Rant to follow. This applies somewhat to the ninja just as much as the samurai, but as there is not a central place to discuss both I am considering this to be more directly samurai-related.
This playtest repeats the completely misguided notion that the katana should be treated as a bastard sword. First of all, that could create the bizarre situation where a ninja can use bastard swords but not longswords. Second, it was, is, and will be incorrect. Yes, the majority of styles use the katana two-handed... just like the majority of historical longsword styles do! And there are plenty of styles, including Muashi's two sword style, that use a one-handed grip. Katanas are not especially heavy, far from it. A katana is just a basic variation on the longsword-type weapon, just a longsword with a twist of scimitar. It's neither long nor heavy enough to equivalent to a bastard sword, and there is no reason to suppose that hordes of Japanese Warriors all need to blow a feat on EWP (most common sword in feudal Japan).
This is not an issue of religious adherence to history. I object, and I object strongly for three reasons. First, playability reasons I mentioned above with the katana requiring EWP. Second, because labeling the principal bushi weapon as Exotic is, however slightly and unintentionally, offensive. The greatsword is far more "exotic" than the katana in terms of how often it was used and by whom. the fact that it is Asian does not make it exotic. There is a word, Orientalism, that applies to this situation. Third, while real world concerns are not the primary concern of an RPG, it is baldly obvious to people who actually own and handle katanas, like say, Pathfinder gamers with a Shogunate fetish, that the nomenclature is just wrong. Go to a reputable knife store. Ask to see the katana. Heft it one hand. Compare it to other, Western, weapons. Be your own judge. I think you'll find one 35", 3 lb. blade is much like another in terms of the expertise required to use it.
I think you accidentally replied to my thread, when you meant to reply to a different thread that was an irrelevant, in-depth discussion of historical katanas. In this thread, we are just discussing how inconvenient and strange it was for the katana to require EWP and to have different stats than a longsword.
A katana should be able to ignore hardness/damage reduction. If I am playing a fantasy samurai I want to be able to cut through tanks, trees, and troodons.
The katana dealing 1d10 damage is an old heritage from the 2ndE. It's because a katana ''cuts better'' than a longsword, so it ''has'' to deal more damage. I'm fine with that, but then the katana needs to be an exotic weapon. If it's not, then every longswords in the world will end up in a trash can.
A katana should be able to ignore hardness/damage reduction. If I am playing a fantasy samurai I want to be able to cut through tanks, trees, and troodons.
A katana is not a lightsaber. :P
It's kinda nitpicky, and on a nerdrage topic too. I'm not saying you're wrong (I actually agree with you, for the reasons you outline above), just that you should expect a lot of flames over this.
Orientalism, though? Less that than Mystical Foreigner stuff.
Now, first I want to clarify that I'm in no way more than an amateur, and I don't even do reenactments regularly; I've just visited a few as well as fence a little with my friends now and then. I'm not claiming to have extensive knowledge on this, just giving what little input I have:
I've just swung katanas a few times, no more than two or three hours of playing around, but I must say that I find them far harder to use one-handed than the spatha I usually use and other, similiar swords. This isn't that much a matter of weight as it is of size and shape, though. The two katanas I've tried were both among the longest one-handed swords I've tried, and due to their shape they're quite awkward to thrust with. You're limited to larger movements, which is very tireing with such a long sword in one hand.
It's useable in one hand. I'd much, much rather use it in two hands, though. If I were to choose between my spatha and a katana when only using a sword, I'd pick the katana for the slightly longer range and because I'm always unlucky on thrusts (we'll call it unlucky, mkay?), but if I were going to use a shield, I'd pick the spatha every time, no doubt.
EDIT: I'm not taking a stance in this issue though. I can see it fitting as either a longsword or a bastard sword, or a scimitar, or a "bastardly exotic" 1d8/18+x2 weapon.
Maybe you could cut the snark, Lordofkhybr? He's not asking for that kind of unbalanced Katana fanboy stuff, he just has the view (which I share) that a Katana = Japanese Longsword, as opposed to Japanese Bastardsword.
