, I do it to do what fencers really did. The best game for this is Flashing Blades, but I've also played En Garde, Swashbuckler and a Renaissance scenario in GURPS.

But again, if you want to play with a rapier that pierces armor, and you can think of that as being a "fencer", then enjoy it. There's no reason for us all to have the same approach.

[nedz]

Problem is, they keep drawing it that way outside the PHB too. Like that tiefling art Marlowe keeps plastering everywhere from MM1.

It's likely the same artist — or at least the same artistic licence.

Did you expect realism ?

If so, then you came to the wrong game.

Never bring realism to a D&D argument.

[ZamielVanWeber]

The 3.0 bard was using a proper looking rapier what I recall to be a good picture. They moved him somewhere else in 3.5 but I am not sure where. I wanna say alignment section.

[Snowbluff]

The 3.0 bard was using a proper looking rapier what I recall to be a good picture. They moved him somewhere else in 3.5 but I am not sure where. I wanna say alignment section.

Yeah, that worthless dude. He's in the book still.

[BiblioRook]

If third-party content is allowed, Dreamscarred Press's supplements Path of War (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/path-of-war) and Path of War: Expanded (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?423981-Dreamscarred-Press-Path-of-War-Expanded!-(Discussion-Thread-VI)) provide some excellent support for one-hand-free combat.

Normally 3rd Party stuff is discouraged if not outright not allowed in my gaming group because it's made up primarally of people completely new to the game and the basic stuff can be plenty confusing already sometimes. Usually the rule of thumb is you would have to bring in a physical book for something 3rd party to really even be considered (though these days it's being replaced with 'if you can find it on the srd, and even then depending on what it is that's a really dark grey area).


As a long-term SCA fencer who loves playing Flashing Blades, I would never make a fencer in D&D. Rapiers are lousy against armored opponents.

Yeah, most of my characters are far from optimal favoring concept and style over usable mechanics (I mean, one of my latest characters was a Pathfinder interpretation of Rapunzel as a Rogue using a frying pan). But fencing is cool dammit and if I can't utilize it in my fantasy world just what's the point? Even if hulking barbarians were mechanically the only feasible sword-fighters in the game though I still wouldn't play one.
Fortunately my games rarely get into the high-end stuff and at the low to mid-level range a guy waving around a rapier still can get by decently in a fight.


Did you have a race already in mind? Perhaps more you wanted the character to be able to do ther than stab with a rapier or saber or something?

No races in mind, but I certainly would appreciated things more Rogue/Bard based (though not absolutely necessary) rather then something needing half a dozen prestige classes, so I guess something more of a feat build then a class build.

[Psyren]

Fine, and if you want to ignore what a rapier really does, have a great game. But for me, that's not creating a fencer, any more than you create a fencer by calling a spiked chain a fencing weapon. When I design a fencer, I do it to do what fencers really did. The best game for this is Flashing Blades, but I've also played En Garde, Swashbuckler and a Renaissance scenario in GURPS.

But again, if you want to play with a rapier that pierces armor, and you can think of that as being a "fencer", then enjoy it. There's no reason for us all to have the same approach.

Armor has joints and gaps. It's not hard to rationalize the armor providing some protection, while at the same time being able to be overcome by a sufficiently-skilled fencer (i.e. one with a high enough attack bonus.) Which is actually how armor in D&D works - if your bonus is high enough to bypass their AC, it's like the armor isn't even there, which would fit with stabbing someone through a gap.

You are fluffing it as literally punching a hole in the solid part of their full-plate, and then saying that imagery does not make sense - but in general, if the way you fluff something doesn't make sense, you can simply think of other ways to do that.


Did you expect realism ?

Of course not :smalltongue: y so srs? I just thought it was an amusing observation.

