Larian Studios
Posted By: dudeface Wyll's 'rapier' sword is not a rapier - 23/03/21 03:56 AM
So Wyll through his special trait 'blade of frontiers' is able to use rapiers, which is nice because it gives him a beefier martial weapon to use that most warlocks can't and fits his name. That's all great.

The weapon itself however... is not a rapier. He is equipped with a saber, one that is close to a cavalry saber or naval cutlass from the real world, which is very different to a rapier. A rapier has quillion(s), which allow the sword to sweep through the open space between fighters in a point oriented fight to engage a blade. This makes the rapier look, handle and fight very differently from a saber

I looked to see what a saber would be in 5e and I couldn't find it on any of the weapon lists, scimitar would be a closer fit in terms of a curved sword that can cut or thrust.

My suggestion is thus: Please change the model of Wyll's sword to be a real rapier or add a saber classification to the game and make it that.



[Linked Image from i.pinimg.com]

Second image for a more broad look at sword types throughout history

[img]https://preview.redd.it/qjbsuczmjoy...4c3dfd7cc07a9a80ba758140f74416ec4127566c[/img]
Oh dang. I must have slain Wyll before I found out he was playable.
Posted By: MarcoNeves Re: Wyll's 'rapier' sword is not a rapier - 25/03/21 12:33 AM
Originally Posted by dudeface
So Wyll through his special trait 'blade of frontiers' is able to use rapiers, which is nice because it gives him a beefier martial weapon to use that most warlocks can't and fits his name. That's all great.

The weapon itself however... is not a rapier. He is equipped with a saber, one that is close to a cavalry saber or naval cutlass from the real world, which is very different to a rapier. A rapier has quillion(s), which allow the sword to sweep through the open space between fighters in a point oriented fight to engage a blade. This makes the rapier look, handle and fight very differently from a saber

I looked to see what a saber would be in 5e and I couldn't find it on any of the weapon lists, scimitar would be a closer fit in terms of a curved sword that can cut or thrust.

My suggestion is thus: Please change the model of Wyll's sword to be a real rapier or add a saber classification to the game and make it that.



[Linked Image from i.pinimg.com]

Second image for a more broad look at sword types throughout history

[img]https://preview.redd.it/qjbsuczmjoy...4c3dfd7cc07a9a80ba758140f74416ec4127566c[/img]
Yep, you're 100% correct. I actually own a rapier (they're heavier than they look) that looks exactly like the middle one in the image. Quillions and loop guard are there. It's called something "del Cid" (can't remember), then I have another one called "Tizona del Cid", but I don't know if it qualifies as a Rapier.
Posted By: Aazo Re: Wyll's 'rapier' sword is not a rapier - 25/03/21 03:51 AM
Speaking of Rapier in this game, I would love to also see Main Gauche implemented as an off hand complement to it (and yes they available in the 5e rule-set as an off hand weapon). Currently you cannot off hand even a dagger with the rapier in this implementation of the game.
Posted By: Dexai Re: Wyll's 'rapier' sword is not a rapier - 25/03/21 10:32 AM
As far as i know there are no parrying daggers in 5e.

5e dual wielding is kind of shitty like that. You can't wield a rapier and an off-hand weapon unless you take the feat that let's you dual wield two long swords too. But they made scimitars light for whatever strange reason (probably because Drizzt).
Posted By: Dexai Re: Wyll's 'rapier' sword is not a rapier - 25/03/21 10:36 AM
As far as i know there are no parrying daggers in 5e.

5e dual wielding is kind of shitty like that. You can't wield a rapier and an off-hand weapon unless you take the feat that let's you dual wield two long swords too. But they made scimitars light for whatever strange reason (probably because Drizzt).
Well, the classification of weapons is fluid (at what exact lengh is the difference between short sword and long sword, and what do you measure to define lengh) and a computer game is not a simulation. In DnD every weapon has to fit in a weapon category and those categories have their stats for balance reasons, not for realism.
The category sabre does not exist in DnD, I think scimitar is the closest match.

