For anyone claiming japanese swords can do insane things, like this joker
Vuron dishing up some delicious copypasta.
Seriously this is the thread that just keeps on giving. It's like I'm reading a weaboo vs. westaboo thread on /tg/
:D
There's no queen of America!
I don't wish to give offense when I observe that what this country needs is to elect a king... or even a queen!
lots of pwnage
+1 though it is my understanding that a good cut is a hybrid of both a slice and a chop :D
Ninjas historically used katanas, as can be seen in various woodblock prints of famous ninja stories or the conquering of the Iga and Koga regions by Oda Nobunaga (where Nobunaga got so sick of ninjas that he invaded there home provinces and burnt every village he came across).
They certainly used short swords like wakazashi, which may be the source of the whole ninja-to trope. Ninja-to are not found in any period documents or even any ninja manuals of display in museums. It is thought by some to be the product of a tactic in which a ninja would attach a the shorter wakazashi blade to katana handle and scabbard in order to fool an opponent in a one-on-one battle. The shorter blade would be able to clear the scabbard slightly faster, and thus take the opponent by surprise.
Now would a ninja wear both on his person normally while walking around buying groceries or drinking sake at the local bar? Not unless he was posing as a samurai with a good cover story. Other samurai are going to want to know who you serve and what your business is, so it could draw unwanted attention.
I feel Lythe dished up a missed Sense Motive check to spot the oft repeated sarcastic 'generic katana fanboy' post of Vuron.
I don't think there are any katana fanboys into PF, or if they are, I don't think they are as vocal as they might be at an anime convention. I feel they've become the strawman in this argument by their absence alone.
I've seen two valid positions advanced. One, leave them as bastard and short sword.
Two, as curved weapons, allow them to be 18-20/x2 critical weapons. I'll point out that this should leave the washizaki martial (a rapier is already d6, 18-20/x2 crit that is finessable) and only the katana exotic.
I prefer the second.
Martial One Handed
Washizaki 1d6 18-20/x2 Finessable, slashing or piercing
Exotic One Handed
Katana 1d8 18-20/x2 Finessable/usable two handed with martial prof, slashing
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
Martial One Handed
Washizaki 1d6 18-20/x2 Finessable, slashing or piercingExotic One Handed
Katana 1d8 18-20/x2 Finessable/usable two handed with martial prof, slashing
Only problem with your Wakazashi is that it's better than a scimitar.
If I may suggest...
Wakazashi, Martial treat as a scimitar, EWP allows it to be finessable.
Katana, 1d8 18-20/x2, two handed martial, finessable one handed exotic.
This makes it better than a bastard sword, slightly.
Only problem with your Wakazashi is that it's better than a scimitar.Martial One Handed
Washizaki 1d6 18-20/x2 Finessable, slashing or piercingExotic One Handed
Katana 1d8 18-20/x2 Finessable/usable two handed with martial prof, slashing
Do you feel that a rapier is better than a scimitar?
Ninjas historically used katanas, as can be seen in various woodblock prints of famous ninja stories or the conquering of the Iga and Koga regions by Oda Nobunaga (where Nobunaga got so sick of ninjas that he invaded there home provinces and burnt every village he came across).
They certainly used short swords like wakazashi, which may be the source of the whole ninja-to trope. Ninja-to are not found in any period documents or even any ninja manuals of display in museums. It is thought by some to be the product of a tactic in which a ninja would attach a the shorter wakazashi blade to katana handle and scabbard in order to fool an opponent in a one-on-one battle. The shorter blade would be able to clear the scabbard slightly faster, and thus take the opponent by surprise.
Now would a ninja wear both on his person normally while walking around buying groceries or drinking sake at the local bar? Not unless he was posing as a samurai with a good cover story. Other samurai are going to want to know who you serve and what your business is, so it could draw unwanted attention.
The simple truth here, is that Ninja were Samurai.
I know this idea doesn't fit everyone's mold (what does?), but Samurai is a caste, the retainers who served the noble class. Just not all samurai were honor based katana and bowmen serving as the military.
Ninja were samurai caste members whose training fit more the special operations arm of the Japanese military.
If a noble lord wanted direct military action with an opponent, then he called upon the army to get involved which fall under the typical samurai. If however, he wanted a more covert approach he contacted the covert ops warriors of the samurai caste, whom are Ninja.
The ninja of Iga and Soga province were samurai houses - this is fact.