[Dusk Eclipse]

Normally 3rd Party stuff is discouraged if not outright not allowed in my gaming group because it's made up primarally of people completely new to the game and the basic stuff can be plenty confusing already sometimes. Usually the rule of thumb is you would have to bring in a physical book for something 3rd party to really even be considered (though these days it's being replaced with 'if you can find it on the srd, and even then depending on what it is that's a really dark grey area).

That would be the case in the old 3.5 days, but in all honestly the 3rd party support for Pathfinder is top notch, better than most of Paizon content itself, and even better they are quite approachable, DSP in particular has quite a few playgrounders in their teams so you can pop in one of the many threads to ask them question personally. Having said that their content tends to be a little higher on the scale power (which personally doesn't bother me) so your milleage may vary on whether it is good option or not. But still you should take a look at Path of War, Scarlet Throne is almost custom made for them.



Yeah, most of my characters are far from optimal favoring concept and style over usable mechanics (I mean, one of my latest characters was a Pathfinder interpretation of Rapunzel as a Rogue using a frying pan). But fencing is cool dammit and if I can't utilize it in my fantasy world just what's the point? Even if hulking barbarians were mechanically the only feasible sword-fighters in the game though I still wouldn't play one.
Fortunately my games rarely get into the high-end stuff and at the low to mid-level range a guy waving around a rapier still can get by decently in a fight.

That is the beauty of 3.5/PF in my opinion, (almost) every concept is workable, maybe not strong out of the box, but with some little ingenuity it can be done.




No races in mind, but I certainly would appreciated things more Rogue/Bard based (though not absolutely necessary) rather then something needing half a dozen prestige classes, so I guess something more of a feat build then a class build.
Rubato bard focusing on Scarlet Throne, Golden Lion and maybe Steel serpent is quite easy to play and hits all the skills/buffing that could be gotten through Rogue/bard

[nedz]

Scout — using the Riposte (CityScape, web (http://archive.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/we/20070228a)) ACF rather than Skirmish. D&D abstracts most of the parrying stuff, but you could build an AoO build around this.


Of course not :smalltongue: y so srs? I just thought it was an amusing observation.

Touché — likewise :smalltongue:

[Palanan]

Originally Posted by BiblioRook
…one of my latest characters was a Pathfinder interpretation of Rapunzel as a Rogue using a frying pan….

Do you have that build handy? Because that's hilarious. :smallbiggrin:

I'm guessing EWP (frying pan), plus whip proficiency for all the tricks with the hair.

[(Un)Inspired]

But fencing is cool dammit and if I can't utilize it in my fantasy world just what's the point? Even if hulking barbarians were mechanically the only feasible sword-fighters in the game though I still wouldn't play one.
Fortunately my games rarely get into the high-end stuff and at the low to mid-level range a guy waving around a rapier still can get by decently in a fight.



No races in mind, but I certainly would appreciated things more Rogue/Bard based (though not absolutely necessary) rather then something needing half a dozen prestige classes, so I guess something more of a feat build then a class build.

Youre in luck! The framework for a build I posted uses only one class (Druid) and is incredibly mechanically feasible using a rapier and is super effective at fencing all over everybody's asses at every level of play starting at 1st.

As far as being a feat build goes, pathfinder nerfed or discarded D&D feats for doing damage into oblivion (power attack can generate as high of numbers, Arcane Strike has been castrated).

While they added damage bump feats for weapon finesse combat and ranged combat, paizo seems to believe that a characters source of damage should be part of its class features (studied combat, precision strike, sneak attack, cavaliers challenge, etcetera). My build poaches like 5 different classes combat abilities and, with a rapier in hand, uses them to turn it's enemies into Swiss-based cheese.

[Geddy2112]

I certainly would appreciated things more Rogue/Bard based (though not absolutely necessary) rather then something needing half a dozen prestige classes, so I guess something more of a feat build then a class build.

The new Unchained Rogue (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/unchained-classes/rogue-unchained) is a solid choice for a fencer. You start with finesse off the bat, and get dex to damage with your rapier by level 3, and you will have supporting sneak attack damage for your rapier to keep pace with other classes. There are several good archetypes to replace trapfinding and trap sense if you don't want those either.

