First off I'm not certain if this is in the right place and if not I apologize. I was just curious what seems to be going on with the sais. Now I realize they haven't changed since 3.5 (at least, I've only played 3.5) but their damage type and amount confuse me. Why doesn't the business end of a Sai do piercing? I understand that the blunt "pommel" end could do bludgeoning but the tip as well? Another issue I have is why do they do a measly 1d4, the same amount as a fist,(lethal granted but still). Another thing I noticed was that the Nunchuku deal 1d6, surely sai's would deal equal, if not more damage. I'm just curious why a level one monk deals more damage with his fists than with a pair of Sais. I realize that nunchuku came in a variety of materials and that a metal set with momentum can be quite lethal but I just can't see them out damaging a pair of Sais especially against an armored opponent.
I'm more curious (and perplexed) than anything, I appreciate your opinions on the matter.
I'm nobody official, but...
Sai aren't sharp, for one thing. They have rounded tips. The tips can be jabbed at enemies, but it's essentially like a metal finger rather than actual stabbing.
Nunchuku have the advantage of swinging motion, which is a longer 'lever' average to build up power. Sai, on the other hand, are essentially an extension of your hand.
Sais are not piercing weapons, despite what you may have seen on Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles or wherever else. They aren't daggers with really fancy handguards. They're blunt tipped, non-edged weapons designed for nonlethal combat, to disarm and disable a foe rather than kill him.
Sais are not piercing weapons, despite what you may have seen on Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles or wherever else. They aren't daggers with really fancy handguards. They're blunt tipped, non-edged weapons designed for nonlethal combat, to disarm and disable a foe rather than kill him.
Your condescension is appreciated, I actually own a pair of sais. They are often times filed to a point. though they don't actually have a tip like a blade they were more than capable of piercing bare flesh, heck I would bet they could pierce chain mail. And you are incorrect they were used as nonlethal weapons when reversed and using the pommel as a punching style weapon while the end held like a dagger was used with lethal effect. I may be new to PnP RPG's but not weapons.
They are often times filed to a point.
You can file a butter knife to a point; that doesn't mean butter knives should do piercing damage. The very fact that you have to file a sai to a point should tell you why they deal bludgeoning damage.
They are often times filed to a point.You can file a butter knife to a point; that doesn't mean butter knives should do piercing damage. The very fact that you have to file a sai to a point should tell you why they deal bludgeoning damage.
Are you suggesting that because a sword needs to be sharpened its a bludgeoning weapon?
Oy. You have your answer. Sais are not traditionally sharp/pointed weapons.
If you want to have sharpened sais, feel free to ask your DM to houserule it.
Are you suggesting that because a sword needs to be sharpened its a bludgeoning weapon?
The natural state of a sword is to be sharp. Swords do not need to be filed into shape to become piercing or slashing weapons. They have to be sharpened to maintain their edge, not to get it in the first place! Sais are inherently blunt weapons. Their tips are rounded and they have no edges. You can make a sai into a piercing weapon, but you have to do a whole lot more work to do so than you do to sharpen a sword.
Even today, there is much speculation as to how exactly sai were used in combat, but most sources agree that they were used primarily as blunt weapons. However, the weapon IS fit to deal piercing damage. Some say that since the weapon is round, the sai would be harder to pull out of the wound than a flat blade.
There are some period images showing warriors with three sai (one in the belt) suggesting that sai could be sometimes used for piercing dealing significant damage, left in the wound and replaced with the spare one.
Again, much speculation, but sai are (historically) bludgeoning weapons.
'findel
even though a sai is a blunted weapon, I think it would have been better described as piercing in that it is a weapon focusing power on a very small area. I dont see a sai shattering a skeletons bones much better than a dagger does.
btw Laurindel still playing Arelith ?
Oy. You have your answer. Sais are not traditionally sharp/pointed weapons.
If you want to have sharpened sais, feel free to ask your DM to houserule it.
since when are they not traditionally pointed? I don't mean to be petty I was simply attempting to go with historical accuracy (albeit in a world containing people who spontaneously generate fire from their fingers, and giant reptiles that horde riches). out of curiosity what definitions are we using for damage type? how is piercing damage determined? how is bludgeoning or slashing? Perhaps we could understand one another if we are on a common ground
Gamewise, Sai's do 1d4 to make up for their high versatility (throwable, *great* at disarming).