The katana dealing 1d10 damage is an old heritage from the 2ndE. It's because a katana ''cuts better'' than a longsword, so it ''have'' to deal more damage. I'm fine with that, but then the katana needs to be an exotic weapon. If it's not, then every longswords in the world will end up in the trash can.A scimitar cuts better than a longsword too. (Incidentally, I would say the scimitar stats are better for the Katana than bastard sword. It can pierce better than a scimitar, but not well enough that it has to have a piercing damage type to make sense.)
I wasn't being a snark in my post. We really should be able to do that! And yes cutting snarks is possible too. (although maybe only at higher levels)
Was it 1e or 2e that explained "a bastard sword is a lot like a longsword, except the handle is longer, allowing you to put more leverage into two-handed blows" (or something along those lines)? That would seem to apply especially well to a katana. Bastard sword it is!
In 1e and 2e, the bastard sword was not an exotic weapon.
I would like to see the Katana as a new weapon that is different from the bastard sword. I think that like the longsword, bow, and dagger, it is a weapon archetype that stands out alot. That said, I would like to see a focus on game balance first, and historical accuracy second. So, no automatic masterwork. I think the katana should have the same relationship to the bastardsword as the scimitar does with the longsword. Also, perhaps (this is a maybe) it could be a monk weapon. I am unsure of the balance consequences on that so it is a maybe.
So Bastard Sword is D10 with 19-20 x2, the Katana can be d8 with 18-20 x2. I think that would be fair. Comments?
I would like to see the Katana as a new weapon that is different from the bastard sword. I think that like the longsword, bow, and dagger, it is a weapon archetype that stands out alot. That said, I would like to see a focus on game balance first, and historical accuracy second. So, no automatic masterwork. I think the katana should have the same relationship to the bastardsword as the scimitar does with the longsword. Also, perhaps (this is a maybe) it could be a monk weapon. I am unsure of the balance consequences on that so it is a maybe.
So Bastard Sword is D10 with 19-20 x2, the Katana can be d8 with 18-20 x2. I think that would be fair. Comments?
I agree with you on this and think that because of the wording of the playtest that paizo is working on special mechanics for this, the wakazashi, and the naginata.
Also, in d20 L5r, they changed the basic martial weapon set to be more cultural. IMO there is no reason why it could not be done for a setting again.
Was it 1e or 2e that explained "a bastard sword is a lot like a longsword, except the handle is longer, allowing you to put more leverage into two-handed blows" (or something along those lines)? That would seem to apply especially well to a katana. Bastard sword it is!
This is a bastard sword:
http://www.museumreplicas.com/p-188-15th-century-longsword.aspx
Now, you'll observe right away that this is labeled a "longsword." most bastard swords were of a style and usage that was known as a longsword to practioners of the time. There are other arming swords, covered under the D&D term "longsword" that are not bastard swords. Basic D&D called them "normal swords," AD&D made finicky distinctions between longswords and broadswords. But anyway, 45" long, 36" blade, 3 lbs. 4 oz.
This is another "bastard sword":
http://www.museumreplicas.com/p-763-german-bastard-sword.aspx
This is obviously an AD&D bastard sword, since at 38 3/4" long with a 30" blade, and weighing in at 3 lbs. 10, you could wield it easily in one hand.
Certainly, there plenty of examples of katanas that comapare in size to the second blade, although most of them are lighter. I will happily agree that a katana is similar to the second "bastard sword," which would never in a hundred years quality as a bastard sword under 3.5 rules.
In 1e and 2e, the bastard sword was not an exotic weapon.
Yeah, but back then, magic bastard swords were less common than magic longswords.
In 1e and 2e, the bastard sword was not an exotic weapon.
In 1e and 2e (without weapon groups), fighters needed to spend a proficiency slot to use bastard swords and every other individual weapon without the non-proficiency penalty... in 3e, they get two-handed use of the bastard sword as part of their free starting package along with every other simple and martial weapon. Being able to swing that bastard sword one-handed and use all those other weapons for a single additional feat is cheap by comparison.