[Glorius Nippon]

Could try Rapier and Light Shield (buckler) instead, which would still fit within realistic fencing.

[BiblioRook]

Do you have that build handy? Because that's hilarious. :smallbiggrin:

I'm guessing EWP (frying pan), plus whip proficiency for all the tricks with the hair.

Made a thread about it a while back (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?322566-PF-Improvised-Weapon-Rogue-%28Rapunzel-Version%29). It was inspired by a bunch of feats I found in Pathfinder that made rogues able to basically one-shot knock people out using blunt improvised weapons. Then someone mentioned how Pathfinder Witches can get prehensile hair and, well, what just seemed like a sign it was meant to be. Sadly I've yet to really use it in a game, the one time I tried it ended up being an undead filled dungeon crawl. Not much use for a character based around non-lethal damage there...


While I'm talking about builds, as far as 3.5 fencing goes the build I came up with used a bunch of feats that did stuff like allow attacks of opportunity if an enemy missed against you and huge bonuses to said attacks of opportunities. Throw in a taunt ability and some crazy AC and you'ld be reposing all day. Damn though it has been a long time since I thought about this, I would post the feats I was talking about but I plum can't remember what they are!

[Jay R]

Yeah, most of my characters are far from optimal favoring concept and style over usable mechanics (I mean, one of my latest characters was a Pathfinder interpretation of Rapunzel as a Rogue using a frying pan).

I've never understood the approach of favoring concept and style over mechanics, or of putting mechanics over concept and style. Why not build a character with a concept and style that matches what the game can do well enough to have good mechanics?


But fencing is cool dammit and if I can't utilize it in my fantasy world just what's the point? Even if hulking barbarians were mechanically the only feasible sword-fighters in the game though I still wouldn't play one.

Agreed, fencing is cool. So cool that when I have a fencer character, I want him to do what fencers do. That's why I love FGU's Flashing Blades.

If I wanted to run a D&D game in which rapiers were effective, I'd include muskets so high-end armor was not effective.


Fortunately my games rarely get into the high-end stuff and at the low to mid-level range a guy waving around a rapier still can get by decently in a fight.

Like I said, if you want to play that way, have fun with it. But I suggest you at least consider the possibility of playing a game that actually favors fencing. Because, after all, fencing is really cool.

[BiblioRook]

I've never understood the approach of favoring concept and style over mechanics, or of putting mechanics over concept and style. Why not build a character with a concept and style that matches what the game can do well enough to have good mechanics?


Like I said, if you want to play that way, have fun with it. But I suggest you at least consider the possibility of playing a game that actually favors fencing. Because, after all, fencing is really cool.

I usually don't get much say in what system I play in, it all depends on what's running at the time. As you can imagine usually this means D&D or Pathfinder, if I want to play in something else usually the only way to do so is to run the game myself (which then means I wouldn't be able to be much of a player unfortunately).
Usually I just try to role with the system but occasionally you just get it into your head that you want to play as a certain something and can't be swayed...
At the end of the day though it's just a game you're talking about, a fantasy one at that, and a game should never be taken too seriously.

I actually never even heard of this Flashing Blades thing you keep mentioning, sounds like it might be something I should look into.

[Jay R]

I actually never even heard of this Flashing Blades thing you keep mentioning, sounds like it might be something I should look into.

Here it is (http://www.drivethrurpg.com/product/585/Flashing-Blades?it=1). It's set in 17th century Paris. Not the historical one, but the Paris of the musketeer movies.


You are fluffing it as literally punching a hole in the solid part of their full-plate, and then saying that imagery does not make sense - but in general, if the way you fluff something doesn't make sense, you can simply think of other ways to do that.