Also, fist/unarmed strike does 1d3 (non-monk of course).
Gamewise, Sai's do 1d4 to make up for their high versatility (throwable, *great* at disarming).
Also, fist/unarmed strike does 1d3 (non-monk of course).
I suppose that is understandable, is it really 1d3? I had no idea.
Sai are related in function to the jitte, an iron truncheon and sword-catcher/sword-breaker. A sai is meant to catch the opponent's weapon, twist so that you have control of that end, then step in and smash them in the temple with the pommel of your other sai.
The sai my old sensei used were hexagonal in cross-section, but the tip was more blunt than sharp - the flatness of the top would make it useless for stabbing. You can jab with the tip of a sai - half of the techniques do just that - but it is not designed to penetrate flesh, it's like jabbing with a metal finger.
There should be little mystery about how the sai was used; it's still an integral part of several Okinawan martial arts. It's part of the large family of weapons known as 'kobudo'.
The problem with Sai as a penetrating weapon is that they would very easily get stuck in a wound, thus depriving you of a weapon.
hence two, I would think that the prongs would keep it from plunging too deep to a degree anyway. Useless is a strong word. Though blunt that's still a narrow tip that when enough force is applied (and skilled users would be able to apply such force)it could surely pierce flesh (heck my lack of any formal training was able to drive one about an inch into wood). Bludgeoning just doesn't seem appropriate for the Sai. Sai use a thrusting motion with a narrow point much more like a rapier than say a club. I think the issue is that blunt is automatically considered equal to bludgeoning by the masses.
If ya don't like it simply change it. Seems to me they were meant for precision bludgeon damage, hit the joints, kidney, base of the spine. Bloodless more or less and lethal
|
As the lucky man I am, my partner has a 1st dan black belt on kobudo, and she has her pair of sais at home. I've seen some of her katas with sais and they mostly imply using the pommel as an extension for the punch (grabbing the sai with the fingers between the prongs, with the index finger along the pommel, it's hard to explain with words...), as well as rotating it on your hand as you bring the hand down or from a side, adding the momentum of the rotation to the downward motion. Forward stabbing movements are very scarcely used.
Just browse youtube for some examples:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Rdn0f8x5Lw
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zOChC4fLbTg&NR=1&feature=fvwp
Definitely, altough a sai could be used to deal somewhat piercing damage (as a dagger or a rapier could do slashing), it's generally a bludgeoning weapon.
|
Just my two CP, but to me it seems that IF the sai were to be given a change, I'd suggest offering the option of +1 AC. One function of the sai being held pommel out was that the "blade" would extend down the forearm in much the same style as a buckler.
I can see the sharp tip logic, but by the same hand, the traditonal rapier was often razor sharp down the sides and was used with a main-gauche. The estoc and epee were the edgeless piercing blades. Yet, for the sake of rules, the rapier is only a piercing weapon.
As said before though, it is your game, and if you deem fit to allow the sai as piercing, by all means, do so.
Thanks for the input everyone, seems like if we were to make weapons more accurate to real life examples we will be opening quite a big can of worms. I didn't realize they had balanced the weapons against one another. I'm wondering what the function of the tip was if it was scarcely used, seems unnecessarily long if it was mostly just used for blade catching, but hey I've never used one in combat lol. And Midknight I know exactly what you are trying to explain by the reverse grip lol I suppose if held like that it wouldn't be unreasonable as a bludgeoning weapon or giving an AC bonus the only issue would be that doesn't a buckler give +1 AC? I can't really see a sai giving the same amount of defense. I understand that mechanically it isn't necessarily feasible for weapons to do every form of damage they are capable of ( why a long sword can't stab is beyond me but falls under the same issue. It's just interesting when you are in a situation say where you are wielding sais (sai? what is the proper plural?) alone and you come across some baddy that laughs away your bludgeoning attempts and though you have a completely viable form of delivering a different type of damage (slashing with rapiers, stabbing with longswords, etc.) it isn't really available, maybe a rule to use a weapon differently at some hit or damage cost?