So for the sake of simplicity and if we restrict ourselves to swords.
- rapier: long, straight and thin sword
- scimitar: any curved sword
- longsword: any sword that is neither very thin or very curved
- greatsword: any sword that is so large that you must use both hands in order to fight with it at all
- shortsword: anything that is smaller than the stuff above but taller than a dagger (sorry, I have no clear value for the lengh)

Rapiers deal 1d8 damage and they are finesse but NOT light (no dual wielding with it)
Scimitars and shortswords deal 1d6 damage and are finesse and light (dual wielding possible)
Once again, those rules have been made for balance, not for realism.
Most players and maybe also the creators of these rules are not experts for the classification of old weapons.
Posted By: Dexai Re: Wyll's 'rapier' sword is not a rapier - 25/03/21 11:26 AM
Which they could have easily solved by not making rapier a 1d8 weapon, or by making it Special Versatile weapon that deals 1d8 if wielded alone and 1d6 if wielded with an off-hand weapon or shield.

The problem remains that common use dual wielding (big weapon plus off-hand weapon) such as rapier/long sword + dagger or mace + hand axe are still tied behind the same feat that enables ridonkilus big weapon dual wielding despite being thematically very different.
I think in DnD 3E the off hand weapon must be light to avoid a penalty, so rapier+dagger was possible.
I am not an expert though.
There are so many rule sets that its hard to remember which rule belongs to which rule set.
Posted By: hypostase Re: Wyll's 'rapier' sword is not a rapier - 25/03/21 11:42 AM
Originally Posted by GristlyKnuckle
Oh dang. I must have slain Wyll before I found out he was playable.
Some days he just days all on his own. Though to be fair that was in earlier versions and I've not seen it lately.
Posted By: dudeface Re: Wyll's 'rapier' sword is not a rapier - 29/03/21 01:47 AM
Originally Posted by Madscientist
Well, the classification of weapons is fluid (at what exact lengh is the difference between short sword and long sword, and what do you measure to define lengh) and a computer game is not a simulation. In DnD every weapon has to fit in a weapon category and those categories have their stats for balance reasons, not for realism.
The category sabre does not exist in DnD, I think scimitar is the closest match.

So for the sake of simplicity and if we restrict ourselves to swords.
- rapier: long, straight and thin sword
- scimitar: any curved sword
- longsword: any sword that is neither very thin or very curved
- greatsword: any sword that is so large that you must use both hands in order to fight with it at all
- shortsword: anything that is smaller than the stuff above but taller than a dagger (sorry, I have no clear value for the lengh)

Rapiers deal 1d8 damage and they are finesse but NOT light (no dual wielding with it)
Scimitars and shortswords deal 1d6 damage and are finesse and light (dual wielding possible)
Once again, those rules have been made for balance, not for realism.
Most players and maybe also the creators of these rules are not experts for the classification of old weapons.

I completely understand the need for simplicity, and I don't have a problem with the mechanics of different weapons being put into categories for simplicity's sake, but the visual for the current rapier Wyll holds is just simple not a rapier and it bugs me. Sabers in real life have many different curved and straight variants, but the main thing that would be consistent across all variants from saber to rapier is the riccaso, the area underneath the finger rings or pas d'ane where a rapier user would hook one or two fingers for better point control. A saber has no ricasso and is held in either a hammer grip or with the thumb on the back of the grip or halfway depending on the style or technique.

Tangent aside, Wyll can still be the blade of frontiers just fine with a rapier, but the rapier model itself should be a rapier
Posted By: Ankou Re: Wyll's 'rapier' sword is not a rapier - 29/03/21 02:29 AM
Not only that, word on the street is Laezel is disappointed by the measure of the blade.
Posted By: dwig Re: Wyll's 'rapier' sword is not a rapier - 29/03/21 11:22 PM
I'd love to see a visual update for Wyll's rapier. However, at the moment, his stat block is terrible for a melee specialist, so until they update that he's just an eldritch blast bot.
Posted By: CJMPinger Re: Wyll's 'rapier' sword is not a rapier - 30/03/21 02:16 AM
Originally Posted by dwig
I'd love to see a visual update for Wyll's rapier. However, at the moment, his stat block is terrible for a melee specialist, so until they update that he's just an eldritch blast bot.

