Early samurai did not use chineese style straight swords.
They used Naginatas (essentially glaives).
the chineese style straight sword is indeed older than the katana, but the samurai did not use them.
I tend to agree that "exotic" is as mush how a weapon is used, in skill terms, as opposed to the weapon itself. I can also see how a katana could be put under bastard sword..the are easier to use two handed than one handed. To put it bluntly trying to place weapons in tight styles is pointless..the original makers didn't. No sword maker got up and asked his wife "so should I do long swords or bastard swords today?". They made regional styles, that were adapted to the needs of the times, and often had traits of diffrent weapons that we now so easily drop into catagories. Is it even worth getting all <virtually> red in the face about? If you really really don't like it..change it for your game, or use some of the great alt rules presented here.
The name "Longsword" as used in typical vernacular is not the same as the D&D name.
Typically, when someone says "Longsword" and they know nothing about D&D, they are in fact talking about most weapons that we'd call two-handed in D&D.
On a side note, I think most would have a hard time telling a dagger from a shortsword for similar reasons. Most daggers were actually quite long compared to most portrayals given by game designers in the 90s. I recall some video games showing what amounted to a shiv or maybe knife at best as their "dagger".
The Bastard sword was specifically named because it had a longer handle and was weighted to be interchangeably used with one or two hands. Light enough to be a normal one-handed sword, but you could use two hands for better leverage and power.
The Katana was typically made with the same function: it was short enough blade to be handled one-handed, but was designed with a long enough handle to be used two-handed for certain styles and attacks, typically to get better handling/leverage and power.
I'd imagine a person who's used to combat maneuvers that use one and two hands interchangeably, would be capable of swinging a slightly heavier and straighter version of the weapon they used before.
At least, it'd be no different than picking up a new katana that was tailored for a different sized man... different weight, length, possibly even curve. If we can hand waive that, we can hand waive "knowing how to use a European bastard sword".
Ultimately, the Bastard sword entry fails to deliver what the real world weapon was meant for: a one-handed weapon that could be used two-handed to get extra oomph.
D&D already allows for one-handed weapons to be used two-handed for extra oomph (strength damage). So where does that leave us?
Instead, we have a weapon that is hard to use one-handed, typically used two-handed, but has more power all the time compared to the one-handed version.
But that's the problem with comparing the D&D weapon chart to the weapons as they were historically. The problem is that over time, weapons were improved in design and very often in response to the defenses they were against, or how they intended to be used. Older designs were no longer used... they were strictly inferior.
If all these weapons in D&D exist alongside each other, they MUST offer something to have the stats that make them what they are.
So just like a "one-handed longsword" should be an oxymoron, we have to discard our ideas of what these "names" mean, and use them as "game terms" instead.
Katana or Bastard sword means 1d10 19-20/x2, that can be used one-handed if proficient. This isn't historically accurate for either weapon, but it's what the game terms mean in D&D.
Just to chime in real quick.
I always thought the description of the aldori dueling sword cried "use me as katana"
Totally agree.
I'm perfectly fine with the katana being treated as a bastard sword, that's probably closet you're gonna get to correct stats. They ARE nice swords but not overwhelmingly special. They tended to weigh more than equally sized european swords but balanced differently. Now I have to say this thread makes me laugh and reminds me of this gem here from a few years back.
That's it. I'm sick of all this "Masterwork Bastard Sword" b******t 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 MasterworkNow 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.
Other than that I'm glad Samurai got better treatment than the previous d20 incarnations I've seen.
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 6
|
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.
Without going into logical fallacies, what was the show? Preferably with the name of the episode. I wouldn't mind seeing what they actually said on the matter. I wouldn't necessarily believe it if they did say it, unfortunately the accuracy standards aren't high on Discovery or History.
5mm is huge. That's nearly as thick as the *center* of a typical blade, based on my understanding of it.I'd be impressed if you could hack anything other than a finger or toe off a person with a blade like that. Maybe if you used it like a chisel.
Sword blades were definitely sharp. Even when armor was around. There's other weapons that work better if you want a duller edge.
The "swinging crowbars" take on swords is a myth. Heck, there's swords in museums that would cut you *now* if you grabbed the blade bare-handed.