It's just interesting when you are in a situation say where you are wielding sais (sai? what is the proper plural?) alone and you come across some baddy that laughs away your bludgeoning attempts and though you have a completely viable form of delivering a different type of damage (slashing with rapiers, stabbing with longswords, etc.) it isn't really available, maybe a rule to use a weapon differently at some hit or damage cost?
I've actually thought about this some recently. Specifically with swords and weapons taht have multiple ways of beign used in real life but have been reduced in the game for balance reasons.
My thought is that i may start letting players use these secondary damage types at a -2 penalty to attack. I want to leave the fact that they are (mechanically) supposed to be used one way, but leave it open to the fact that a longsword could be used to stab - just with a small penalty to the attack roll.
I'm gonna try it out, anyway.
If sai (plural zai apparently) were meant to be used as piercing weapons, they would probably be made with points. They aren't. They are made with duller points than knitting needles. They are referred to as striking weapons, not stabbing weapons, when spoken of. Zai are categorized as truncheons, not piercers. For all these reasons, they are used as bludgeoning weapons. Heck, you yourself say that your ShoDan partner uses them AS BLUDGEONING WEAPONS.
If a person who was been trained in using the weapons uses them as bludgeoning weapons, I don't see why it's wrong for them to do bludgeoning damage, except that you don't like it.
Stabbing weapon = sharp point. Nuff said.
|
I'll go one further: piercing weapons do their damage by penetrating the flesh deeply enough to cause bleeding trauma to vital organs. Bludgeoning weapons do their damage by breaking bones and bruising, or massive shock. Slashing weapons do their damage by cutting flesh and causing blood loss.
You might be able to poke a blunt-tipped sai into a watermellon, but as a weapon, it does not rely on puncturing lungs/kidneys/spleens/duodenums etc etc to put the hurt on a foe. It relies on cracking bones and nerve strikes.
I'll go one further: piercing weapons do their damage by penetrating the flesh deeply enough to cause bleeding trauma to vital organs. Bludgeoning weapons do their damage by breaking bones and bruising, or massive shock. Slashing weapons do their damage by cutting flesh and causing blood loss.
You might be able to poke a blunt-tipped sai into a watermellon, but as a weapon, it does not rely on puncturing lungs/kidneys/spleens/duodenums etc etc to put the hurt on a foe. It relies on cracking bones and nerve strikes.
While these weapons are generally made to combat humans, in a fantasy game that is more often than not the case, especially in cases where the damage type actually comes into play.
The D&D rules are not nearly extensive enough to deal with all possible instances, I suppose you should look at creatures that actually would be affected by the weapons to make a decent call, can't think of too many from the top of my head.. skeletons, zombies, treants, some animated objects..
|
|
While these weapons are generally made to combat humans, in a fantasy game that is more often than not the case, especially in cases where the damage type actually comes into play.
The D&D rules are not nearly extensive enough to deal with all possible instances, I suppose you should look at creatures that actually would be affected by the weapons to make a decent call, can't think of too many from the top of my head.. skeletons, zombies, treants, some animated objects..
Skeletons have DR/bludgeoning
Zombies have DR/slashingTreants have DR/slashing
Animated Objects have hardness and construct immunities
All of the individual monsters that need special consideration regarding how types of weapons affect them have that consideration built into their entries already. The default assumption for how weapons work is against flesh-and-blood foes, exceptions are dealt with in the exception's entry.
|
|
On the Sai being blunt argument, by the same logic, a full metal jacketed bullet from a 44 handgun would be a blunt weapon. I think the damage types are more "how" it does the damage. Piercing weapons are thrust straight towards, slashing ...well slash, and blunt are a larger sized surface area crush.
I can't see a Sai doing full damage to a skeleton because its such a small surface area hitting something with large gaps. It may be not sharpened, but it is still a small surface area "piercing" something
On the Sai being blunt argument, by the same logic, a full metal jacketed bullet from a 44 handgun would be a blunt weapon.
No. Bullets are designed and used to pierce flesh. That makes them piercing weapons.
Sais are not designed or used to pierce flesh (although it may theoretically be possible to pierce flesh with one, given sufficiently overwhelming force). That makes them not-piercing weapons.
|
I use the idea that the damage types listed is that weapons primary damage type but I also allow weapons to have secondary damage types and sometimes even a third damage type but the secondary and third ones have negatives to attack rolls.