Ninjas historically used katanas, as can be seen in various woodblock prints of famous ninja stories or the conquering of the Iga and Koga regions by Oda Nobunaga (where Nobunaga got so sick of ninjas that he invaded there home provinces and burnt every village he came across).
They certainly used short swords like wakazashi, which may be the source of the whole ninja-to trope. Ninja-to are not found in any period documents or even any ninja manuals of display in museums. It is thought by some to be the product of a tactic in which a ninja would attach a the shorter wakazashi blade to katana handle and scabbard in order to fool an opponent in a one-on-one battle. The shorter blade would be able to clear the scabbard slightly faster, and thus take the opponent by surprise.
Now would a ninja wear both on his person normally while walking around buying groceries or drinking sake at the local bar? Not unless he was posing as a samurai with a good cover story. Other samurai are going to want to know who you serve and what your business is, so it could draw unwanted attention.
The simple truth here, is that Ninja were Samurai.
I know this idea doesn't fit everyone's mold (what does?), but Samurai is a caste, the retainers who served the noble class. Just not all samurai were honor based katana and bowmen serving as the military.
Ninja were samurai caste members whose training fit more the special operations arm of the Japanese military.
If a noble lord wanted direct military action with an opponent, then he called upon the army to get involved which fall under the typical samurai. If however, he wanted a more covert approach he contacted the covert ops warriors of the samurai caste, whom are Ninja.
The ninja of Iga province were samurai houses - this is fact.
Well there are vassals and there are vassals who short swords stashed in there belts sending the message that they are so deadly serious that they will commit suicide if their superior or the situation demands it.
I have no doubt that there were samurai who were ninja but then it depends on which historical period you are talking about. I am not extremely well versed in japanese history, but couldn't it be said that ninja had their heyday before samurai became a stratified noble class? or at least perhaps before impersonating a Samurai was a capitol offense?
The modern idea of Samurai is based on Tokugawa Era - 1600 to 1868. The modern samurai followed the Code of Bushido. Before the Tokugawa Era, Bushido fell under House Codes, there were several samurai houses in an effort to control their samurai retainer imposed codes of honor, laws specific to that house. However, Bushido was not universally practiced.
The extremely stratified social castes were formally imposed during the Tokugawa Era, however it did exist, if more loosely before this time. The samurai of the feudal period were an established caste of servants who directly served the noble houses throughout the entire history before the Tokugawa Era.
Not always the case though. Toyotomi Hideyoshi was a general under Nobunaga, as was Tokugawa Ieyasu. When Nobunaga died, there was an attempt by the variuos generals to take his place. Toyotomi Hideyoshi was in fact of common birth, his father was a farmer. As a child, Hideyoshi became a servant in house Oda (Nobunaga's house), as a trusted servant Hideyoshi rose in the ranks.
The final battle of the Sengoku Period was at Sekigahara between the forces of Tokugawa and the forces of Toyotomi. Hideyoshi lost that war, and Tokugawa became Shogun. Thus ended the Sengoku Period.
When Tokugawa Ieyasu took control of Japan and was named Shogun, he imposed Bushido to all samurai, but then he was the Generalismo and could make such demands. During the Tokugawa Era which was an age of peace that lasted for 250 years, there were no wars in Japan. There were skirmishes now and again, but mostly disgruntled sohei and other religious factions, not so much noble house vs. noble house.
The Sengoku Period (century of war) occurred just prior to the Tokugawa Era and was the impetus to establish a new order of things. It was during this time that Ninja really came into their own. Ieyasu himself hired ninja to perform various tasks of covert operations for specific military goals. Ninja did exist before this time, but were never as prolific until the Sengoku Period.
Since the Tokugawa Era was an age of peace, neither an extensive army of soldiers nor covert operators were necessary. Samurai became a managerial class, still serving the nobility, but not so much as the military. The shogun did maintain an army, but much smaller than was needed in previous eras. Ninja kind of fell out of favor at this time.
The Era of Japan that best fits the feudal Samurai as warriors and Ninja as covert operators was during the early feudal period from 1185 - 1600. My Kaidan: a Japanese Ghost Story, while not Japan, most closely fits with Japan of this earlier period.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
Do you feel that a rapier is better than a scimitar?Only problem with your Wakazashi is that it's better than a scimitar.Martial One Handed
Washizaki 1d6 18-20/x2 Finessable, slashing or piercingExotic One Handed
Katana 1d8 18-20/x2 Finessable/usable two handed with martial prof, slashing
Nope, you can't two hand a rapier. That balances the inability of the scimitar to finesse.
|
Ninja can and did use Kantana's as well as Ninja-to's. Ninja did not carry the Diasho in hisorical japan as that would have been a capital offense and any Samurai could have offed them on the spot.