And yeah, as another poster mentions, the ricasso encourages some people to believe this bit of nonsense. As in "How else can you grab a sword above the hilt??".
There's a lot of art to putting the right type of edge on a sword, and it varies based on what you're trying to cut through (people, mail, plate, light armor). But what pretty much all normal swords have in common is a sharp edge, accomplished in some fashion. Doesn't mean they're all good edges to shave with. Does mean that they don't contact you with a 5 mm cross section unless you managed to hit someone with the ricasso or the back of a single-edged sword.
For practice, I suggest you go try hacking up a side of beef with the back of a machete. Though I think those are only about 2mm across, not 5 :)
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.
Most gamers like myself don't know much and/or care even less about how accurate the weapons are. Why should we make the katana accurate and leave the other weapons as are?<--Rhetorical question.
Let me put it this way: would you care if the paladin's mount were called a celestial mule, even if every statistic remained exactly the same?
I seriously doubt anyone one here has any idea what sword fighting was like in the ancient world.
Perhaps you should Google the word "hoplology."
The name "Longsword" as used in typical vernacular is not the same as the D&D name.
Typically, when someone says "Longsword" and they know nothing about D&D, they are in fact talking about most weapons that we'd call two-handed in D&D.
Yeah, it's kind of ironic that according to the great fencing schools of the high medieval period, a "bastard sword" was actually smaller than a longsword. Mind you, that nomeclature isn't written in stone any more than any other, but it's important to realize that terminology tends to evolve in response to trends. Broadsword, similarly, can refer to a large claymore-like weapon, a basket-hilted backsword, or (in certain periods) anything you would consider from a cut-and-thrust rapier by virtue of its width and cutting power.
Let me put it this way: would you care if the paladin's mount were called a celestial mule, even if every statistic remained exactly the same?
I would think it was silly and just refluff it, but I would not expect for the celestial mule to get better treatment than any other animal with the incorrect stats.
|
So much wrong in this thread...don't know where to start...
How about discovery channel is NOT a good source or reliable source of information. Neither is the history channel. Or TV period. If you have NOT read the archeology of weapons and sword in the age of chivalry, you basically know squat about weaponry of the middle ages. If you think that euro swords were dull, you obviously failed to read these two books that anyone who is a serious scholar of history should have read. And quite frankly existing samples of swords just flat out says your wrong. I cataloged swords for my archeology lab course at UC berkeley...I assure you, swords were sharp.
The bastard sword (aka the longsword for historical reference) was just as common in europe as the katana was in japan. What makes it exotic is using something so long ONE handed. Yes you can do it...but you need special training...just like..gasp you guessed it, the katana (although for COMPLETELY different reasons...the katana blade isn't that long...28 inches actually, which is shorter then most arming swords...but the balance on a katana is a b*~~% to deal with one handed). I have actually gone to the trouble to learn to do this with both weapons...it ain't easy...and learning to use a katana one handed effectively was not any easiler then doing so with the bastard sword (...well the longsword).
I REALLY hate the bastard sword and longsword that D&D has used. It's the arming sword and longsword damn it. Not that they had such distinctions back in the days...they just had sword...usually with descriptors of with short grip (or long grip) and short blade(or long blade).
5mm edges...BWAHAHAHA. That is the thickness of most sword blades at the SPINE. In fact I just measureed the spine of my 3 katanas and they are 5.1mm, 5.3 mm and 6.0 mm. My Albion Crecy, H/T bastard sword and del tin XIIIa swords don't EVER get to 5 mm anywhere on the blade. That's right, the euro swords have thinner, lighter blades then the katana and have a nice counter weight for fast movement and point control. Not sure where this whole katana is a light finesse weapon is coming from...but the katana is a brutally efficent cleaving and slicing weapon. There is no finesse in a katana. It's quite efficent at killing...very...quickly. But there is no finesse in it.
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...
Well, at least someone said it so I didn't have to write myself;) My understanding (which counts for nothing) is the katana is a weapon that was developed later in life of the "samurai sword."
Anyway, no point really. I've been thinking of switching from 4th Ed to PF and seeing this book coming, kinda pushed e over the hump for the decision...:)
|
|
@ Cold Napalm:
would you then agree that removing the ability to use weapon finesse when wielding a katana one handed, using these stats, would be suitable?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.