No, I'm not fluffing it at all. I'm observing the historical fact that rapiers were not used against armored opponents. In Fiore, longswords are used against armor, but in Capo Ferro and other rapier manuals, rapiers are used against unarmored foes.

[Psyren]

No, I'm not fluffing it at all. I'm observing the historical fact that rapiers were not used against armored opponents. In Fiore, longswords are used against armor, but in Capo Ferro and other rapier manuals, rapiers are used against unarmored foes.

So are you saying it's physically impossible for a rapier to damage someone through a joint or gap in their armor, because it was never depicted as doing so in a manual?

[StreamOfTheSky]

So...is this completely incorrect, then? Because the expert on Rapiers outright says they became the weapon of choice specifically *because* they could target the weak points in armor with great precision, unlike the larger hacking/slashing blades of earlier.

https://youtu.be/rubruP9p4i8?t=7m52s

Which sounds reasonable since swords DID move in that direction. But according to Jay that's wrong. I think Jay's wrong.

[nedz]

If you had quoted an actual expert on swords then maybe you would have had a point.

Guns made armour obsolete, but the rapier wasn't a battle-field weapon anyway. It was more of a fashion accessory replaced, later, by the small sword.

[Shackel]

Swashbuckler, perhaps? I don't know how good the duelist is, but it seems to be at least okay for 3-4 levels before dropping back into Swashbuckler. Their abilities seem to mesh well: Precise Strike keeps going, and you get some options for if someone isn't worth the panache.

[(Un)Inspired]

If you had quoted an actual expert on swords then maybe you would have had a point.

Guns made armour obsolete, but the rapier wasn't a battle-field weapon anyway. It was more of a fashion accessory replaced, later, by the small sword.

What's an actual expert?

[Psyren]

What's an actual expert?

The Three Musketeers :smallbiggrin:

[Jay R]

So are you saying it's physically impossible for a rapier to damage someone through a joint or gap in their armor, because it was never depicted as doing so in a manual?

No, as is proven by the fact that I never said that it's physically impossible for a rapier to damage someone through a joint or gap in their armor.

If I had a rapier, and had to face an armored opponent, I would try to use Fiore dei Liberi's techniques for slipping under the armor - as shown with longswords. But since that's a very difficult thing to do, I'd also attempt his tripping and disarming techniques. And I'd much rather have a longsword for it.

[For a totally different reason, I was just targeting an opponent's face at practice last night, as I would do against most armored opponents, since the average faceplate will admit a rapier point. It was a much more difficult fight.]


So...is this completely incorrect, then? Because the expert on Rapiers outright says they became the weapon of choice specifically *because* they could target the weak points in armor with great precision, unlike the larger hacking/slashing blades of earlier.

https://youtu.be/rubruP9p4i8?t=7m52s

Which sounds reasonable since swords DID move in that direction. But according to Jay that's wrong. I think Jay's wrong.

Andrei Xuereb, the "expert" who claims that the rapier was developed to fight against armored opponents disagrees with every period source I've read. Capo Ferro, Saviolo, Viggiani, Sainct-Didier, Fabris, Meyer, etc. all describe its use against unarmored opponents. It also disagrees with the modern books I've read about either Renaissance warfare or the rapier in specific. All sources I've read consider the rapier to be a civilian sword, for use against unarmored opponents.

The specific techniques for fighting against armor by targeting the joints are clearly described in Fiore dei Liberi - for longswords.

His form was excellent - much better than mine. But nothing he did was against an armored opponent, and he wasn't targeting necks or armpits. What he's calling an "early rapier" is usually called a side-sword these days, to distinguish it from a rapier. His side-sword technique is much better than mine. But since he cited no source for his assertion that rapiers were developed to fight against armor, and since I don't know any period or modern source to back him up, I can't accept it as definitive.



What's an actual expert?
The Three Musketeers :smallbiggrin:

As that term makes clear, their primary weapon was a musket, not a rapier.

[Psyren]

No, as is proven by the fact that I never said that it's physically impossible for a rapier to damage someone through a joint or gap in their armor.