If you want to allow Nija to be allowed to carry the Diasho in your fanstay word that is up to each GM on what the laws and social sytem that is the law of his land.
wakizashi's were only used by Samurai as a badge of office unless they practiced the Niten school of kenjitsu. The other use for the wakizashi was for commiting Seppulu when one failed ones lord.
Ninja can and did use Kantana's as well as Ninja-to's. Ninja did not carry the Diasho in hisorical japan as that would have been a capital offense and any Samurai could have offed them on the spot.
If you want to allow Nija to be allowed to carry the Diasho in your fanstay word that is up to each GM on what the laws and social sytem that is the law of his land.
wakizashi's were only used by Samurai as a badge of office unless they practiced the Niten school of kenjitsu. The other use for the wakizashi was for commiting Seppulu when one failed ones lord.
ive said this a couple times already, a ninja was already an outlaw assassin, and it was illegal to just be a ninja, they didnt need carrying katana or daisho to have samurai or law officials order their death or kill them on the spot.
There is also quite a bit of educated speculization that ninja and samurai were often the same people, leading double lives. in which case they would have actual daisho, although carrying such recognizable weapons would have been like dropping a calling card saying (hello, if you would like to catch and behead me, here is my address, telephone number and email addy)
so they probably left them at home andd carried more discrete weaponry while on the prowl.
|
There is also quite a bit of educated speculization that ninja and samurai were often the same people, leading double lives. in which case they would have actual daisho, although carrying such recognizable weapons would have been like dropping a calling card saying (hello, if you would like to catch and behead me, here is my address, telephone number and email addy)
so they probably left them at home andd carried more discrete weaponry while on the prowl.
Think of your argument, if they're the same person, then they can also be proficient with the katana and such. Of course they'd leave it at home when on the prowl as a ninja, but when on official daytime duty as a samurai (not just class, but as a social mark), they can be wearing the weapons proudly as a mark of their station. So unlike their compatriots who are more martial, the ninja in question being also a servant of the daisho will get into their other gear later on after the ceremony/guard duty/etc is over. Still, as a member of the daisho's retinue, officially they'd be proficient with the weapon.
My take on it on your other argument, so they're illegal to be a ninja, right. So a ninja can't learn how to use the main weapon used by the samurai? Oh heck yeah, they'll be learning how to use it in the case they end up with one of the samurai's weapon, use their own weapons against them. Similar to say, special forces are taught familiarity with the Opposing Force weapons in the case they may have to use it.
|
|
Interestingly:
Feudal japan, Fuedal Europe and India all created 'caste' systems separately from each other.
Specifically here we are discussing the "warrior" caste/class.
For Europe it was the "Knight"
For India it was the "Sikh"
For Japan it was the "Samurai"
Europe and Japan had a feature to their system, however than India did not, that being that, the higher levels of caste/class enjoyed the "privilages" of the warrior class.
example: Shogun and Daimyo. both not samurai. But were also allowed to carry/display/use the katanna and/or wakizashi, as weapons of honor, but were most often not nearly as skilled in their use.
This was mirrored in europe as the armored mounted knight was the pinnacle of military training, however earls, duke, princes and kings who MAY also have been knights (but not necessarily) were also allowed to wear the armor and act as If they were knights.
Europe has many of these "toy soldiers", Japan did as well. So the katana was not only restricted to samurai but their cultural superiors as well (even though they may not have been their martial equal)
The Sikh However, was/is a sort of secret society, and their weapons and skills were not spread among the higher castes.
True that a samurai could aspire to become shogun or Daimyo, and it did happen, just like a knight could become and earl, count, duke or prince. But niether noble title in either culture required you to be a samurai or knight first, as it was often an inherited title (but sometimes appointed)
The sikh are NOT indian knights, they are a religious group with a strong martial tradition born of a hard beginning. Not knights and NOT a "secret society"
Think of your argument, if they're the same person, then they can also be proficient with the katana and such.
There is also quite a bit of educated speculization that ninja and samurai were often the same people, leading double lives. in which case they would have actual daisho, although carrying such recognizable weapons would have been like dropping a calling card...