IF you MUST have different stats for a katana and a bastard sword, the internal game mechanics for it would be...
Katana
2 hand martial weapon
1 hand exotic weapon
1d8 18-20/x2
AKA, the scimitar of the bastard sword. Nothing more. But hey the falcata breaks the rules.
..
Katana
2 hand martial weapon
1 hand exotic weapon1d8 18-20/x2
AKA, the scimitar of the bastard sword. Nothing more. But hey the falcata breaks the rules.
Like it.
When I get my copy of Ultimate Combat, if it has different stats for katanas...
I will introduce a new house rule:
Anyone expressing insistent desire for such a katana immediately receives a permanent negative level for each time they ask for one after the first 'NO'. These negative levels may only be removed by apologising to the DM and agreeing to use bastard sword stats.
:P
Finally, a chance for me to post this wonderful quote:
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.
Just for reference purposes, here are the stats for a katana from the 2nd Edition AD&D book Combat and Tactics:
Katana
One-handed: 1d10 vs S/M, 1d12 vs L (for those unfamiliar with old school rules, weapons did different damages based on the size of your opponent, one for medium or smaller and another for large or larger)
Two-handed: 2d6 damage vs all creatures (also for comparisons sake Greatswords in AD&D did 1d10 damage vs S/M and 3d6 vs L)
It also had a weapon speed of 4 which was one less (better) than the longswords speed of 5.
Finally, a chance for me to post this wonderful quote:So wait, is that actually your position, or are you just, like, razzing us?
It's old copy/pasta that's been used for trolling purposes for years. Always gives me a laugh.
Totally agree.Just to chime in real quick.
I always thought the description of the aldori dueling sword cried "use me as katana"
+100
It's old copy/pasta that's been used for trolling purposes for years. Always gives me a laugh.Finally, a chance for me to post this wonderful quote:So wait, is that actually your position, or are you just, like, razzing us?
Unfortunately, Painful Bugger already beat you to it. Old news, old chum.
This is a bastard sword:
...
You're getting way too caught up in terminolgy and RL.
You could just as easily say that a Pathfinder longsword is a real-life broadsword and a Pathfinder bastard sword is a real-life longsword. It's just not worth trying to quantify the games mechanics as exacting as possible to real life.
here are my stats for the katana:
damage 1d20
crit 2-20 x5
price: it can't be normally bought, nor found, nor picked up, nor wished, nor tought of.
oh, and you can't enchant it
sorry, I read too much "reality stuff" and I felt like in a show of real-life Miami and just had to say this.
|
I stand by the whole Katana = Japanese Longsword, Wakizashi = Japanese Shortsword. I don't agree whole-heartedly with the whole Katana = Bastard Sword idea, but I see where they're coming from with it. Why? Because when wielding a bastard sword, you can choose to wield it either one- or two-handed. The same goes for the katana. It should be that simple. My belief is that it should stay where its at. Stats? Same. Damage? Same. I don't care in the end what Paizo decides. If they say its equal to a dagger, then fine. I'll disagree, but I'll go with it.
In the end, the GM has final say in what does and doesn't go with his game. The same goes with the firearms in the other areas of this forum.
So apparently practitioners of kendo, iajustsu and other sword fighting forms just made them up and aren't based on (or exactly the practice of) the orginial forms?
By and large, until WW2, oriental nations were extremely xenophobic (no acceptance of outside or 'alien' contact) and highly traditional.
when the US Navy came to Japan by STEAM SHIP (commodore Perry 1821) our soldiers carried forearms, and Samurai were STILL (STILL) the most prevalent warrior of the nation.
The Emperor felt, that he wanted more control and power from his nation, and that meant eliminating Diamyos and shoguns (essentially governors and mayors) and having the nation answer directly to the Emperor and his cabinet.
The problem was Samurai were 'unstoppable' and the source and base of the shoguns power.
The 'unstoppable samurai' were eventually stomped out of existence by armies carrying rifles, trained by the US Army in 1866-1870. It was a bloody Japaneese civil war.
During which, the public carrying of the katana was outlawed.
as was the samurai, as a class in japaneese society.
That however does not mean the samurai did not continue to practice their art (honor and tradition being paramount to samurai and the japaneese in general)
The katana became disguised in a scabbard to make it look like a walking stick in the mid to late 1800s.
