Hey y'all, I've been bouncing an interesting idea around my head: making a realistic athlete character in D&D. My first idea was a fencer, as the rapier already exists in dnd and fencing was popular in medieval times. I have a few ideas on how to make this kind of character, but I'm open to suggestions.

Idea 1: battle master fighter (2014 or 24).

This one is simple. A dex based fighter with a rapier as a foil or epee, the dueling fighting style, and the battle master subclass. Take parry, lunging attack, and riposte, and you're good to go.

Idea 2: swashbuckler rogue (2014 or 24).

This was my first idea: swashbuckler rogue welding a rapier, acting as a foil or epee. Seems obvious, but kinda boring.

Idea 3: kensei monk (2024). 

Okay, hear me out here. With kensei monk, you can use a longsword with dex, acting as a sabre. You can dodge on your turn as a bonus action (parrying withe your blade) and deflect attacks (riposte). Also you can run fast which is cool I guess.

Any other ideas would be appreciated.

I thought about it a bit and no new ideas here but I think a champion might do better for the fighter build I play 2014 only so if that’s different, let me know

What are you doing with the other hand? I ask because D&D really assumes you are using both hands, either a second weapon or a shield. Where, to me a classic fencer has the other hand free.

You certainly don’t have to use your other hand, but you’re really nerfing yourself. The standard choice is either better AC (shield) or more damage (second weapon, or two-handed weapon) and the choice hit a fencer seems to be, neither.

Quote from Xalthu >>

What are you doing with the other hand? I ask because D&D really assumes you are using both hands, either a second weapon or a shield. Where, to me a classic fencer has the other hand free.

You certainly don’t have to use your other hand, but you’re really nerfing yourself. The standard choice is either better AC (shield) or more damage (second weapon, or two-handed weapon) and the choice hit a fencer seems to be, neither.

 Well if we're aiming for realism then nothing in the off hand. But technically you could use a shield, but then your swordfighting, not fencing. Maybe a torch or lantern?

Monks are canonically magical in nature, so for a true realistic character you're looking at Fighter or Rogue. Battlemaster has plenty of thematic options, but you can also multiclass Fighter and Rogue (Swashbuckler) if you want. It depends what kind of fencer you want to play. A traditional upper class honourable-duel type fencer is definitely a battlemaster, whereas your Zorro or highway man type fencer would be a Swashbuckler Rogue.

Note that D&D is explicitly high-fantasy so it's really hard to play it as an ordinary character beyond level 5 or so. 

Quote from StereotypicalDungeonMaster >>

Quote from Xalthu >>

What are you doing with the other hand? I ask because D&D really assumes you are using both hands, either a second weapon or a shield. Where, to me a classic fencer has the other hand free.

You certainly don’t have to use your other hand, but you’re really nerfing yourself. The standard choice is either better AC (shield) or more damage (second weapon, or two-handed weapon) and the choice hit a fencer seems to be, neither.

 Well if we're aiming for realism then nothing in the off hand. But technically you could use a shield, but then your swordfighting, not fencing. Maybe a torch or lantern?

 I guess that could work, but so many species have darkvision, that might not be useful. 
Pf2e has an option where there’s a feat chain that lets you be a duelist. Basically a feat where you get that AC bonus, or maybe just part of it, you would have for a shield, as long as the other hand is empty. 
Personally, I think a feat like that would be reasonable. A +2, or +1 to AC if you have nothing in the off hand. It would only be too strong if you worry about weight, I would think. 

A fencer ability.  When a creature attacks you and does damage, you can roll Weapon Damage + N.  If the damage is negated, you can make an attack against the target 

(Off Turn Parry/Attack) Without having to be a monk for Deflect attack.

If you're going for realism, I'd like to point out that fencing did not exist in Medieval times, the rapier wasn't invented until the Renaissance Era and likewise styles for fighting with a rapier didn't come about until then, either.  Also, in real fencing, the off-hand would usually hold a buckler (a type of small shield), a parrying dagger, or the fighter's cloak wrapped around their arm (which could be used to block or tangle an opponent's blade).  Keeping the off-hand open didn't show up until dueling switched from being a practical means of combat into being a sport.

Quote from 6thLyranGuard >>

If you're going for realism, I'd like to point out that fencing did not exist in Medieval times, the rapier wasn't invented until the Renaissance Era and likewise styles for fighting with a rapier didn't come about until then, either.  Also, in real fencing, the off-hand would usually hold a buckler (a type of small shield), a parrying dagger, or the fighter's cloak wrapped around their arm (which could be used to block or tangle an opponent's blade).  Keeping the off-hand open didn't show up until dueling switched from being a practical means of combat into being a sport.

 Oh. I couldve sworn I'd seen a rapier dated to the 1400s. As for the talk about off handed weapons, I meant for this to be a fencer as in the sport.

The oldest references to the rapier date to between 1450-1475, which was after the Renaissance Period began: the precise division between the Medieval and Renaissance Periods is somewhat vague but usually considered to have happened somewhere between the late 14th and early 15th Centuries.  There is some confusion because there are also some older styles of swords that are sometimes referred to as rapiers but they're not related to what we identify as rapiers today.

The vagueness is related to an earlier start in the south and later starts as you went North.  Rome was well into the Renaissance decades before Edinburgh could even have been considered to have "started".

Quote from Nimglin_Kurrelguyre >>

I suggest that you incorporate targeted attacks, allowing your fencer to aim their weapon at a specific point on their opponent. This may (or should) include a difficulty adjustment (eg. -1 to the attack roll). A rapier needs to strike at areas uncovered by armor—slipping between plate mail, forcing through the gaps in splint or chain mail, etc. You didn't mention fencing foils (which are even more historically recent than rapiers), but they are more bendy than rapiers so they can be thrust between the opponent's ribcage and twisted to puncture organs. 

Targeted attack rolls are one of those realism things that sound good in theory but practically speaking don't work out well. Either the effects are too weak relative to the chance to hit to be worth it, or they're so good/reliable that there's no reason a player shouldn't just always fish for the debilitating/insta-kill options. If you want that vibe, take Battlemaster and flavor the Maneuvers appropriately. For some context, consider what the experience will be like from the player end of things if enemies can keep aiming for the throat, eye, etc. basically every single turn of every battle.

Quote from Nimglin_Kurrelguyre >>

Quote from 6thLyranGuard >>

If you're going for realism, I'd like to point out that fencing did not exist in Medieval times, the rapier wasn't invented until the Renaissance Era and likewise styles for fighting with a rapier didn't come about until then, either.  Also, in real fencing, the off-hand would usually hold a buckler (a type of small shield), a parrying dagger, or the fighter's cloak wrapped around their arm (which could be used to block or tangle an opponent's blade).  Keeping the off-hand open didn't show up until dueling switched from being a practical means of combat into being a sport.

 

Having trained in real fencing a little bit, I can't imagine making much use of that off-hand for a shield or dagger or cloak but of course a fighter would certainly do so.

 That's because modern fencing is a sport.  You don't use your off-hand in it, but you also don't step left or right, either.  The original version of fencing was significantly less formal about what was and wasn't allowed because it was a combat technique where the goal was to kill someone before they could kill you rather than looking good in front of a panel of judges.