This sort of case I would really want to model with a Samurai/Ninja multiclass, in which case Ninja proficiency isn´t an issue since they gain Samurai proficiency. If there´s some wierd sect of Ninjas who fight with Katanas without having anything to do with Samurai... they can either grab the Feat for proficiency (plenty of specialist PrCs associated with Assassin Sects have skill or feat pre-reqs), or there can be a ninja class variant dealing with that issue by giving up something else. /my2c
Ninja can and did use Kantana's as well as Ninja-to's. Ninja did not carry the Diasho in hisorical japan as that would have been a capital offense and any Samurai could have offed them on the spot.
If you want to allow Nija to be allowed to carry the Diasho in your fanstay word that is up to each GM on what the laws and social sytem that is the law of his land.
wakizashi's were only used by Samurai as a badge of office unless they practiced the Niten school of kenjitsu. The other use for the wakizashi was for commiting Seppulu when one failed ones lord.
Emphasis mine, I'll say it again. Ninja were Samurai. All ninja houses were samurai houses in historic Japan. They would not be impersonating a Samurai, as they were in fact Samurai.
The famous Iga and Soga ninja houses were samurai houses, and as such could openly wear the Daisho, when not on uncover missions - pretending not to be samurai, but some other thing for a disguise.
Samurai-Archives.com is probably the best online source for historic information regarding Samurai. My information is actually older than this site, but this fact is confirmed here.
Here posted by the Forum Admin:
Samurai Misconceptions
The sikh are NOT indian knights, they are a religious group with a strong martial tradition born of a hard beginning. Not knights and NOT a "secret society"Specifically here we are discussing the "warrior" caste/class.
For Europe it was the "Knight"
For India it was the "Sikh"
For Japan it was the "Samurai"
+1
Especially Sikhs cannot be seen as the ´warrior caste´ of an Indian caste system, since there is an ACTUAL Hindu Warrior Caste ¨Kshatriya¨. Sikhs actually came into conflict with the Muslim rulers of India who favored the Hindu Caste system (which Sikhs opposed).Of course, some Sikh individuals (or families) are going to comprise ´the warrior caste´ (professional or renowned warriors), but that is the case with any society with professional or renowned warriors. All Sikhs do not comprise this class, however (even to the extent of the Kshatriya Hindu caste). I think to a large extent the source of this was the British´s racist/ethnicist policies in running their colonial armies (valorizing Sikhs vs. Tamils for example), which carried over to a strong tradition of Sikhs in India´s army which continued many British practices (besides personnel continuity).
|
|
The sikh are NOT indian knights, they are a religious group with a strong martial tradition born of a hard beginning. Not knights and NOT a "secret society"Specifically here we are discussing the "warrior" caste/class.
For Europe it was the "Knight"
For India it was the "Sikh"
For Japan it was the "Samurai"+1
Especially Sikhs cannot be seen as the ´warrior caste´ of an Indian caste system, since there is an ACTUAL Hindu Warrior Caste ¨Kshatriya¨. Sikhs actually came into conflict with the Muslim rulers of India who favored the Hindu Caste system (which Sikhs opposed).Of course, some Sikh individuals (or families) are going to comprise ´the warrior caste´ (professional or renowned warriors), but that is the case with any society with professional or renowned warriors. All Sikhs do not comprise this class, however (even to the extent of the Kshatriya Hindu caste). I think to a large extent the source of this was the British´s racist/ethnicist policies in running their colonial armies (valorizing Sikhs vs. Tamils for example), which carried over to a strong tradition of Sikhs in India´s army which continued many British practices (besides personnel continuity).
So much this. My brother in law is half indian, half irish, and the indian heritage on his father's side is Sikh. Definitely NOT indian knights, please read up about them. The Sikh culture is a rich religious/cultural group in the Indian subcontinent. Another good example of the British' policies of instituting 'martial races' are the gurkhas from Nepal. To this day, there are a standing regiment in the British military (it used to be many times more than that), the Indian army also field several of them.
You guys are ruining the thread with your "logic" and your "facts." I demand more speculation and outright falsehoods!
+1
Then you probably won't want to play in my up-coming Kaidan: a Japanese Ghost Story setting - first adventure due out some time next month. It is fully compatible with Pathfinder RPG and requires both the Core and the APG.