For instance-
**Longsword- primary is slashing, secondary is piercing at a -2 to attack rolls, and thirdly is bludgeoning (pommel hit) at a -4 to attack rolls.
**Sai- primary is bludgeoning, secondary is piercing at a -2 to attack, no third damage type...I trained with sais and I'm happy with this setup.
**Shortsword- primary is piercing, secondary is slashing -2, 3rd is bludgeoning -4.
ETC, using DM's discretion to determine possible alternate damage types.
It works for me.
|
|
I can't see a Sai doing full damage to a skeleton because its such a small surface area hitting something with large gaps. It may be not sharpened, but it is still a small surface area "piercing" something
You don't only poke with a sai, you swing in a slashing motion also, but mostly you don't use the tines to hit with. You mostly use them to catch weapons and disarm or for arm/leg entrapments. The bludgeoning comes from the 'pommel' of the weapon as an extension of your fist mostly, not usually from the semi-pointy end as an extension of a thrust.
First off I'm not certain if this is in the right place and if not I apologize. I was just curious what seems to be going on with the sais. Now I realize they haven't changed since 3.5 (at least, I've only played 3.5) but their damage type and amount confuse me. Why doesn't the business end of a Sai do piercing? I understand that the blunt "pommel" end could do bludgeoning but the tip as well? Another issue I have is why do they do a measly 1d4, the same amount as a fist,(lethal granted but still). Another thing I noticed was that the Nunchuku deal 1d6, surely sai's would deal equal, if not more damage. I'm just curious why a level one monk deals more damage with his fists than with a pair of Sais. I realize that nunchuku came in a variety of materials and that a metal set with momentum can be quite lethal but I just can't see them out damaging a pair of Sais especially against an armored opponent.
I'm more curious (and perplexed) than anything, I appreciate your opinions on the matter.
I think the true answer is for game balance. I also have a pair of sai's and though not bladed they do come to a point which would easily pierce a man. They should also have a throwing range for realisticness. One reason is they are metal, it is silly but you can't make an adamantine staff through core rules or nunchaku, but you could a sai. The reason they do less damage than nunchaku is because they give a +2 bonus to sundering. This make the sai not "a better choice" than the nunchaku from a purely mechanical standpoint. You can do a little more damage on average, or you can get a +2 to sunder.
I could actually like it, though I am not sure how to handle specific weapon feats with them, or magic bonus for that matter.
would a longsword used for piercing retain it's magic bonus ? how about bludgeoning attacks ?
yeah it seems my question about the damage discrepancy was answered ( I honestly had no idea weapons were balanced against one another but in hindsight it would make sense to avoid the team of scythe users or the spiked chain group) I think now the issue being debated is which side of the Sai is used primarily the tapered point or the "knuckle" as it is apparently called. If we are assuming that the knuckle is the primary source of damage than I understand why these are a bludgeoning weapon but if it is the tapered point i'm sorry sharpened or not that is a narrow enough point that I would have to consider it piercing. If used optimally the point would be thrusted, bludgeoning leaves bruises or fractures, slashing leaves gashes (or severed limbs if enough force is applied) while piercing uses focused pressure to produce trauma. that seems to fit best for the sai tip in my opinion.
My recommendation is not to propose rules changes until you actually have a grasp of the rules.
It will just confuse people.
|
|
I could actually like it, though I am not sure how to handle specific weapon feats with them, or magic bonus for that matter.
would a longsword used for piercing retain it's magic bonus ? how about bludgeoning attacks ?
It's easier, in my houserules, to just allow the magic bonus to apply to all attacks with a weapon.
I use the -2, -4 numbers because they are easy to use and all that but if that seems to be too little then feel free to up the amounts per your own personal style. I haven't seen much of a problem with this ideal and I feel it adds some realistic elements and also utility. I see less people carrying 3 different weapons just for DR too which is a bonus IMO.|
|
Just wanted to clarify that sai do not qualify as ranged weapons RAW since they do not have a range increment used. Although I have read a few books that involved characters who occasionally threw them. I don't really see why they couldn't have a range similar to a dagger.