In 1e and 2e, the bastard sword was not an exotic weapon.In 1e and 2e (without weapon groups), fighters needed to spend a proficiency slot to use bastard swords and every other individual weapon without the non-proficiency penalty... in 3e, they get two-handed use of the bastard sword as part of their free starting package along with every other simple and martial weapon. Being able to swing that bastard sword one-handed and use all those other weapons for a single feat is cheap by comparison.
Cheap? One feat for an average of +1.0 damage when using a particular weapon? Weapon Specialization (longsword) is half the price. :)
So forcing you to take bastard sword proficiency in order to use a katana as a samurai would do makes sense to me, after all they are supossed to be highly skilled knights, never the average oriental warrior.
First of all, katana were commonly carried by warriors of all types, at least until late eras when periodically the samurai would attempt arms control. Second, many samurai were quite poor.
@ RJGrady:here's two ideas
Katana
1d8/18-20/x*
Due to various styles and ways the Katana can be used, the weapon's critical multiplier depends on the grip employed, x2 for a one handed grip, x3 for two handed. the Katana can be used with weapon finesse as a one handed weapon, but not when wielding it two handed.
other than all of this, you could just go 1d8/18-20/x2.
can be wielded one or two handed, weapon finesse compatible.
I like this. Makes it usable for two weapon fighting style (kinda like Miyamoto Musashi) as well as the classic style. I like this.
|
Just to chime in real quick.
I always thought the description of the aldori dueling sword cried "use me as katana"
ermmm....huh? If memory serves, a bastard sword isn't an exotic weapon when used two handed. It requires EWP to be used one handed, as in special training, which is another meaning of the exotic weapon category.
In other words, you saw the word exotic, and decided to run with it. It is in no way orientalism, and you're being extremely dramatic.
Katana, 1d8, 18-20/x*.
x2 and Finesse with one hand, x3 with two hands seems cool.
But then, c'mon, it's a damned martial weapon. Someone here mentioned here that not all, just most styles used it two handed. The ones who use it two handed are the "common" styles, and the ones who use it two-handed are the "uncommon" styles...
The Katana is fine doing bastard sword damage. I hope Paizo doesn't change it.
Just because the numbers are the same doesn't mean the weapons are, the weapons are completely different, but when you look at it from a stat perspective, the numbers even out.
For example, European blades are big and heavy. They do damage based more on the mass side of the force equation. In fact, the blades themselves weren't edged at all, they were blunted and designed to hammer into armor wielding opponents and shields without chipping or shattering.
The katana was designed more to shear through unarmored flesh, bone, or to cut through the lighter Japanese armor of the period.
From a balance perspective, the effect of wielding a katana against a setting appropriate opponent will be just as effective damage wise as a bastard sword would be against a euro-centric opponent wearing metal armor.
So should a plate wearing foe get a minor DR bonus or something against a katana? You could make a case for that. But conversely, against an unarmored foe, the katana is a far more dangerous weapon than a bastard sword. So if Paizo does do something like reduce the damage to d8, then I think the katana should get something like double strength damage vs. any opponent or monster not wearing metal armor to compensate.
Otherwise, just keeping the stats the same as bastard sword stats is a fair compromise.
Katana, 1d8, 18-20/x*.
x2 and Finesse with one hand, x3 with two hands seems cool.
But then, c'mon, it's a damned martial weapon. Someone here mentioned here that not all, just most styles used it two handed. The ones who use it two handed are the "common" styles, and the ones who use it two-handed are the "uncommon" styles...
I'm learning kendo right now and I can say that we have to learn how to use the shinai (or boken, for the more advanced students) two-handed before even thinking about using it one-handed (that's for the really advanced students), so I think that the bastard sword is a good choice for representing the katana.
|
Okay, let's start from the beginning.
1st: Samurai and Ninja get Katana proficiency for free ... for ... free. Good, we have the settled? Yes, ninja don't get longsword proficiency and yes, technically if you can use a Katana you can use any comparable edged weapon to a basic (i.e. lethal) level. If the level in abstraction of Pathfinder is to be believed, then "proficiency" must be taken to mean a high level of skill not simply and understanding of which end to hold towards the enemy. I teach longsword combat, and am currently studying kenjutsu, please trust me when I say they are not the same.