It is a Japan-inspired horror setting, not Japan, but a fantasy archipelago of islands very similar to Japan. While a greater emphasis is on Japanese monsters, ghosts, kami spirits and a cursed reincarnation cycle emulating the Buddhist Hells, it relies much more on historic accuracy versus 'not so much'. I am half-Japanese and have been consistently disappointed with the various Oriental Adventures and L5R over the years through lack of accuracy.
While more accurate, it should be a very fun setting and set of adventures.
GP
Martial One Handed
Washizaki 1d6 18-20/x2 Finessable, slashing or piercingExotic One Handed
Katana 1d8 18-20/x2 Finessable/usable two handed with martial prof, slashing
Only problem with your Wakazashi is that it's better than a scimitar.
If I may suggest...
Wakazashi, Martial treat as a scimitar, EWP allows it to be finessable.Katana, 1d8 18-20/x2, two handed martial, finessable one handed exotic.
This makes it better than a bastard sword, slightly.
The few times players in my campaigns come across Samurai, a Katana is basically the same as a Bastard Sword in terms of rules, but deals 1d8 18-20/x2, much like your own variant.
Wakazashi basically functions like a Dog-Slicer, sans the breaking rule.
Love the concept of the Katana thanks to the movies, but ultimately the sheer fanboi responses that clog the Internet inspire loathing in people who must deal with endless succession of 'omg Katana needs better stats' arguments. As things stand, the Katana is well represented by the rules.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
The few times players in my campaigns come across Samurai, a Katana is basically the same as a Bastard Sword in terms of rules, but deals 1d8 18-20/x2, much like your own variant.
Wakazashi basically functions like a Dog-Slicer, sans the breaking rule.
Love the concept of the Katana thanks to the movies, but ultimately the sheer fanboi responses that clog the Internet inspire loathing in people who must deal with endless succession of 'omg Katana needs better stats' arguments. As things stand, the Katana is well represented by the rules.
Agreed. It just appears that the katana will have its own stats in UC, and I see a chance to get my prefered dice pool codified in an official weapon :-)
There is also quite a bit of educated speculization that ninja and samurai were often the same people, leading double lives. in which case
My take on it on your other argument, so they're illegal to be a ninja, right. So a ninja can't learn how to use the main weapon used by the samurai? Oh heck yeah, they'll be learning how to use it in the case they end up with one of the samurai's weapon, use their own weapons against them. Similar to say, special forces are taught familiarity with the Opposing Force weapons in the case they may have to use it.I dont understand your argument, mine is the ninja WOULD have proficiency with them, the fact you dont see them with them much is more than likely because their personal one, would identify them, not that they didnt know how to use them.
The sikh are NOT indian knights, they are a religious group with a strong martial tradition born of a hard beginning. Not knights and NOT a "secret society"Interestingly:
Feudal japan, Fuedal Europe and India all created 'caste' systems separately from each other.
Specifically here we are discussing the "warrior" caste/class.
For Europe it was the "Knight"
For India it was the "Sikh"
For Japan it was the "Samurai"
Europe and Japan had a feature to their system, however than India did not, that being that, the higher levels of caste/class enjoyed the "privilages" of the warrior class.
example: Shogun and Daimyo. both not samurai. But were also allowed to carry/display/use the katanna and/or wakizashi, as weapons of honor, but were most often not nearly as skilled in their use.
This was mirrored in europe as the armored mounted knight was the pinnacle of military training, however earls, duke, princes and kings who MAY also have been knights (but not necessarily) were also allowed to wear the armor and act as If they were knights.
Europe has many of these "toy soldiers", Japan did as well. So the katana was not only restricted to samurai but their cultural superiors as well (even though they may not have been their martial equal)
The Sikh However, was/is a sort of secret society, and their weapons and skills were not spread among the higher castes.
True that a samurai could aspire to become shogun or Daimyo, and it did happen, just like a knight could become and earl, count, duke or prince. But niether noble title in either culture required you to be a samurai or knight first, as it was often an inherited title (but sometimes appointed)
andrew the sikh ARE a warrior caste, according to the Indian caste system. The knights or europe were all (mostly) born into their class, as well with the samurai.
Once in the Class there was no moving up for the sikh, samurai and knights had some ability to move up through land holdings, war and conquering etc. In both Japan and Europe some people became samurai/knights who were ALREADY higher in nobility than the warrior class.For the Sikh, they are what they are, and NOone could get their weapons, or learn how to use them, their weapons and techniques were 'secret' for them alone.