If I had a rapier, and had to face an armored opponent, I would try to use Fiore dei Liberi's techniques for slipping under the armor - as shown with longswords. But since that's a very difficult thing to do, I'd also attempt his tripping and disarming techniques. And I'd much rather have a longsword for it.

[For a totally different reason, I was just targeting an opponent's face at practice last night, as I would do against most armored opponents, since the average faceplate will admit a rapier point. It was a much more difficult fight.

Personal Incredulity Fallacy aside, as long as you agree that it's physically possible that's all that matters. Simply assume that part of rapier proficiency involves focusing around that vulnerability.


As that term makes clear, their primary weapon was a musket, not a rapier.

And? A secondary weapon is still a weapon, and it's even one you can be good at using.

[BiblioRook]

If I had a rapier, and had to face an armored opponent, I would try to use Fiore dei Liberi's techniques for slipping under the armor - as shown with longswords. But since that's a very difficult thing to do, I'd also attempt his tripping and disarming techniques. And I'd much rather have a longsword for it.

A lot of this seems to be assuming if a foe is armored at all they are going to be all up in full full plate, most of the armor in these kinds of games (baring helmets and gauntlets and such that don't transition mechanically well) are usually pieces that just cover the torso region. No need to focus so much on gaps and joints when nearly half of the opponent is basically uncovered.

This is actually always been a sore point with me as your sword can be as much as a defensive tool as the armor you wear but I've never seen anything in game that really showed that in game. At best there's the 'trade attack for AC' feat, which I understand was probably necessary for game balance but I've always thought that was a bit bogus.

[Palanan]

Originally Posted by StreamOfTheSky
So...is this completely incorrect, then?

….But according to Jay that's wrong. I think Jay's wrong.


Originally Posted by Jay R
Andrei Xuereb, the "expert" who claims that the rapier was developed to fight against armored opponents disagrees with every period source I've read. Capo Ferro, Saviolo, Viggiani, Sainct-Didier, Fabris, Meyer, etc. all describe its use against unarmored opponents. It also disagrees with the modern books I've read about either Renaissance warfare or the rapier in specific. All sources I've read consider the rapier to be a civilian sword, for use against unarmored opponents.

I'd say the person with decades of fencing experience, and a firm grasp of period writing, probably has a stronger case than the person who posts YouTube videos and uncritically accepts "experts" from a cable channel.


Originally Posted by BiblioRook
This is actually always been a sore point with me as your sword can be as much as a defensive tool as the armor you wear but I've never seen anything in game that really showed that in game. At best there's the 'trade attack for AC' feat, which I understand was probably necessary for game balance but I've always thought that was a bit bogus.

Do you mean Shield of Swings (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/feats/combat-feats/shield-of-swings-combat)? Seems to do a fairly decent job of representing the sword as a defensive tool.

[BiblioRook]

Do you mean Shield of Swings (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/feats/combat-feats/shield-of-swings-combat)? Seems to do a fairly decent job of representing the sword as a defensive tool.

I was thinking about Combat Expertise, I never heard of Shield of Swings. But I guess that's basically why I made this thread in the first place, to learn about things like that. Doesn't really sound like much of a fencing move though, and like Combat Expertise it's still just basically trading damage for AC.

[Th3N3xtGuy]

A lot of this seems to be assuming if a foe is armored at all they are going to be all up in full full plate, most of the armor in these kinds of games (baring helmets and gauntlets and such that don't transition mechanically well) are usually pieces that just cover the torso region. No need to focus so much on gaps and joints when nearly half of the opponent is basically uncovered.

This is actually always been a sore point with me as your sword can be as much as a defensive tool as the armor you wear but I've never seen anything in game that really showed that in game. At best there's the 'trade attack for AC' feat, which I understand was probably necessary for game balance but I've always thought that was a bit bogus.