As to their method of use, it seems like they are used in a way similar to a baton, either in a punching motion using the knuckle, or in a slashing motion to hit weakpoints of limbs and other targets. Hence the bludgeoning damage type. In addition as was already mentioned they were used for disarming your opponent or perhaps twisting and snapping their blade.
We should also note that a large majority of martial arts style weapons were meant to double as tools, as most were not allowed to carry weapons. The sai evolved from the jitte as someone else mentioned, which if I remember correctly what I learned in history class was developed from a tool used in conjunction with a millstone used to make flour.
In my 3.5 PH, the Sai does, in fact, have a 10' range increment.
In PF Core, it does not.
Heck, you yourself say that your ShoDan partner uses them AS BLUDGEONING WEAPONS.
I thought the same thing. Look at names not avatars. The partner thing wasn't the OP's post.
Yar!
Page 141 states that any weapon can be thrown, but if it does not havea range increment, it takes a -4 penalty to the attack and has a range increment of 10.
Also, I would like to note that the "sunder" in the sai description is a typo. In both the chart and in the last sentence of the description, it is "disarm". Which also makes sense, as zai are used to catch and twist weapons out of peoples hands, not break them. So yeah, zai disarm, not sunder.
|
|
Yar!
Page 141 states that any weapon can be thrown, but if it does not havea range increment, it takes a -4 penalty to the attack and has a range increment of 10.
Also, I would like to note that the "sunder" in the sai description is a typo. In both the chart and in the last sentence of the description, it is "disarm". Which also makes sense, as zai are used to catch and twist weapons out of peoples hands, not break them. So yeah, zai disarm, not sunder.
You're probably right about sunder being a typo, we'll have to wait and see whether they fix it in the newest errata when it comes out if it hasn't already.
The sunder *might* be for snapping things using the sai for leverage (getting something inbetween the tines and twisting it till it breaks).
Just a thought, since there are swordbreaker type weapons that are somewhat similar in design.
Aarrr.
Either way, there is a typo regarding the sai. Either the "sunder" in the table and in the description need to be changed to disarm, or the "disarm" in the description needs to be changed to sunder, or sunder needs to be added to the table so that it can do both, and the description re-written to say that it can be used for both.
I think it's the first one.
^_^
I thought the same thing. Look at names not avatars. The partner thing wasn't the OP's post.Heck, you yourself say that your ShoDan partner uses them AS BLUDGEONING WEAPONS.
Yeah I was a little confused when I realized that post was "meant" for me. Guys I'm up for a friendly debate and all, over a game that interests us all (and we all hope to help improve or at least maintain). Perhaps my first post was misconstrued as angry or whiney or misinformed or what have you, but there have kinda been some rude comments, I'd appreciate if we could just keep this lighthearted, I could just be misreading some posts due to the internet's lack of tone, but if it bugs you that much just don't read this thread. Yes I am new to PnP (I started a year ago) yes I'm even newer to Pathfinder, but that doesn't mean I'm some fellow who thought the red turtle guy (Raphael) had neato knife thingies and that the guys at WoTC and now Paizo were wrong, I just thought perhaps something like that was overlooked, after all they have to edit or invent an entire universe (sometimes even multiverse). I appreciate everyone chipping in their 2 cps as it can be quite informing.
Interestingly though If someone were to post that you primarily use the side prongs on the weapon to slash people then I think we would have every conceivable way the weapon could be used mentioned here :P. It's not a matter my "disliking" the bludgeoning bit I just thought perhaps it would be more accurately named a piercing tip (if that is the piece most often used) If it is a large amount of force spread over a small surface its purpose is to penetrate sharp or not. I don't really think a sai could break a weapon like a longsword, more often than not it would probably bend (mythbusters anyone?) I suppose that could be considered broken though as it would severely effect the weapons usefulness.
|
|
Longswords have a hardness of ten and five hit points. Any front-line warrior with the Improved Sunder feat can snap an enemies longsword in half fairly easily.
Think of it this way: Sais are used in pairs, traditionally. So hook the bottom part of the blade with one, the top part of the blade with the other, and do a body twist. Also, don't just bend along the flat of the blade - that's no more effective than trying to twist a man's arm by bending it along the elbow. You've got the enemy's weapon trapped, so you can afford a little vulnerability.