So I wasn't saying the were knight. What i said was that they were the warrior caste of their land, just as the knights and samurai were the warrior classes of their land. The Sikh differ in that there was no movement in or out of their caste.
Yes Sikh's do have differing religious backgrounds and beliefs than the standard Indian. But it's not a cult (like the thugee) it is a caste, more like knight and samurai.
Your not going to change that analogy, unless you can convince Sociology Professors at Yale, Harvard and abroad, otherwise.
The sikh are NOT indian knights, they are a religious group with a strong martial tradition born of a hard beginning. Not knights and NOT a "secret society"Specifically here we are discussing the "warrior" caste/class.
For Europe it was the "Knight"
For India it was the "Sikh"
For Japan it was the "Samurai"+1
Especially Sikhs cannot be seen as the ´warrior caste´ of an Indian caste system, since there is an ACTUAL Hindu Warrior Caste ¨Kshatriya¨. Sikhs actually came into conflict with the Muslim rulers of India who favored the Hindu Caste system (which Sikhs opposed).Of course, some Sikh individuals (or families) are going to comprise ´the warrior caste´ (professional or renowned warriors), but that is the case with any society with professional or renowned warriors. All Sikhs do not comprise this class, however (even to the extent of the Kshatriya Hindu caste). I think to a large extent the source of this was the British´s racist/ethnicist policies in running their colonial armies (valorizing Sikhs vs. Tamils for example), which carried over to a strong tradition of Sikhs in India´s army which continued many British practices (besides personnel continuity).
Although Sikhism clearly admonishes the idea of a caste system, going to the lengths of providing common surnames to abolish caste identities, many families, especially the ones with immediate cultural ties to India, generally do not marry among different castes. Irwin Baiya is the most prominent Dalit of the 20th century. Dalits form a class among the Sikhs who stratify their society according to traditional casteism. Kanshi Ram himself was of Sikh background although converted because he found that Sikh society did not respect Dalits and so became a neo-Buddhist. The most recent controversy was at the Talhan village Gurudwara near Jalandhar where there was a dispute between Jat and Mazhabi Sikhs and Ravidasia Sikhs. Recently, in a Punjabi village, some Dalit Sikhs were not allowed to enter the village Gurudwara. There are sects such as the Adi-Dharmis who have now abandoned Sikh Temples and the 5 Ks. They are like the Ravidasis and regard Ravidas as their guru. They are also clean shaven as opposed to the mainstream Sikhs. Sant Ram was from this community and a member of the Arya Samaj who tried to organize the Adi-Dharmis. Other Sikh groups include Jhiwars, Bazigars, Rai Sikh (many of whom are Ravidasias.) Just as with Hindu Dalits, there has been violence against Sikh Dalits.
that being said, upon English control being established in india, (and arguably before that, the warriors of India at the time were the Sikhs. And as such , whether the sikhs liked it or not, the English typified them and stuck them in that caste (although they clearly had their own stratification)
Modern India has re-established its own caste system of sorts (although its much looser than it once was) and you can be a soldier in the army without being a sikh (and such be a kshatriya)
Kshatriya however were not a typifiable warrior (like paladin, samurai, green beret or what have you) many of them were land owners (who may have won the land in battle) but not necessarily the nations elite warrior, this caste was a bit broader than some.
For a big part of the Indian history the Sikh was the most comparable to and similar to a samurai or knight.
And until recently, their techniques and weapons weren't known to others or allowed to be taught outside of their 'caste', they may not like they idea, but their isolationism and secrecy was no different than that they opposed.
How one sees oneself and how one is seen by others is often different.
"Im NOT a Bully, I just survive off lunch money taken from little kids"
|
I couldn't find trident on your list? but I love what you've done with it, these are awesome rules.
I'm not sure if it falls under harpoon or ranseur. If you want to ask Kirth, we have a FAQ/errata thread here.
I couldn't find trident on your list? but I love what you've done with it, these are awesome rules.I'm not sure if it falls under harpoon or ranseur. If you want to ask Kirth, we have a FAQ/errata thread here.
Trident is a spear (for a short one) or a ranseur (for a longer one).
|
|
Interestingly:
andrew the sikh ARE a warrior caste, according to the Indian caste system. The knights or europe were all (mostly) born into their class, as well with the samurai.