Maybe IF hexblade gets added they could move him into that subclass, pact of the blade rapier would fit. If Mizora gets added she could be a weakened Devil warlock with Fiend?
Posted By: Maiandra Re: Wyll's 'rapier' sword is not a rapier - 30/03/21 03:18 AM
Originally Posted by Ankou
Not only that, word on the street is Laezel is disappointed by the measure of the blade.
Well someone had to say something like that. hahaha

On another (but not entirely unrelated) note: sheathes for blades while they're not being used would be nice as well.
Originally Posted by CJMPinger
Maybe IF hexblade gets added they could move him into that subclass, pact of the blade rapier would fit. If Mizora gets added she could be a weakened Devil warlock with Fiend?
http://dnd5e.wikidot.com/warlock:hexblade

Serious question: Can hexblade have pact with fiend? O_o
Since whole Wylls story seem to be wraped around that, and i kinda doubt that Larian will change it whole, just so Wyll can have specialisation that would fit his title.
Well, when you create a warlock you have to chose your patron at the start so fiend and hexblade are exclusive because they are different subclasses.
I guess Wyll will always be a fiend warlock because it makes sense for his story.

If you play with your friends and you can convince the GM that patron xxx can give you the powers of a hexblade, thats a different story.
Posted By: Dexai Re: Wyll's 'rapier' sword is not a rapier - 30/03/21 09:15 AM
Originally Posted by RagnarokCzD
Serious question: Can hexblade have pact with fiend? O_o

Yes, that stuff is just fluff.
Originally Posted by dudeface
Originally Posted by Madscientist
Well, the classification of weapons is fluid (at what exact lengh is the difference between short sword and long sword, and what do you measure to define lengh) and a computer game is not a simulation. In DnD every weapon has to fit in a weapon category and those categories have their stats for balance reasons, not for realism.
The category sabre does not exist in DnD, I think scimitar is the closest match.

So for the sake of simplicity and if we restrict ourselves to swords.
- rapier: long, straight and thin sword
- scimitar: any curved sword
- longsword: any sword that is neither very thin or very curved
- greatsword: any sword that is so large that you must use both hands in order to fight with it at all
- shortsword: anything that is smaller than the stuff above but taller than a dagger (sorry, I have no clear value for the lengh)

Rapiers deal 1d8 damage and they are finesse but NOT light (no dual wielding with it)
Scimitars and shortswords deal 1d6 damage and are finesse and light (dual wielding possible)
Once again, those rules have been made for balance, not for realism.
Most players and maybe also the creators of these rules are not experts for the classification of old weapons.

I completely understand the need for simplicity, and I don't have a problem with the mechanics of different weapons being put into categories for simplicity's sake, but the visual for the current rapier Wyll holds is just simple not a rapier and it bugs me. Sabers in real life have many different curved and straight variants, but the main thing that would be consistent across all variants from saber to rapier is the riccaso, the area underneath the finger rings or pas d'ane where a rapier user would hook one or two fingers for better point control. A saber has no ricasso and is held in either a hammer grip or with the thumb on the back of the grip or halfway depending on the style or technique.

Tangent aside, Wyll can still be the blade of frontiers just fine with a rapier, but the rapier model itself should be a rapier

The rapier model in the game is basically a side sword blade stuck onto a gymnasium saber's hilt.

[Linked Image from i.postimg.cc]

Which is doubly bizarre because in the loading screen Astarion actually does have a rapier.
Posted By: CJMPinger Re: Wyll's 'rapier' sword is not a rapier - 31/03/21 12:49 AM
I was always under the assumption that the pacts could be a little loose and that a Fiend could actually lead you to have a hexblade "patron" with enough justification?
Originally Posted by CJMPinger
I was always under the assumption that the pacts could be a little loose and that a Fiend could actually lead you to have a hexblade "patron" with enough justification?

emphasis on " with enough justification".
We should assume that many players are not familiar with DnD.
It is easy to confince players that your patron is a fiend if you have made a pact with a fiend.
It may be harder (but definitely not impossible) to convince players that you become a hexblade from a pact with a fiend, when they can select fiend as patron.