2nd: You are correct "katana" does not equal "bastard sword" when the use of the European bastard sword is compared to the use of the European long sword. However, by the same token the way in which the sword is used is not analogous to the longsword either. Arguing again that proficiency equals a high skill level then a Katana deserves its own stats not to represent drastically different physical properties, but to represent the way subtle differences equate to different schools of martial practice and usage.
(I personally like the idea of longsword like stats with a slightly higher crit rate, or maybe rather a +1 bonus to init, to represent the faster draw a curved sword allows, which is one leading theory to how the current Katana evolved. I also argue strongly in keeping the Katana a 2 handed weapon in keeping with the vast majority of kenjutsu styles favoring that method of use, however perhaps a new weapon ability which allows 2 handed use at a certain class or character level thus keeping it true to both styles of use, but not costing quite as much a full feat. Food for thoughy.)
3rd: The Katana in Pathfinder IS NOT yet a bastard sword. Those rules are not published yet, and while this is the place to discuss what you want them to be, it is not the time to engage in the internet equivalent of hysterics over a hold over to a tiny one line reference in 3rd ed D&D.
4th: Orientalism? Really? I think that's a bit harsh, or a bit pointless. The class is called "samurai." Samurai were just a regional variation of mounted armour wearing aristocratic warriors, if you are not going to embrace some level of the larger than life stories and air of Romanticism that has permeated that word in stories and media (notably in the west where Pathfinder is made )then just stick with the fighter or cavalier class and seriously consider a different hobby.
By and large the tone of this message is ungracious and maybe even inappropriate, but please forgive my crudeness and hopefully I have added something to this discussion that is worthwhile.
|
|
While I can appreciate all the arguments of what a Katana is or is not, to be perfectly honest, I just want the Katana to feel different than a long sword. With oriental style adventures, I want an oriental flavor to them, even it it means taking some liberties with the weapons.
To sum it up, I like the direction that Paizo is going, and I think that Jason & team will come up with interesting fluff for their oriental weapons, even if it means stretching realism a bit...and yes, I want them to have different stats than a long sword.
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 6
|
For example, European blades are big and heavy. They do damage based more on the mass side of the force equation. In fact, the blades themselves weren't edged at all, they were blunted and designed to hammer into armor wielding opponents and shields without chipping or shattering.
The politest thing I can say to this canard is it belongs in the same round file as knights in armor needing to be winched up onto horses.
The politest thing I can say to this canard is it belongs in the same round files as knights in armor needed to be winched up onto horses.
For example, European blades are big and heavy. They do damage based more on the mass side of the force equation. In fact, the blades themselves weren't edged at all, they were blunted and designed to hammer into armor wielding opponents and shields without chipping or shattering.
+1
I don't understand the complaint here? To use a bastard sword, or Katana in it's standard style (two handed) requires zero feats, merely martial weapon proficiency. Want to be a unique Miyamoto Musashi inspired snowflake? Buy Exotic Weapon Proficiency, OR be one of the Eastern Classes such as Ninja or Samurai, who, as you mentioned used them commonly. In turn the Ninja cannot use the longsword, a western sword, they can use Katana though, because, as you mentioned, they are the common sword of Japan. Doesn't that make sense? They get unique access to Eastern weapons, while the western inspired ones get access to Western ones. Besides, on the Ninja topic, its rogue inspired, which also does not have access to longswords.
Orientalism doesn't enter into it. There nothing to be offended about here. Japanese history buffs should be happy, the two Eastern classes are based of Japanese history. Chinese, Mongolian, Middle Eastern, Persian, Indian and South Asian buffs are still waiting in the dark.
Aldori Dueling sword from the adventurers armory, its a Exotic weapon same as long sword all the ewp does is let you finesse with it, I think that is the best fit.
Actually, the oldest samurai swords were Chinese-style straight swords. They also used a lot of spears and glaives, which strangely enough have not required special "Oriental stats." Somehow the European falchion, the Turkish Tulwar, and the orcish two-handed can all comfortably share the "falchion stats."