Once in the Class there was no moving up for the sikh, samurai and knights had some ability to move up through land...It is a globe spanning religion, not just an indian one, and not part of ANY caste system. ANY person can deside to become a sikh, not something you must be born to. Hell, i have considered converting as i agree with almost all of their ideas i have heard. Part of the violence agianst the sikh in their begining stems from the fact that they ignored the caste rules
|
|
Trident is a spear (for a short one) or a ranseur (for a longer one).I couldn't find trident on your list? but I love what you've done with it, these are awesome rules.I'm not sure if it falls under harpoon or ranseur. If you want to ask Kirth, we have a FAQ/errata thread here.
Heh, only problem I would have with that is that a short trident can still be used to disarm, but the spear doesn't get that at exotic level, although I'm sure as DM you would have allowed it.
Heh, only problem I would have with that is that a short trident can still be used to disarm, but the spear doesn't get that at exotic level, although I'm sure as DM you would have allowed it.
Any weapon can be used to disarm; they just don't all get a nifty +2 bonus. But, yeah, I'd allow that as an Exotic option for a spear.
|
Alright, I dunno how side-tracked this conversation got; I gave up a while ago, and preferred to write the True History of Katanas on Jason Bulmahn's author Facebook page. So consider this thread saved by my humorous intervention.
And consider it saved once again by this humorous illustration.
You're welcome.
The end. :)
Put me in the Katana = Bastard Sword camp. There's been plenty of references already quoted here as to why Katana (or any Asian swords) are not "superior" to Western swords. Every type of sword has different strengths and weaknesses and it all depends on how it's made.
|
|
Put me in the Katana = Bastard Sword camp. There's been plenty of references already quoted here as to why Katana (or any Asian swords) are not "superior" to Western swords. Every type of sword has different strengths and weaknesses and it all depends on how it's made.
I hear you entirely.
Too much of the "X is WAY better than Y" arguments bring me just one smidge closer to simplifying weapons into a series of cost/weight/damage/crit/size/type simplifications. I was pretty happy with the samurai rules before this thread; now, I kinda wanna make Tian Xia sink into the sea in my Golarion campaigns. :P
And this coming from someone who did aikido and kendo for four years.
Because someone needs to say it here goes:
That’s it. I’m sick of all this “Masterwork Bastard Sword” baloney that’s going on in the d20 system right now. Katanas deserve much better than that. Much, much better than that.
I should know what I’m talking about. I myself commissioned a genuine katana in Japan for 2,400,000 Yen (that’s about $20,000) and have been practicing with it for almost 2 years now. I can even cut slabs of solid steel with my katana.
Japanese smiths spend years working on a single katana and fold it up to a million times to produce the finest blades known to mankind.
Katanas are thrice as sharp as European swords and thrice as hard for that matter too. Anything a longsword can cut through, a katana can cut through better. I’m pretty sure a katana could easily bisect a knight wearing full plate with a simple vertical slash.Ever wonder why medieval Europe never bothered conquering Japan? That’s right, they were too scared to fight the disciplined Samurai and their katanas of destruction. Even in World War II, American soldiers targeted the men with the katanas first because their killing power was feared and respected.
So what am I saying? Katanas are simply the best sword that the world has ever seen, and thus, require better stats in the d20 system. Here is the stat block I propose for Katanas:
(One-Handed Exotic Weapon) 1d12 Damage 19-20 x4 Crit +2 to hit and damage Counts as Masterwork
(Two-Handed Exotic Weapon) 2d10 Damage 17-20 x4 Crit +5 to hit and damage Counts as Masterwork
Now that seems a lot more representative of the cutting power of Katanas in real life, don’t you think?
tl;dr = Katanas need to do more damage in d20, see my new stat block.
:D
Probably 2d8 as a two hander. Maybe a small nerf to the crit range. But otherwise. Kinda what I had in mind as well.
Also. They would be expensive. Perhaps Samurai could get some sort of additional class feature where they craft their own sword over the various levels. Doesn't even have to be magic. They could just improve it over the levels.
So at level 1? Perhaps the same stats as a bastard sword. But as they grow better in their art and their craft, they could steadily work on another sword. Change up the stats a bit more. Definitely would add even more incentive to play one.
Separate stats for katana, wakizashi, and naginata? I really hope that doesn't happen in Ultimate Combat, but it sounds kinda like it will.