On topic:
Sais deal Bludgeoning damage because most Sais are blunt, because most Sais have always been blunt, and because most fighting styles using Sais attack with them as blunt weapons.
Most importantly, Sais are blunt because, most of the time, using it to deal bludgeoning damage is the most effective way to injure someone.
A sai can stab someone, but it is harder to do than with a dagger. Daggers can move around inside someone fairly easily, while stabbing with a sai is like stabbing with a crossbow bolt - the stab goes straight in, can't twist to mess with the wound, and harder to maneuver without cutting edge. It is a possible but less effective way of harming someone - like slashing with a dagger or stabbing with a longsword.
The game does not and cannot take every single possible weapon variant used in every single possible fighting style into account - that is actually scientifically impossible. The game makes assumptions. In pathfinder, the default "Sai" is blunt because using a Sai as a blunt weapon is, in general, the most effective way to injure someone with the weapon.
Icarus:
If I seemed dismissive, my point is this... I have seen countless posts by folks new to the game, who immediately sit down and start trying to change all the rules. And then are surprised to find out how the rules actually work.
For example, you had no idea how weapons were designed and balanced in D&D. That's fine, it's no crime to be new.
But reconsider making changes until you REALLY know the system, or you're going to frustrate yourself and others.
A sai can stab someone, but it is harder to do than with a dagger. Daggers can move around inside someone fairly easily, while stabbing with a sai is like stabbing with a crossbow bolt - the stab goes straight in, can't twist to mess with the wound, and harder to maneuver without cutting edge. It is a possible but less effective way of harming someone - like slashing with a dagger or stabbing with a longsword.The game does not and cannot take every single possible weapon variant used in every single possible fighting style into account - that is actually scientifically impossible. The game makes assumptions. In pathfinder, the default "Sai" is blunt because using a Sai as a blunt weapon is, in general, the most effective way to injure someone with the weapon.
Yes, we have to trust the game and its abstractions to a certain extent.
I've received puncture wounds from things that weren't that pointy. Heck, they weren't even weapon! But in the frame of the game, I thinks its fair to assume that weapons are use primarily as the type of weapon indicated, even if they can do otherwise. I don't think anybody would have an issue with a short sword being capable of slashing something, yet that's not how the game portrays their use in combat.
In my games, I tend to rule that weapons not used as intended become effectively improvised weapons, which the game already has rule for (and even feats to use appropriately).
'findel
Yes, we have to trust the game and its abstractions to a certain extent.
I've received puncture wounds from things that weren't that pointy. Heck, they weren't even weapon! But in the frame of the game, I thinks its fair to assume that weapons are use primarily as the type of weapon indicated, even if they can do otherwise. I don't think anybody would have an issue with a short sword being capable of slashing something, yet that's not how the game portrays their use in combat.
In my games, I tend to rule that weapons not used as intended become effectively improvised weapons, which the game already has rule for (and even feats to use appropriately).
'findel
The archetypical short swords would be weapons such as the baselard, gladius, and cinquedea, all of which, while capable of slashing, were primarily used as thrusting weapons. So that is fitting.
The archetypical short swords would be weapons such as the baselard, gladius, and cinquedea, all of which, while capable of slashing, were primarily used as thrusting weapons. So that is fitting.
Yes, we have to trust the game and its abstractions to a certain extent.
I've received puncture wounds from things that weren't that pointy. Heck, they weren't even weapon! But in the frame of the game, I thinks its fair to assume that weapons are use primarily as the type of weapon indicated, even if they can do otherwise. I don't think anybody would have an issue with a short sword being capable of slashing something, yet that's not how the game portrays their use in combat.
In my games, I tend to rule that weapons not used as intended become effectively improvised weapons, which the game already has rule for (and even feats to use appropriately).
'findel
Oh, absolutely. I never argue its wasn't fitting. Only, as you said, the short sword is an edged weapon that can cut even if its not used as a slashing weapon. I was only making a parallel between that and the sai that can puncture although its not how its intended to be used in combat.
Heck, you can run someone through with a 2x4, if you use enough force.
Heck, you can run someone through with a 2x4, if you use enough force.
When building sets for the theatre, I always appreciate the irony of having to be careful with my hammer not to puncture the set...