Mr. Baron wrote: "With oriental style adventures, I want an oriental flavor to them, even it it means taking some liberties with the weapons...To sum it up, I like the direction that Paizo is going, and I think that Jason & team will come up with interesting fluff for their oriental weapons, even if it means stretching realism a bit...and yes, I want them to have different stats than a long sword."
With all due respect to Mr. Baron, making something different, unusual, and unhistoric, just because it's Asian, is precisely what is meant by Orientalism. Maybe it's harsh, and I don't like to get embroiled with delicate subjects in an RPG context, but the whole katana thing is just a little too Red Injun for me.
I would agree whole-heartedly that the katana deserves its own stats on the basis of its iconic nature. However, it's halfway between a longsword in scimitar in function and form. There is no design room between the longsword and the scimitar in Pathfinder/D&D 3e. They do the same damage, and each one has a different crit modification. That leaves you with statting the katana as either a longsword or a scimitar, then giving it its own weapon proficiency. And that, I have to say, seems pointless. It's a shame, but there it is. But you know, the spatha, the Viking sword, the Scottish broadsword all deserve their own stats, too. It's just that you can't make a difference of something that isn't a difference. D&D doesn't cover grip, stances, very specific conditions like moving mounted versus stationary mounted, and so forth, and so it doesn't cover anything that distinguishes a katana from a longsword (or perhaps a scimitar in the case of early tachi style blades).
Plus, taking away the bastard sword slot leaves no room for the tachi, which often took on bastard sword or even greatsword proportions.
The politest thing I can say to this canard is it belongs in the same round file as knights in armor needing to be winched up onto horses.
For example, European blades are big and heavy. They do damage based more on the mass side of the force equation. In fact, the blades themselves weren't edged at all, they were blunted and designed to hammer into armor wielding opponents and shields without chipping or shattering.
As a student of history, everything I have read or seen on the matter indicates that I'm correct. Even Discovery or some other channel had a show debunking the myth that knights were wielding sharpened bastard swords and claymores a few years ago. The notion that you can hack all day at a guy in plate or wielding a shield and then go cut tomatoes like in some steak knife commercial is ridiculous.
The edge of the blade was still maybe half a centimeter in width or less, and you could easily hack through armor or a limb with one through because you're still applying a lot of force to a small area. But they weren't sharpened.
Blades designed more to cut cloth, flesh, or fibers like say a scimitar, or cutlass (or a katana) are a different matter, of course.
Hot tip:
A Katana is not a standard Ninja weapon.
Sorry I keep seeing this pop up and just want to bang my head on the table.
Now that we have that one out of the way...
If we want to talk about game balance, then the Katana needs to be 'exotic' if it is going to be superior to its standard 'martial' cousins. If you dont want it exotic, then it wont be superior.
Cake/Eat it.
The politest thing I can say to this canard is it belongs in the same round file as knights in armor needing to be winched up onto horses.
For example, European blades are big and heavy. They do damage based more on the mass side of the force equation. In fact, the blades themselves weren't edged at all, they were blunted and designed to hammer into armor wielding opponents and shields without chipping or shattering.
As a student of history, everything I have read or seen on the matter indicates that I'm correct. Even Discovery or some other channel had a show debunking the myth that knights were wielding sharpened bastard swords and claymores a few years ago. The notion that you can hack all day at a guy in plate or wielding a shield and then go cut tomatoes like in some steak knife commercial is ridiculous.
The edge of the blade was still maybe half a centimeter in width or less, and you could easily hack through armor or a limb with one through because you're still applying a lot of force to a small area. But they weren't sharpened.
Blades designed more to cut cloth, flesh, or fibers like say a scimitar, or cutlass (or a katana) are a different matter, of course.
Do you know what a ricasso is?
Elven Curved Blade?Nodachi
Wait, elves are asian now ? :P
They would be if they were the slightly shorter than humans brand of elves, rather than the slightly taller one :PWait, elves are asian now ? :PElven Curved Blade?Nodachi
dudenotcool