(and is a credible source to the rumor that ninja and samurai were actually one in the same)
The succeeding emperor (cant recall his name) rectified the social disorganization and shame brought by this civil war, by returning the samurai class to its position of honor as members of the Japaneese Imperial Honor Guard (so samurai became 'federal' troops)
Use of katana in the streets still was outlawed. some time around 1900 or so.
Japan went back to their xenophobic state until the late 1920s when Emperor Hiro Ito began invading main land oriental nations (korea, china and others)
WW2 era japaneese weapons were anachronistic comparitvely to those commonly used by other countries in that war (thompson submachine gun was in common use by gangsters in the Us by the 1920s) But the Japaneese war manchine, led by samurai was more than the poor agrarian society of coastal mainland orient could endure.
The samurai were set up as governors and secret police through out the orient, they outlawed weapons and the practice of what they referred to as Kara-te, or open hand fighting. Which the Chineese call kung-fu.
Samurai went about attacking and extinguishing entire orders of shaolin monks ,an act which backfired on the samurai, because surviving monks went into hiding and began teaching what they never taught to oridinary non monks before, the secrets of kung fu, this is the very origin of the from I study myself, Wing Chun Kung fu, named after an elderly, female, shaolin who was too feeble to practice and teach the 'hard' shaolin form. Most other forms of Kung Fu can track their origins to this period of time, as well, which is early 1920 to late 1930s.
So with Samurai prevalent in soceity in Japan in the 1930s, and officers in the Japaneese Imperial Army in the Pacific Campaign as Late as 1945, where exactly to do believe the lapse in the practice of samurai sword fighting is? Since many world war 2 vets are still alive?
The practice of Kendo, Iajutsu and other Samurai Sword styles is not only loosely based on the original, It IS the actual sword fighting sytle of the Samurai and there has been no lapse in it's training, practice or history.
To say different would be the same to say that Kung Fu has nothing to do with the art practiced by the original early masters.
Sword fighting eurpoean style, however could be argued as another case, as mostly what has survived is the fencing and savate of french origin which only dates back to the 1700s.
On the world martial arts stage, martial arts like wing chung and kendo have been shown time and time again to not be able to stack up to even untrained strong people, let alone boxing or fencing. The ritualized paralysis exhibited by kendo and wing chung martial artists in the face of someone fighting back, using techniques that aren't in the short list of usual stuff they do, proves that these arts are completely divorced from the original battlefield arts.
Even if I met someone doing JUST wing chung who could beat a boxer in a fight, it wouldn't be because of his wing chung training, it would be due to something else about the individual that made him dangerous.
Really? and that information is based on what?
English boxing, according to you, is somehow better than or different than, Wing Chun Kung Fu, which is referred to by the English as Chineese boxing?
Kendo is a sword fighting art, so a guy with a sword is not going to be dangerous compared to an unarmed and untrained strong guy?
That statement is re-donk-ulous to say the least.
Until 1992 I had studied Kenpo Karate (3rd Dan Blackbelt). Im 6'4" 240lbs and one of the strongest people I know (outside of celebritites which, technically I don't really know)
I was beaten in an open form tournament by a kung fu fighter doing things I had never seen before. The style was completely different and relied on centerline fighting.
I asked his master what it was, and how I could learn it and became a student in 1993.
The person I was fighting was 1) Female and 2) considerably smaller than I am.
While she didnt knock me out, blows she landed certainly hurt.
A lot.
Obviously, years later, if i was to fight her using Wing Chun Kung Fu, (which interestingly enough is the form that Bruce Lee learned prior to his comming to the united states) could I best her? Yes easily, because I am bigger and stronger.
But her knowing Wing Chun and me not, was quite a balancing factor for her lack of physical prowess and as a 3rd Dan blackbelt I was hardly in the untrained category.
Large people with muscles are hardly dangerous to any trained fighter, if they are not experienced in fighting, most of them have extremely low endurance as it were.
There is however very little circuit training these days for athletes and body builders that does not include some form of boxing or martial arts as part of the physical training, so most atheltes aren't "untrained". Any one else who is 'large or Big' these days is just fat.