Come on guys lets get back to point this gentleman needs some help

[Shackel]

I was thinking about Combat Expertise, I never heard of Shield of Swings. But I guess that's basically why I made this thread in the first place, to learn about things like that. Doesn't really sound like much of a fencing move though, and like Combat Expertise it's still just basically trading damage for AC.

The Duelist PrC has the ability to sacrifice an attack with a one-handed/light piercing weapon during a full-attack to save it as a sort of impromptu counter against your opponent if they attack you or an adjacent ally(albeit at a -4 penalty). Roll that attack vs theirs, and if it beats it, the attack misses.

[DaedalusMkV]

If you ever even find yourself looking at the Duellist class, just do yourself a favour and play a Swashbuckler instead. Opportune Parry and Riposte and level to damage are much better than everything the Duellist gets combined.

Speaking of, Swashbucklers make excellent fencers. Opportune Parry and Riposte does what it sounds like, and the entire class is built around light, one-handed melee weapons. It's a fine class, if not quite as deadly as an optimized Magus or Synthesist Summoner, and excels at single combat. Take Fencing Grace, grab your Rapier, hit nearly as hard as a two-handed fighter while having powerful active defences. If what you want is a straight-up, rapier-using fencer who doesn't rely on fancy magic or being a Bard, Swashbuckler is the best Paizo-based class for it.

[Anlashok]

Actually I think Daring Champion Cavalier does it a bit better.

[Marlowe]

It's likely the same artist — or at least the same artistic licence.

Did you expect realism ?

If so, then you came to the wrong game.

Never bring realism to a D&D argument.

http://i.imgur.com/2VgQPlr.jpg

[Palanan]

Originally Posted by BiblioRook
I never heard of Shield of Swings. But I guess that's basically why I made this thread in the first place, to learn about things like that.

You're welcome, I guess.


Originally Posted by BiblioRook
Doesn't really sound like much of a fencing move though, and like Combat Expertise it's still just basically trading damage for AC.

So what is it you want?

How do you want to portray fencing moves in the extremely abstracted framework of 3.5/Pathfinder combat? If you don't want to trade damage for AC, what do you want to do?

[BiblioRook]

So what is it you want?

How do you want to portray fencing moves in the extremely abstracted framework of 3.5/Pathfinder combat? If you don't want to trade damage for AC, what do you want to do?

I already said I understand why feats like that would be made that way so they would fit better in the game mechanically and not be unbalanced, but I'm allowed to also say coming from what I'm looking for (things relating to fencing) I feel it's kind of stupid. It's not that I'm looking for perfect results as even things I may not care to use right now might be useful later on, I'm actually enjoying the discussions going on more then the notion of making the optimal fencing PC.

Really if I knew what I wanted I probably could have found it myself by now, I'm more interested in hearing what people have to say about it in the hopes that among that something might get mentioned that sounds good to me that I can use.

[Psyren]

I was just poking fun at you Marlowe, no malice was intended :smallsmile:


If you ever even find yourself looking at the Duellist class, just do yourself a favour and play a Swashbuckler instead. Opportune Parry and Riposte and level to damage are much better than everything the Duellist gets combined.

Speaking of, Swashbucklers make excellent fencers. Opportune Parry and Riposte does what it sounds like, and the entire class is built around light, one-handed melee weapons. It's a fine class, if not quite as deadly as an optimized Magus or Synthesist Summoner, and excels at single combat. Take Fencing Grace, grab your Rapier, hit nearly as hard as a two-handed fighter while having powerful active defences. If what you want is a straight-up, rapier-using fencer who doesn't rely on fancy magic or being a Bard, Swashbuckler is the best Paizo-based class for it.

My problem with the Paizo Swashbuckler is that it is Cha-based, while the Duelist is Int-based. So certain builds may prefer having a Lore Warden Fighter/Duelist than a Swashbuckler.