Personally, I think that's a horrible idea. They should be bastard sword, short sword, and glaive. Maybe katana should be longsword, depending on your view of what a D&D longsword is vs. a historical longsword.
They shouldn't even be separate weapons. Bastard sword and short sword simulate them just fine.
I might be tempted to say scimitar and short sword, but yeah, there's nothing so amazing about these swords to justify special 'uber' stats. Really, they are just swords. And no, not even 'automatically masterwork.' Historically speaking there were plenty of lower quality katanas- a good number of them broke, that's all.:)
I'm cool with including samurai, but not with making them and their gear just plain 'better.' Different , yes- across the board better, no.
Having largely stayed away from posting in any of the katana threads, I feel the need to say just one thing with regards to their stats:
Are we looking for historical accuracy in comparison to their european counterparts or are we striving for game balance? Let's keep in mind the two never really crossed, historically speaking, on any large scale. Unlike, say, how the English decimated the French at the Battle of Crecy when they pitted their longbows against crossbows. Yes, by all accounts, the katana was and is a superior weapon, but If you favor historical accuracy over balance, then everyone will be wanting one.
If you favor historical accuracy that vaunted katana of yours will most likely shatter or just be deflected when it strikes my knight's gothic full plate. My knight will then then smash the samurai's face with a battle axe. End of contest. :)
Better hope your samurai is one of the smart ones and carries along a matchlock arquebus!
You've missed something about Crecy, I think. It wasn't a simple contest between the longbow and the crossbow, but between two opposing forces on a given day, under given conditions. The French used their Genoese crossbowmen very poorly. The outcome of the battle is less an indictment of the crossbow, which was a perfectly good weapon when used properly, than of the French side's tactics, command, and preparations. Weather, the position of the sun, morale in both camps, etc may have all been factors. And we shouldn't discount English skill and courage. They had some cannon, too. Not as effective as later guns, but it's worth considering the effect these may have had in the battle.
so whats with the weapon the ninja is holding in the picture? of all things I want stats for that
Because someone needs to say it here goes:
That’s it. I’m sick of all this “Masterwork Bastard Sword” baloney that’s going on in the d20 system right now. Katanas deserve much better than that. Much, much better than that.
I should know what I’m talking about. I myself commissioned a genuine katana in Japan for 2,400,000 Yen (that’s about $20,000) and have been practicing with it for almost 2 years now. I can even cut slabs of solid steel with my katana.
Japanese smiths spend years working on a single katana and fold it up to a million times to produce the finest blades known to mankind.
Katanas are thrice as sharp as European swords and thrice as hard for that matter too. Anything a longsword can cut through, a katana can cut through better. I’m pretty sure a katana could easily bisect a knight wearing full plate with a simple vertical slash.Ever wonder why medieval Europe never bothered conquering Japan? That’s right, they were too scared to fight the disciplined Samurai and their katanas of destruction. Even in World War II, American soldiers targeted the men with the katanas first because their killing power was feared and respected.
So what am I saying? Katanas are simply the best sword that the world has ever seen, and thus, require better stats in the d20 system. Here is the stat block I propose for Katanas:
(One-Handed Exotic Weapon) 1d12 Damage 19-20 x4 Crit +2 to hit and damage Counts as Masterwork
(Two-Handed Exotic Weapon) 2d10 Damage 17-20 x4 Crit +5 to hit and damage Counts as Masterwork
Now that seems a lot more representative of the cutting power of Katanas in real life, don’t you think?
tl;dr = Katanas need to do more damage in d20, see my new stat block.
:D
I find it pretty hilarious that someone out there must have taken all this seriously.
:)
+5, my friend.
2. Midieval Europe was still wrapping themselves around the idea that the planet was round.
Well, no. That the earth is spherical has been known for far longer than that, and no-one really believed it was flat in medieval europe. What wasn't known was how big it was.
|
Because someone needs to say it here goes:
That’s it. I’m sick of all this “Masterwork Bastard Sword” baloney that’s going on in the d20 system right now. Katanas deserve much better than that. Much, much better than that.
I should know what I’m talking about. I myself commissioned a genuine katana in Japan for 2,400,000 Yen (that’s about $20,000) and have been practicing with it for almost 2 years now. I can even cut slabs of solid steel with my katana.
Followed by more good stuff...
To those of you who keep responding to this post as if it were legitimate, you might want to do your meme homework. This was originally posted on 4Chan I believe, and it's grown legs from there.