Fat people dont beat anyone in hand to hand fighting, they just say "ow" alot, and loose their breath to the point where they cant say "ow" anymore.
|
|
On the world martial arts stage, martial arts like wing chung and kendo have been shown time and time again to not be able to stack up to even untrained strong people, let alone boxing or fencing. The ritualized paralysis exhibited by kendo and wing chung martial artists in the face of someone fighting back, using techniques that aren't in the short list of usual stuff they do, proves that these arts are completely divorced from the original battlefield arts.
Even if I met someone doing JUST wing chung who could beat a boxer in a fight, it wouldn't be because of his wing chung training, it would be due to something else about the individual that made him dangerous.
Though not a practicioner myself, I know a few people who practice on a regular basis. Not a single one of them would be able to stand up to a boxer or MMA in a fight. Why? Not every style is the same and not every style teaches the same. Wing Chun is decent in its own right and I wager a fully-dedicated practicioner of WC would be able to hold his own against any MMA fighter there is. Whether he would win or not is completely different. Its all based on experience, dedication, and willpower. A fight is a fight - no matter what sort of training you have. I believe that a TRAINED WC fighter would stand just as much a chance against a TRAINED MMA or Grappler or etc. as the latter would stand against him. Depends on everything I've already stated and maybe then some as luck is always a factor as well.
Regardless, this is getting off-topic. As for the katana being win or fail, I don't mind it how it is as I already expressly stated earlier.
If anything a Katana would be more like a Falchion then a Long sword stat wise and Wakizashi would be more like a Scimitar than a Short sword.
On the world martial arts stage, martial arts like wing chung and kendo have been shown time and time again to not be able to stack up to even untrained strong people, let alone boxing or fencing. The ritualized paralysis exhibited by kendo and wing chung martial artists in the face of someone fighting back, using techniques that aren't in the short list of usual stuff they do, proves that these arts are completely divorced from the original battlefield arts.
Even if I met someone doing JUST wing chung who could beat a boxer in a fight, it wouldn't be because of his wing chung training, it would be due to something else about the individual that made him dangerous.
Though not a practicioner myself, I know a few people who practice on a regular basis. Not a single one of them would be able to stand up to a boxer or MMA in a fight. Why? Not every style is the same and not every style teaches the same. Wing Chun is decent in its own right and I wager a fully-dedicated practicioner of WC would be able to hold his own against any MMA fighter there is. Whether he would win or not is completely different. Its all based on experience, dedication, and willpower. A fight is a fight - no matter what sort of training you have. I believe that a TRAINED WC fighter would stand just as much a chance against a TRAINED MMA or Grappler or etc. as the latter would stand against him. Depends on everything I've already stated and maybe then some as luck is always a factor as well.
Regardless, this is getting off-topic. As for the katana being win or fail, I don't mind it how it is as I already expressly stated earlier.
MMA means mix martial arts.
You would be suprised how much kung fu (wing chun being the most common) an MMA fighter uses and knows.Most MMA ring fighters have studied kenpo (the most common), jiujitsu, a kung fu form (win chun most common), and muy thai (thai kick moxing)
there are however several very nasty fighters that mostly base their style on krav maga (israeli martial arts)
Going to 'school' to have one teach you kung fu is hardly evidence that they are a WC practioner.
I learned the 3 and half forms of Wing Chun, Bil gee, Chan Cue, Sil Am Tao and wooden dummy technique.
Two more forms that Bruce Lee knew when he left china. In that way, I am more accomplished at the form that Bruce was himself.
However, Bruce knew enough of Wing Chun (which was exactly half) to formulate his own style (Jeet Kune Do) which oddly enough has a more Japaneese name to it.
Professional fighters (boxers, MMA, bodyguards even) would have levels of fighter or rogue or something.
'Students' wouldnt have levels (thus the lack of experience)
So talking about someone you know is mostly likely talking about a 0-level or maybe 1st-level person in comparison to people are essentially modern day gladiators, obviously with levels. and then stating their "character class" is no good or weak because someone who does something else professionally could beat them.
Find your "strong untrained guy" give me one month to train an 140lb 5'5" student and we will see who ends up on their back.
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.
Oh come on, man, sure it is. Even in the real world, a ninja used katanas (among other weapons). They were the standard longs word of warring states japan. Not all of them were masterpieces, or even high quality but they were in use by ninjas, especially if said ninja were impersonating samurai.