I hope they add hexblade, but I would not bet on it.
Posted By: rdb100 Re: Wyll's 'rapier' sword is not a rapier - 17/04/21 03:29 AM
Originally Posted by Madscientist
Rapiers deal 1d8 damage and they are finesse but NOT light (no dual wielding with it)
Scimitars and shortswords deal 1d6 damage and are finesse and light (dual wielding possible)
Once again, those rules have been made for balance, not for realism.
Most players and maybe also the creators of these rules are not experts for the classification of old weapons.

Yeah, scimitars seem pointless since they are literally the same as shortswords. Same damage time, same roll, same everything. The scimitar weighs 1 lb. more and costs 15 gp more than a shortsword. The blades are supposed to be longer, though. Maybe if they did something like greatswords do and roll multiple die, so it's a 2d3 weapon instead for more consistent damage, being more designed for slashing than normal swords. Game versions of scimitars usually have thicker blades than the real ones, and they look like the center part is weighted based on its thickness, which would let it swing even harder.

In real life, scimitars were THE weapon for horseback combat and were used for a long time. https://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/scimitar-how-one-sword-dominated-warfare-centuries-25033

I know that many things overlap in D&D as for weapon types, and it's mainly for appearance's sake, but there's not even a reach difference.
Posted By: Aazo Re: Wyll's 'rapier' sword is not a rapier - 17/04/21 03:38 AM
Originally Posted by rdb100
Originally Posted by Madscientist
Rapiers deal 1d8 damage and they are finesse but NOT light (no dual wielding with it)
Scimitars and shortswords deal 1d6 damage and are finesse and light (dual wielding possible)
Once again, those rules have been made for balance, not for realism.
Most players and maybe also the creators of these rules are not experts for the classification of old weapons.

Yeah, scimitars seem pointless since they are literally the same as shortswords. Same damage time, same roll, same everything. The scimitar weighs 1 lb. more and costs 15 gp more than a shortsword. The blades are supposed to be longer, though. Maybe if they did something like greatswords do and roll multiple die, so it's a 2d3 weapon instead for more consistent damage, being more designed for slashing than normal swords. Game versions of scimitars usually have thicker blades than the real ones, and they look like the center part is weighted based on its thickness, which would let it swing even harder.

In real life, scimitars were THE weapon for horseback combat and were used for a long time. https://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/scimitar-how-one-sword-dominated-warfare-centuries-25033

I know that many things overlap in D&D as for weapon types, and it's mainly for appearance's sake, but there's not even a reach difference.

The difference is this: Short swords are piercing type damage, Scimitars are slashing type damage. So for damage resistance tables they do make a difference, along with what stat gives bonuses for attacking with that style (piercing uses Dex, slashing uses strength). Damage type comes into play as some armors and monsters are resistant to slashing or piercing or blunt, etc.. So for game mechanics this can provide very different results depending on what you are attacking.
Posted By: rdb100 Re: Wyll's 'rapier' sword is not a rapier - 17/04/21 03:43 AM
Oh, right. I guess I overlooked that. I was thinking of longswords because they're slashing.
https://roll20.net/compendium/dnd5e/Weapons#content
Posted By: mrfuji3 Re: Wyll's 'rapier' sword is not a rapier - 17/04/21 05:19 AM
Originally Posted by Aazo
The difference is this: Short swords are piercing type damage, Scimitars are slashing type damage. So for damage resistance tables they do make a difference, along with what stat gives bonuses for attacking with that style (piercing uses Dex, slashing uses strength). Damage type comes into play as some armors and monsters are resistant to slashing or piercing or blunt, etc.. So for game mechanics this can provide very different results depending on what you are attacking.
Piercing does not always use Dex and slashing does not always use strength. The "finesse" property of weapons is what allows you to use Dex, and both shortswords and scimitars have this property.

They are different damage types, but I'm not sure that there's actually any common monsters that are resistant or vulnerable to one of these damage types and not the other? The only thing I can think of is skeletons which are vulnerable to bludgeoning...
Edit: and I guess the minotaur. But that is because of a magic item...although who knows, maybe we'll see more of that magic item type on future monsters
© Larian Studios forums