the fact is that you still only need two levels of monk to be able to use the longsword as a monk weapon. So the point still stands.
Only if your DM allows the optional features from Tasha's, so no, that is not a "fact" in many campaigns.
Multiclassing is also an optional rule. The optional features are allowed in AL, and I'm sure most DMs allow them as well. That makes them a fact for a majority of games.
As the rules are written, the only reason the Rapier lacks the Light property, is so it can only be used in the main hand. If they want to fight with Rapier and Dagger, I don't see a problem, the rules already allow that, unless they wanted to use the Rapier in their off hand, and the only reason I can think for wanting to be able to use a Rapier in the off hand is if they wanted to use one in each hand.
5e doesn't really have a main hand and off hand. And the rules allow you to wield a rapier and dagger just as easily as 2 rapiers; that is to say, you could use either with your attack action or both with extra attack, but can't use 2 weapon fighting in either case (without dual wielder) as that requires 2 light weapons not 1.
I think I agree... When designate an weapon in the character sheet from the builder tool, you check the box for Dual wield, and then you have to customize one for it to show up under Bonus Actions, so while D&D doesn't have main and off hands as such, whatever one that you use as a bonus action is technically in your "off" hand. By the rules, you can't use a Rapier in each hand, because that's only possible if both weapons have the "light" property, and Rapiers lack that.
I think I agree... When designate an weapon in the character sheet from the builder tool, you check the box for Dual wield, and then you have to customize one for it to show up under Bonus Actions, so while D&D doesn't have main and off hands as such, whatever one that you use as a bonus action is technically in your "off" hand. By the rules, you can't use a Rapier in each hand, because that's only possible if both weapons have the "light" property, and Rapiers lack that.
Err, what percentage of active D&D players worldwide do you think are in AL, exactly?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock) Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric) Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
Err, what percentage of active D&D players worldwide do you think are in AL, exactly?
Irrelevant. The objective fact is that you were wrong when you claimed you ahd to take three levels of Monk to become a Kensei to get he desired effectof using longswords with dex. You can achieve that by just taking two levels of monk and using the rules available in Tasha's. Just because you don't want to use that specific rule doesn't mean that the option doesn't exist.
Are you trying to start a fight or something, Lostwhilefishing? I said it wasn't the case in many campaigns, and it isn't.
There being an optional rule about is meaningless to you if your campaign doesn't use that optional rule. That's kind of why they're called 'optional'. The facts of any individual campaign are what the DM says they are.
AL allowing or not allowing something doesn't change that in the slightest, unless it's actually an AL game.
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock) Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric) Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
You know what's not an optional rule? Reflavoring.
Just use a rapier and describe it as a longsword. It is a zero-cost solution. This thread should have been over when Xalthu said it back in post #6. If you would spend a feat just to do this you're waaay too serious about the name of items that actually reflect categories rather than specific historic replicas.
Are you trying to start a fight or something, Lostwhilefishing? I said it wasn't the case in many campaigns, and it isn't.
What are you even on about? I was telling you objective facts and answering OP's question. If that's not something you agree with I can't really help you with that.
There being an optional rule about is meaningless to you if your campaign doesn't use that optional rule. That's kind of why they're called 'optional'. The facts of any individual campaign are what the DM says they are.
Did you read OP's question? They're trying to do something that isn't a rule already so every solution to this situation is an optional rule that requires the DM's permission. The objective fact is that there is an official rule that is allowed in official play that solves this problem, just like DxJxC said.
AL allowing or not allowing something doesn't change that in the slightest, unless it's actually an AL game.
It shows that it is an official rule that is, as a ground rule, universally allowed. The rule exists whether you like it not. The fact that I as a DM don't allow dragonborn or gnomes in my setting doesn't change the fact that there are official rules for those races.
You might want to remove the Versatile property from it. Dexterity is already the best stat in the game (armor class, melee attack, ranged attack, saves) and allowing Dex fighters use of a two handed weapon that deals 1d10 damage is a direct buff, but not really an important one.
I give Rapiers the Light property, but you can only make a Bonus Action two weapon fighting attack with a dagger, because one of my players wanted to wield rapier and dagger.
Adjusted to quote to make a link again as lost when I quoted. This doesn't answer your original question, but if you run it by DM perhaps they will allow you to use the homebrew item instead? Or there's the monk info, but I couldn't sort that out.
Multiclassing is also an optional rule. The optional features are allowed in AL, and I'm sure most DMs allow them as well. That makes them a fact for a majority of games.
5e doesn't really have a main hand and off hand. And the rules allow you to wield a rapier and dagger just as easily as 2 rapiers; that is to say, you could use either with your attack action or both with extra attack, but can't use 2 weapon fighting in either case (without dual wielder) as that requires 2 light weapons not 1.
I think I agree... When designate an weapon in the character sheet from the builder tool, you check the box for Dual wield, and then you have to customize one for it to show up under Bonus Actions, so while D&D doesn't have main and off hands as such, whatever one that you use as a bonus action is technically in your "off" hand. By the rules, you can't use a Rapier in each hand, because that's only possible if both weapons have the "light" property, and Rapiers lack that.
Have I got that right?
<Insert clever signature here>
Sounds like it.
As pointed out, AL allows it so it's is a fact. There might be exceptions from the fact, but it's still a fact.
Err, what percentage of active D&D players worldwide do you think are in AL, exactly?
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock)
Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric)
Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
Irrelevant. The objective fact is that you were wrong when you claimed you ahd to take three levels of Monk to become a Kensei to get he desired effectof using longswords with dex. You can achieve that by just taking two levels of monk and using the rules available in Tasha's. Just because you don't want to use that specific rule doesn't mean that the option doesn't exist.
Like 10%? Doesn't matter. The point was they are allowed by default in official play.
And it isn't common for groups to restrict options from books they own.
Are you trying to start a fight or something, Lostwhilefishing? I said it wasn't the case in many campaigns, and it isn't.
There being an optional rule about is meaningless to you if your campaign doesn't use that optional rule. That's kind of why they're called 'optional'. The facts of any individual campaign are what the DM says they are.
AL allowing or not allowing something doesn't change that in the slightest, unless it's actually an AL game.
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock)
Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric)
Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
You know what's not an optional rule? Reflavoring.
Just use a rapier and describe it as a longsword. It is a zero-cost solution. This thread should have been over when Xalthu said it back in post #6. If you would spend a feat just to do this you're waaay too serious about the name of items that actually reflect categories rather than specific historic replicas.
My homebrew subclasses (full list here)
(Artificer) Swordmage | Glasswright | (Barbarian) Path of the Savage Embrace
(Bard) College of Dance | (Fighter) Warlord | Cannoneer
(Monk) Way of the Elements | (Ranger) Blade Dancer
(Rogue) DaggerMaster | Inquisitor | (Sorcerer) Riftwalker | Spellfist
(Warlock) The Swarm
What are you even on about? I was telling you objective facts and answering OP's question. If that's not something you agree with I can't really help you with that.
Did you read OP's question? They're trying to do something that isn't a rule already so every solution to this situation is an optional rule that requires the DM's permission. The objective fact is that there is an official rule that is allowed in official play that solves this problem, just like DxJxC said.
It shows that it is an official rule that is, as a ground rule, universally allowed. The rule exists whether you like it not. The fact that I as a DM don't allow dragonborn or gnomes in my setting doesn't change the fact that there are official rules for those races.
Adjusted to quote to make a link again as lost when I quoted. This doesn't answer your original question, but if you run it by DM perhaps they will allow you to use the homebrew item instead? Or there's the monk info, but I couldn't sort that out.