Here is a print of a famous storybook ninja and what he got in his hands?
If anything a Katana would be more like a Falchion then a Long sword stat wise and Wakizashi would be more like a Scimitar than a Short sword.
except a falchion on the game is a two hand only weapon, and we know thats not the case for katanas, and a scimitar is not a light off hand weapon, which is exactly what the wakizashi was.
A bastard sword is a two handed weapon that can be used one handed with advanced training ( a really good definition for katana) and the short sword is most often used in two weapon fighting style as the off hand/light weapon (also a good description of the wakizashi)
bastard sword is better than longsword because its longer and heavier, doing more damage. Katana is better than longsword because its sharper/dealier, doing more damage. Game mechanics the bastard sword is the perfect equivalent, no need to make separate stats.
wakizashi is slashing more than it is stabbing, so you could just say wakizashi is a short sword that does slashing damage and be done with it.
@ Cold Napalm:
would you then agree that removing the ability to use weapon finesse when wielding a katana one handed, using these stats, would be suitable?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.
IF you MUST have different stats for a katana and a bastard sword, the internal game mechanics for it would be...
Katana
2 hand martial weapon
1 hand exotic weapon1d8 18-20/x2
AKA, the scimitar of the bastard sword. Nothing more. But hey the falcata breaks the rules.
+1. It makes the most sense. Scimitar stats could be used for Kodachi's, which are more of a 1-hander thing.
As for two and three body blades, katanas crafted so expertly they cut through space and time itself, those are maaaaaagiiiiiic. Hell, a +1 keen katana using those stats would be cutting limbs off left and right (that is, it would have an obscene crit range).
On the world martial arts stage, martial arts like wing chung and kendo have been shown time and time again to not be able to stack up to even untrained strong people, let alone boxing or fencing. The ritualized paralysis exhibited by kendo and wing chung martial artists in the face of someone fighting back, using techniques that aren't in the short list of usual stuff they do, proves that these arts are completely divorced from the original battlefield arts.
Even if I met someone doing JUST wing chung who could beat a boxer in a fight, it wouldn't be because of his wing chung training, it would be due to something else about the individual that made him dangerous.
Though not a practicioner myself, I know a few people who practice on a regular basis. Not a single one of them would be able to stand up to a boxer or MMA in a fight. Why? Not every style is the same and not every style teaches the same. Wing Chun is decent in its own right and I wager a fully-dedicated practicioner of WC would be able to hold his own against any MMA fighter there is. Whether he would win or not is completely different. Its all based on experience, dedication, and willpower. A fight is a fight - no matter what sort of training you have. I believe that a TRAINED WC fighter would stand just as much a chance against a TRAINED MMA or Grappler or etc. as the latter would stand against him. Depends on everything I've already stated and maybe then some as luck is always a factor as well.
Regardless, this is getting off-topic. As for the katana being win or fail, I don't mind it how it is as I already expressly stated earlier.
The reason why kendo and wing chung people fail at fighting so much is a combination of how much time they waste training forms and dead patterns with how reliant they are on specific rules that handicap their ability.
Wing chung martial artists don't keep their hands up. Plain and simple. It is garbage, and they don't spar enough,...
where do you get this twisted concept of reality?
Wing chun fighters don't keep their hands up?You are thinking of Pak Sau undoubtedly which is the standard "I have you at kicking" range fighting stance, which moves to fook sau (or hooking arm) in close quarters fighting (which is and looks nearly the same as an american boxers 'knuckles to ear lobes' fighting stance.
This is exactly the same as english boxing (you always see this weird posture where they stick their arms out fists folded backwards and roll them one over the other as a sign of "ok im ready to fight")
Jabbing generally starts first, to test range.
These days, Professional boxers are such brute athletes they just wade in and dont worry about a few jabs, they want to throw crosses and uppercuts because a few rounds of jabbing will just wear out their stamina.
Thai Kick boxing is essentially the same they have a different stance to begin with for "range" because it allows better balance for longer kicks, however, the modern ring fighting has evolved a bit and they like to rush in to closer quarter fighting.
Keeping your hands up when not necessary makes one tired, creates lack of full peripheral vision, hampers mobility and keeps one in a tunnel vision focus.
