PDA

View Full Version : Superior Military Weapons... really? (4e)



Mojobacca
06-08-2008, 09:12 PM
I was reading in the 4e PHB and read this in the Weapons subchapter within the Equipment chapter:


Superior weapons are even more effective than military weapons but require special training to use. You can learn to use a superior weapon by taking the Weapon Proficiency feat.


I can see that, by the chart, there is a reason to learn a Bastard Sword over a Longsword or even a Katar over a shortsword. But what about Rapier? Is there any reason, outside of panache, to use one. Is this a misprint perhaps?

Valdar
06-08-2008, 11:11 PM
Is there any reason, outside of panache, to use one. Is this a misprint perhaps?



It's a Light Blade, so it's going to be awfully attractive to Rogues, who have lots of powers that require light blades.

Mojobacca
06-09-2008, 08:33 AM
You know... I'm not sure how I missed that one. Good catch there!

Webhead
06-09-2008, 11:38 AM
Indeed. Good catch. The rapier is useful again! :)

tesral
06-11-2008, 08:22 AM
In real life the rapier never was a battlefield weapon. It was the gentleman's sword, worn to court but not to battle. You fought duels with a rapier, you fought battles with a broadsword or a cut and thrust sword.

The rapier eventually shrunk to the small sword, more of an item of male jewelery than a practical weapon. By that point the gun was king of the battlefield and swords where largely items of ceremony.

Webhead
06-11-2008, 10:37 AM
In real life the rapier never was a battlefield weapon. It was the gentleman's sword, worn to court but not to battle. You fought duels with a rapier, you fought battles with a broadsword or a cut and thrust sword.

The rapier eventually shrunk to the small sword, more of an item of male jewelery than a practical weapon. By that point the gun was king of the battlefield and swords where largely items of ceremony.

True, but there's all those Errol Flynn movies that keep the idea of the rapier-wielding scoundrel romanticized in my mind. Swashbuckling seems less "swashy" without a rapier as your weapon of choice. :)

boulet
06-11-2008, 11:28 AM
In real life the rapier never was a battlefield weapon. It was the gentleman's sword, worn to court but not to battle. You fought duels with a rapier, you fought battles with a broadsword or a cut and thrust sword.

The rapier eventually shrunk to the small sword, more of an item of male jewelery than a practical weapon. By that point the gun was king of the battlefield and swords where largely items of ceremony.
Actually the story is going the other way around. With the spreading of fire arms the use of heavy armor stopped making sense, and thus handling a heavy sword which very weight made clumsy in urban settings lacked sense as well. Then appeared the rapier with its long slander form (up to 4 feet sometimes) which fitted the new paradigm of thrusting attacks not being deflected by armor anymore. Sure, on battlefields sabers were still on the heavy side of swords, but it's because cavalry has better use of cutting attacks.


True, but there's all those Errol Flynn movies that keep the idea of the rapier-wielding scoundrel romanticized in my mind. Swashbuckling seems less "swashy" without a rapier as your weapon of choice. :)
It wasn't just fancy pantsy romanticized fights. In France many kings and ministers tried to enforce a zero tolerance to duels (rarely applied though). The violence and deaths incurring during duels were perceived as a real threat to the society as a whole. Some duels tended to degenerate into mob fights for instance.

Valdar
06-11-2008, 01:26 PM
In real life the rapier never was a battlefield weapon.

It's listed among weapons for adventurers, not soldiers, so it's wholly appropriate.

The depiction of the spiked chain (aka "flail chucks") should also be a clear indicator that when it comes to historical, realistic weapons, we're not in Kansas anymore. I wouldn't be surprised if that's its sole purpose.

Webhead
06-11-2008, 01:55 PM
...The depiction of the spiked chain (aka "flail chucks") should also be a clear indicator that when it comes to historical, realistic weapons, we're not in Kansas anymore. I wouldn't be surprised if that's its sole purpose.

"The true power of the 'sword-chucks' lies not in the sword, nor in the chuck, but in the synthesis of the two." - Fighter

:D