[BiblioRook]

My problem with the Paizo Swashbuckler is that it is Cha-based,

Ah. I knew I had some reason why I never picked up a Swashbuckler before now that I couldn't quite remember...

[nedz]

Ah. I knew I had some reason why I never picked up a Swashbuckler before now that I couldn't quite remember...

3.5's Swashbuckler is int based though.

[Jay R]

Personal Incredulity Fallacy aside, as long as you agree that it's physically possible that's all that matters. Simply assume that part of rapier proficiency involves focusing around that vulnerability.

Sure, you can pretend it's something it's not. Feel free. There's no reason you should play like me. But when I play a fencer, I want to play him like a fencer. And I consider rapier proficiency to focus on what a rapier is proficient at, according to Capo Ferro, Viggiani, Fabris, and the other authors I've read.


And? A secondary weapon is still a weapon, and it's even one you can be good at using.

Indeed. You can even be good at using it correctly, which is to say, in a culture in which most people you fight aren't wearing armor.

Again, there is no reason you should want to use a game-rapier like a real rapier. But I prefer to do so.

[Psyren]

Again, there is no reason you should want to use a game-rapier like a real rapier. But I prefer to do so.

Meaning you want to ban them entirely? Because armor is sort of a thing in this game we play.

Rapier use might not be "realistic" according to whatever list of experts you want to toss out, but I'm pretty sure all of us would hack our own limbs off attempting to use an orcish double-axe, and those guys would too. Either you're willing to accept rule of fun for some things or not, but the imagery is too iconic for that decision to go anywhere past your own table and players. Maybe they're willing to put up with it, or maybe not, but it doesn't matter to me or anyone else who likes rapiers.

[(Un)Inspired]

Meaning you want to ban them entirely? Because armor is sort of a thing in this game we play.

Rapier use might not be "realistic" according to whatever list of experts you want to toss out, but I'm pretty sure all of us would hack our own limbs off attempting to use an orcish double-axe, and those guys would too. Either you're willing to accept rule of fun for some things or not, but the imagery is too iconic for that decision to go anywhere past your own table and players. Maybe they're willing to put up with it, or maybe not, but it doesn't matter to me or anyone else who likes rapiers.

I was actually on the Orcish Double Axe team in high school. There not really that dangerous once you get the rhythm down.

[P.F.]

If I had a rapier, and had to face an armored opponent, I would try to use Fiore dei Liberi's techniques for slipping under the armor - as shown with longswords. But since that's a very difficult thing to do, I'd also attempt his tripping and disarming techniques. And I'd much rather have a longsword for it.

Longswords in D&D/Paffinder are one-handed slashing weapons, so you cannot use Liberi's one-and/or-two-handed longsword armor-piercing techniques on them. You would have to take exotic weapon proficiency and use a bastard sword. Oops, no, that one still isn't a piercing weapon. You'll have to use a spear.

Applying these manuals and nomenclature to D&D works about as well as incorporating real-world physics. Scimitars can be used to thrust as well as to slash. Polearms typically had a butt spike making every halberd a double weapon. What D&D calls a longsword I would call a broadsword; what D&D calls a saber I would call a cutlass, and what D&D calls a rapier an archaeologist might term as a "side sword." The names of the weapons are just convenient cultural markers for a wide variety of weapons of the generic type.

Specifically, the term "rapier" refers to an assortment of swords employed in a variety of fencing styles over a span of centuries. Modern scholars might imagine something very specific with the term "rapier" or "épée" or "Schwert," but it's clear that those terms were originally applied to the common bladed weapons of the day without much thought as to how they might differentiate in 21st-century role-playing games.

So, if one of my players wants to play a cut-and-thrust fencer who uses greater agility and mobility to outmatch more heavily armored opponents with his lightweight one-handed piercing weapon, and he wants that weapon to have an 18-20 crit range ... I'm going to suggest he us a "rapier."

If he's not wedded to the "rapier" per se, I would suggest a scimitar, which has some rather nice mechanical support for it as well.