None of which is really all the bad for fighting a single fighter in a ring, when you know there can only be one and he's right there.
If anything american boxing has rules.
I am unaware to any rules for wing chun.
I think you are mistaking wing chun and tae kwon do.
On the world martial arts stage, martial arts like wing chung and kendo have been shown time and time again to not be able to stack up to even untrained strong people, let alone boxing or fencing. The ritualized paralysis exhibited by kendo and wing chung martial artists in the face of someone fighting back, using techniques that aren't in the short list of usual stuff they do, proves that these arts are completely divorced from the original battlefield arts.
Even if I met someone doing JUST wing chung who could beat a boxer in a fight, it wouldn't be because of his wing chung training, it would be due to something else about the individual that made him dangerous.
Kendo is not the issue here. We would be discussing kenjutsu, which will #!@#% kill you.
And Wing Chun? That was Bruce Lee's first martial art. Perhaps a little formalized, but in its traditional form, quite effective in street brawls, such as the sort Bruce Lee used to get into as a young man.
The fact that people rarely train for the combat doesn't make the arts useless, any more than the pathetic marksmanship of most criminals makes a gun useless.
To reiterate: Kendo = whacking people with bamboo sticks while wearing a catcher's gear. Kenjutsu = wacking people and mannequins with two pound bokken and occasionally performing drills with live steel that can and will injure the incautious.
On the world martial arts stage, martial arts like wing chung and kendo have been shown time and time again to not be able to stack up to even untrained strong people, let alone boxing or fencing. The ritualized paralysis exhibited by kendo and wing chung martial artists in the face of someone fighting back, using techniques that aren't in the short list of usual stuff they do, proves that these arts are completely divorced from the original battlefield arts.
Even if I met someone doing JUST wing chung who could beat a boxer in a fight, it wouldn't be because of his wing chung training, it would be due to something else about the individual that made him dangerous.
Kendo is not the issue here. We would be discussing kenjutsu, which will #!@#% kill you.
And Wing Chun? That was Bruce Lee's first martial art. Perhaps a little formalized, but in its traditional form, quite effective in street brawls, such as the sort Bruce Lee used to get into as a young man.
The fact that people rarely train for the combat doesn't make the arts useless, any more than the pathetic marksmanship of most criminals makes a gun useless.
To reiterate: Kendo = whacking people with bamboo sticks while wearing a catcher's gear. Kenjutsu = wacking people and mannequins with two pound bokken and occasionally performing drills with live steel that can and will injure the incautious.
To understand historical kendo you have to understand that kendo meant "fighting with a sword" or more literally "Killing style"
It's a general and loose term. More things have evolved out of it in the modern era (largely because katanas for use in personal fighting were outlawed).
but the issue is, the art of samurai sword fighting hasnt been forgotten, lost, or ever stopped being practiced. there are still samurai today who fight with a sword exactly how they did in 1821 and before.
where do you get the idea wing chun is "formalized"?
From Watching the movie "dragon" about bruce lee's life?
Bruce Lee was Yip Man's worst student. Yip Man considered him a personal failure.
All Current practitioners of Wing Chun outside of china can trace their knowledge of Wing Chun directly to Yip Man.
Bruce never learned Wing Chun fully, it may be his interpretation that it was too regimented and formalized, but it failed him because he didn't learn the advanced forms, and then learn how to mingle chan cue, bill gee and sil am tau. Maybe that's because he only knew sil am tau and wooden dummy form? and had only begun studying chan cue.
Chan que, bil gee and by extension sticking arms chi sau (combining the two) is where Wing Chun becomes formless, but to do formless you have to learn the form.
Bruce Lee was a failed student, please don't use his opinion as fact on the form any more than a 6th grade drop out says algebra is useless in everyday life.
stuff.
Seriously, get a room.
Director of Games
|
Hey there folks,
I have a note for everyone arguing in this thread. The Pathfinder RPG is not attempting to accurately model history. It is not a historical RPG. We use history to influence our decisions, but we do not let it override good game design. As such, we will present a katana that is balanced with the rest of the rules. It will not be dramatically better than any other weapon in the game. It will have its own advantages and disadvantages. It will not automatically be masterwork.
Bickering about weapon statistics does not serve the purpose of this playtest at this time. This thread is locked.
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing