|
Perhaps the playtest is over for this but i feel the Katana should be a free starting weapon for the samurai. Simply keeping it the way it was in 3rd edition, where the katana is part of his honor and the honor of his family (Oriental Adventures). It is still a masterwork item and grant a +1 to attack. It is the Samurai's personal weapon, Not to be used by anyone else, touching the Katana is an insult to the samurai and if lost or stolen the samurai is willing to give his life to recover the family's weapon.
Mr. Fishy thinks that the samurai's sword was one of a three blade set. Mr. Fishy can't remember the proper term for the set. Still the Gun Slinger gets a 2000 gp weapon allowance give the Samurai back his sword.
If I remember right the proper name is Daisho and it consists of the Katana, the Wakizashi, and the tanto! though I might be wrong
Just two. Any two iirc, one longer (dai), one shorter (sho). The Katana and Wakizashi were the typical pair. The right to wear the two swords (Daisho) was the mark of the Samurai -- a badge of social rank and status.
Samurai did not necessarily use katanas in the same way that western knights did not necessarily use swords. They often used whatever weapon they felt appropriate - naginata, lance, composite bow etc.
I think people should get away from the fixation of samurai = katana, myself.
Edit: On the subject of the katana, I think the stats for the eleven curveblade are more appropriate than for the bastard sword, but that's just me.
On the subject of the katana, I think the stats for the eleven curveblade are more appropriate than for the bastard sword, but that's just me.
No, not just you. I´d prefer a two-handed weapon as the base of the katana too, curveblade or falchion or maybe even greatsword. (tough curveblade is the best choice in my opinion since the curveblade is above average just as pop culture katanas)
Maybe split the katana into light and heavy/common katana, last one for the usual two handed fighting style, first one for the musashi-wannabe TWFer, but in my opinion, katana-TWF is the exception, not the standard (by "standard" I mean standard for heroes, not just standard for samurai)
On the subject of the katana, I think the stats for the eleven curveblade are more appropriate than for the bastard sword, but that's just me.No, not just you. I´d prefer a two-handed weapon as the base of the katana too, curveblade or falchion or maybe even greatsword. (tough curveblade is the best choice in my opinion since the curveblade is above average just as pop culture katanas)
Maybe split the katana into light and heavy/common katana, last one for the usual two handed fighting style, first one for the musashi-wannabe TWFer, but in my opinion, katana-TWF is the exception, not the standard (by "standard" I mean standard for heroes, not just standard for samurai)
The curveblade is a good basis for the katana - it could be used one handed, just as a bastard sword could, that is the only difference with the curve-blade as a katana substitute (and IMHO a failing in the curveblade description). Certainly the katana should be a finesse weapon.
The greatsword would work as a base for the tachi, a larger, heavier Japanese sword you couldn't wield one-handed; I would give it the extended threat range and have it require an extra Exotic Weapon Proficiency myself.
The greatsword would work as a base for the tachi, a larger, heavier Japanese sword you couldn't wield one-handed; I would give it the extended threat range and have it require an extra Exotic Weapon Proficiency myself.
The larger Japanese sword is the Nodachi. The Tachi is similar in size to the Katana. The primary difference is in how it's carried. The Tachi hangs edge down in a manner similar to western cavaly sabers and was popular in a period in which the Samurai / bushi was a mounted warrior. The Katana is worn edge up with the scabbard thrust through the obi (sword belt / sash). In later periods many Tachi were refurbished as Katanas.
The larger Japanese sword is the Nodachi. The Tachi is similar in size to the Katana. The primary difference is in how it's carried. The Tachi hangs edge down in a manner similar to western cavaly sabers and was popular in a period in which the Samurai / bushi was a mounted warrior. The Katana is worn edge up with the scabbard thrust through the obi (sword belt / sash). In later periods many Tachi were refurbished as Katanas.
The greatsword would work as a base for the tachi, a larger, heavier Japanese sword you couldn't wield one-handed; I would give it the extended threat range and have it require an extra Exotic Weapon Proficiency myself.
My bad, I meant the nodachi, not the tachi.
|
I too dislike the katana fixation for the samurai. It's like giving the cavalier a free MW lance at level one...sound nice right? Unless your cavalier concept didn't include a lance...like say a mounted archer or a light calverymen. Samurai should not be tied to a weapon...even in the slight free MW katana manner. A free MW weapon of choice is okay...but then we come to why doesn't the cavalier get one too (and maybe they should)?
I too dislike the katana fixation for the samurai. It's like giving the cavalier a free MW lance at level one...sound nice right? Unless your cavalier concept didn't include a lance...like say a mounted archer or a light calverymen. Samurai should not be tied to a weapon...even in the slight free MW katana manner. A free MW weapon of choice is okay...but then we come to why doesn't the cavalier get one too (and maybe they should)?
The katana was the personal "side arm" of the Samurai / bushi. Often a secondary weapon in use, but not in thought. It was "the soul of the warrior" and generally the one indispensible item of gear he had. This brought it the most attention and made it the most likely weapon to be "masterwork". Having said that, not all katanas are, or were, of "masterwork" quality. Particularly in times of large scale conflict many warriors made do with weapons of lesser quality. For every one of heirloom quality their were a lot of basic weapons around. In times of peace, when the pressure to arm large forces declined smiths spent more time on individual blades. Of course sometimes decoration was as important as the edge... until it came time to use it of course. Our perception of the katana is based on those heirloom / special blades that have survived and probably are "masterwork". Not everyone was "back in the day".
*edit* By the way, the object of "fixation / obsession" among western knights was... the sword. The best steel came from Toledo in Spain. A blade of Toledo steel was reputed to have special qualities. As I recall, the techniques used by smiths in Toledo were not too dissimilar to those of Japanese swordsmiths.
|
|
I too dislike the katana fixation for the samurai. It's like giving the cavalier a free MW lance at level one...sound nice right? Unless your cavalier concept didn't include a lance...like say a mounted archer or a light calverymen. Samurai should not be tied to a weapon...even in the slight free MW katana manner. A free MW weapon of choice is okay...but then we come to why doesn't the cavalier get one too (and maybe they should)?The katana was the personal "side arm" of the Samurai / bushi. Often a secondary weapon in use, but not in thought. It was "the soul of the warrior" and generally the one indispensible item of gear he had. This brought it the most attention and made it the most likely weapon to be "masterwork". Having said that, not all katanas are, or were, of "masterwork" quality. Particularly in times of large scale conflict many warriors made do with weapons of lesser quality. For every one of heirloom quality their were a lot of basic weapons around. In times of peace, when the pressure to arm large forces declined smiths spent more time on individual blades. Of course sometimes decoration was as important as the edge... until it came time to use it of course. Our perception of the katana is based on those heirloom / special blades that have survived and probably are "masterwork". Not everyone was "back in the day".
*edit* By the way, the object of "fixation / obsession" among western knights was... the sword. The best steel came from Toledo in Spain. A blade of Toledo steel was reputed to have special qualities. As I recall, the techniques used by smiths in Toledo were not too dissimilar to those of Japanese swordsmiths.
The sword fixation was somthing that came about in the edo era. In times of war, the weapon that one fixate on was whatever weapon that killed your enemy the best. Praises for the spear, bow and guns were quite the rage in sengoku era and the sword was a mere after thought. Often describe as a waste of steel in fact. Our ancestors (either asian or european or whatever) can be quite pragmatic when faced with death.
As for toledo steel...the only thing it shared with the tamaghane steel is that both were cruciable steels. They produced very different steels and were heat treated in very different manner. So by similiar, if you mean that the steel was both made in cruciable...then yeah it's similair...but everything else other then that is different :P . Both are absolute works of art however in the mastery of metal.
Samurai had a list of common weapon just like western knights.
Mr. Fishy's issue is that the gunslinger gets a very expensive item at first level for free.
Mr. Fishy's rogue doesn't start with a skeleton key.
The katana was the personal "side arm" of the Samurai / bushi. Often a secondary weapon in use, but not in thought. It was "the soul of the warrior" and generally the one indispensible item of gear he had.
No different to the European knight's sword, in other words.
The katana was the personal "side arm" of the Samurai / bushi. Often a secondary weapon in use, but not in thought. It was "the soul of the warrior" and generally the one indispensible item of gear he had.No different to the European knight's sword, in other words.
Exactly.
The sword fixation was somthing that came about in the edo era. In times of war, the weapon that one fixate on was whatever weapon that killed your enemy the best. Praises for the spear, bow and guns were quite the rage in sengoku era and the sword was a mere after thought. Often describe as a waste of steel in fact. Our ancestors (either asian or european or whatever) can be quite pragmatic when faced with death.As for toledo steel...the only thing it shared with the tamaghane steel is that both were cruciable steels. They produced very different steels and were heat treated in very different manner. So by similiar, if you mean that the steel was both made in cruciable...then yeah it's similair...but everything else other then that is different :P . Both are absolute works of art however in the mastery of metal.
The sword was not the primary killing weapon of either the western knight or the Japanese bushi. You use what works on the battlefield, the lance in the west and the yumi in Japan, but the object you fixate on may be quite different than your common "tool". The sword was the court of last resort... the most personal of weapons. The final weapon between you and death for the warrior. It may have been discussed in unflattering terms to elevate other weapons and techniques (something that was done in both Japan and Europe), but to the majority of warriors it was considered a vital, and highly personal, weapon.
Toledo steel, like Damascus steel before it, was based on the fusion of different types of iron and/or steel through a process of repeated folding. The idea was to produce a weapon with the positive qualities of the various metals and not the negative ones. Different in specific technique but following the same basic idea as Japanese sword smiths. It produced a weapon with a keen edge but considerable flexibility.
There are a number of specific technological reasons for this congruence in metalurgic technique. Primarily it centers around limitations in the ability to smelt steel, the necessity of hammering smaller pieces together and the identification of the differing qualities of the different types of metal. Simplified, but I think fairly accurate.
As a late "edit" of the above post, there is (? was), some question as to the exact techniques / the quality of their results etc. in various European / western sword smithing techniques. Japanese techniques are better "preserved" in their pure feudal methodology. I haven't been heavy into it in a number of years. It was a new, and growing, field of archeological inquiry and current ideas may have changed since my days as a graduate student...
As I understand it, Japan didn't have good ore, so they learned to make the best of the iron resources that they had. Europe had better ore to make better quality weapons on average. I think the best quality European weapons matched the best quality Japanese ones; the average katana was better quality than the average sword.
I was actually considering statting the weapons as:
Katana: 1d8 dmg, 18-20/x2 crit, P or S
Wakizashi: 1d6 dmg, 18-20/x2 crit, P or SThe katana and wakizashi, as far as how much damage they deal on a regular basis in this way are equal to the longsword and short sword. But katana and wakizashi are significantly curved weapons, much like the scimitar, falchion, and elven curved blade, so it would make sense for them to have a larger crit range. Additionally, in functionality, both katana and wakizashi can be effectively used both for slashing/slicing and stabbing/thrusting, so I added the ability of the weapons to either deal Piercing or Slashing damage to give them a bit of extra flavor to balance them with most other exotic weapons.
The average european longsword has also been designed for both slashing and thrusting (probably even better for thrusting than a katana, due to the straight blade and the symmetrical pointed tip), yet it gets only slashing damage in the game. I think at least the game should stay consequent.
I made a samurai type character (paladin with a level as zen archer monk) even before we even knew about the Samurai archetype. I got my ancestral katana through the 'Heirloom Weapon' trait. It is his primary weapon for melee on foot as he got it enchanted by a friendly cleric, but he carries and frequently uses a composite bow, a spear and pretty much whatever else he comes across if it is good.
But he also has a bigger backstory as to WHY he uses said sword. Not just "I are samurai, I has awsum katana, LOL"
The average european longsword has also been designed for both slashing and thrusting (probably even better for thrusting than a katana, due to the straight blade and the symmetrical pointed tip), yet it gets only slashing damage in the game. I think at least the game should stay consequent.Symmetrical tip, maybe, but better for thrusting? Certainly not. If you have ever held a longsword, you'll note they they tend to be a bit heavier toward the hilt than the tip, where as katana are generally waited toward the middle or the last third of the blade (if balanced properly). That being said, it's much easier to align the katana, as opposed to the longsword for thrusting attacks. I would, however, agree to the idea that you could take a penalty to deal piercing damage with a long sword. But furthermore, a longsword's tip is generally quite broad due to is symmetry and as a result, (here's where we talk about physics, sorry) the pressure delivered with a thrust attack is spread out, making the longsword less capable of piercing deep into the target. Meanwhile, a katana his a very fine, sharp tip which is easily capable of plunging twice as deep if not much more than the longsword.
I don't think you're correct. Kenjutsu techniques focus on drawing cuts almost exclusively, while European sword techniques encompass slashing, drawing cuts, and thrusts. In fact, most later middle ages swords were designed especially to be used for thrusting - the ricasso on greatswords was used to change the grip to be like that of a short spear, and all fighting manuals demonstrated guards that made good use of the sword's tip. The Ox Guard, Plow Guard, and Falcon Guard in particular are all well suited for thrusts before or after slashing techniques. Thrusting with a katana uses vastly different positions than slashes. This is because of the weight distribution. The "sweet spot" of a western blade was usually a few inches below the tip - if you slashed and hit with that part, you'd get most of the power into the blow. Thus, thrusting before a slash could get you into position for a powerful blow. With a katana, the weight of the blade is more evenly distributed, because the blade is designed to draw the edge across the target (hence drawing cut). As far as the tips go, the wedge-shape of most European swords was easily as good at penetration as the katana's "chisel" tip.
|
|
The average european longsword has also been designed for both slashing and thrusting (probably even better for thrusting than a katana, due to the straight blade and the symmetrical pointed tip), yet it gets only slashing damage in the game. I think at least the game should stay consequent.Symmetrical tip, maybe, but better for thrusting? Certainly not. If you have ever held a longsword, you'll note they they tend to be a bit heavier toward the hilt than the tip, where as katana are generally waited toward the middle or the last third of the blade (if balanced properly). That being said, it's much easier to align the katana, as opposed to the longsword for thrusting attacks. I would, however, agree to the idea that you could take a penalty to deal piercing damage with a long sword. But furthermore, a longsword's tip is generally quite broad due to is symmetry and as a result, (here's where we talk about physics, sorry) the pressure delivered with a thrust attack is spread out, making the longsword less capable of piercing deep into the target. Meanwhile, a katana his a very fine, sharp tip which is easily capable of plunging twice as deep if not much more than the longsword.
ABSOLUTELY WRONG. The late era longswords with their reinforced points specifically for STABBING is better then the kissaki of a katana that was there for tip CUTS. The kissaki for a shinogi genometry was hammered thinner then the rest of the blade specifically so that with be even more of a razor blade for a tip cut. FYI, if your katana is a shinogi geometry (99% of the katana you see mass produced) and the tip ISN'T hammer thinner, you have a cheap PoS wannabe katana. Also balanced closer to the hands = better point control = better stabbing attacks. Who cares if you can go deeper (not that a katana tip will go deeper) if you can't hit jack all squat while doing it?!? That is why rapiers and small swords are balanced almost at the hilt. For betetr point control for better stabbing goodness.
Iaijutsu is the sword-drawing art, meaning to clear the scabbard (draw the weapon) and strike your enemy in a single movement. That is different from a drawing cut or slicing technique, in which the edge of the blade is drawn/pulled across the target, using a large part of the edge's length. Now, Battojutsu is the cutting art, and refers to practicing clean, perfect cuts. Iaijutsu is often combined with battojutsu, but they are two different techniques.
Samurai didn't use the katana to pierce heavy armor any more than an armored knight used his sword - actually, a bit less, due to the half-sword techniques common with bastard swords and greatsword. Much as a medieval man-at-arms would have a dagger for stabbing into the joints of armor, the samurai carried a yoroi toshi, a very narrow bladed dagger meant to slip between the lames of samurai armor, to stab the wearer or cut the silk cords holding the armor together.
And you're actually kind of making our point - a katana's thrust required a full-body thrust from the hips or with a flat blade, while an European sword could make an effective thrusting attack in the middle of a guard or other stroke simply by moving one's wrist and arm.
As regards that video: there are numerous mistakes. Most katana have a 28-30 inch blade, not 36 - the remaining 10-12 inches are all handle. A bastard sword usually has a 34-36 inch blade, with roughly 8 inches of handle. The ice chopping was done with the weakest part of the European sword - remember what I said about the sweet spot? It's near the tip, not the guard. You don't swing a sword like a baseball bat, which is what Gunny was doing. Likewise, notice the angle he's standing at regarding the target. With the longsword, he's at 90 degrees or more to the target - more than half his swing is spent getting there, he's already in the follow-through before he hits, and again, he's not using the proper part of the blade. With the katana, he's around 45 degrees to the target and putting his entire body into the swing. Finally, with the thrust, using the longsword, he is lifting his hands, not pushing with them.
Showing someone who doesn't know how to use a longsword be ineffective with one isn't a good demonstration.
Interesting that you mention Korea... did you know that when the samurai invaded Korea, their swords were almost useless against Korean armor? Many warriors broke their blades when they hit the iron plates sewn into the Korean's padded armor. The yari was the weapon of choice because the triangular or diamond head was capable of penetrating armor, much like the spike on the end of halberds and other polearms.
|
|
Begin watching around 6:40. Here's some proof to refute your statement that "he wedge-shape of most European swords was easily as good at penetration as the katana's 'chisel' tip." - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ih7bmzFQ9rI
Also, Cold Napalm, you don't thrust with a katana the same way you do with a long sword or rapier. Those weapons achieve thrust capable with a base balance because of pinpoint accuracy made by the user, something which is very difficult to do with a longsword, especially compared with a slashing attack (thus, the penalty I referred to). This kind of stab is much more easily acquired by using the lighter rapier, because stabs can be made quicker due to its overall light weight. A katana, on the other hand, makes thrusting attacks launched from the core of the user's body with one of both hands, pushing into the target, usually at a slightly upward or perfectly horizontal angle to stab very deeply into it. Such thrusts can easily penetrate thick armor and easily pass all the way through a human torso (so long as you don't hit ribs, etc). A longsword simply can match that piercing power. Also, my katana is South Korean, hand-forged blade valued at $1500 (and that's the value, not what I payed for it. I payed less because it was a partial gift from a master of my sword style) and it is more finely crafted than any manufactured blade by far.
So your according to a TV show, using a katana that does NOT have a proper kissaki (I can see it when they show the tip) and not traditionally heat treated (that katana flexed like a mono steel, mono heat treated blade) can stab better then a longsword of unknown quality (The tip probably did not have the complex geometry it should have had for example) used in the WRONG manner.
As for stabbing people...there is only so many ways you can stab people...and they ALL involve using your core. That is where the power comes from no matter what weapon your using. The rapier can weight as much as a katana actually...especially those 44 inch long blade ones. So it's not that it's light, it's that it's balanced well for stabbing. And that balance point is at the hilt. And the way you stab with a rapier involves the whole body...unless you don't think a lunge is using the whole body...and I assure you that a rapier will go clean through an unarmored person, as will a longsword. As for the armor...yeah your not getting through REAL armor with any sword. You bypass it...or get a horse.
And your korean sword isn't a katana. Koreans don't make katanas. Don't even go there. I'm bloody korean so I know for a fact that we don't make katanas. We make gum for gumdo...and they are NOT katanas. They may look the same, but the blade geometry is completely different. And like I said, if your kissaki isn't thinner then the rest of your blade, your katana is a cheap knockoff as that is the PROPER way to make a shinogi katana.
And finally, unlike you, I actually own proper katanas...and gum and euro blades. I train/trained in kung fu, gumdo, kenjitsu, lichtenhaur line, fiore and I.33. That is to say, unlike you, who seems very focused with your "katana" is awesome, I actually have expierence with multiple weapons and systems...first hand. I know first hand that a type XVa longsword will out stab a katana...but the katana will out cut the longsword.
Katanas should outcut most swords, since their entire design is based around cutting. Hewing and thrusting, not so much, and a katana is very poor at hewing compared to most any European sword.
.
..
...
....
.....
My sword is better balanced than your sword!
::
Go on, touch it.
That's it.
Ooooh.
Oooooooh yeaaaaaaaaah...
::
The Katana Sword for the Samurai
I don't think the Katana Sword should be mandatory for the Samurai Warrior. Doesn't really matter how the Samurai Warrior was handled in the 3e edition. Samurai Warriors weren't always about the Katana Sword.
In a related manner, I also think they shouldn't be forced to ride a Horse Animal.
Katanas should outcut most swords, since their entire design is based around cutting. Hewing and thrusting, not so much, and a katana is very poor at hewing compared to most any European sword.
Actually, Katanas are in the higher middle range of cutting effectiveness. Their curve is too slight to maximize cutting power. Mid-eastern and east-European curved blades (especially the Persian shamshir) can cut as well or even better while swung single-handedly.
The Katana is a respectable weapon, and IMHO the most beautiful sword ever designed, but it's actual usefulness is horribly over-hyped.
Katanas should outcut most swords, since their entire design is based around cutting. Hewing and thrusting, not so much, and a katana is very poor at hewing compared to most any European sword.Actually, Katanas are in the higher middle range of cutting effectiveness. Their curve is too slight to maximize cutting power. Mid-eastern and east-European curved blades (especially the Persian shamshir) can cut as well or even better while swung single-handedly.
The Katana is a respectable weapon, and IMHO the most beautiful sword ever designed, but it's actual usefulness is horribly over-hyped.
The katana is not designed to be used single-handed. It is possible to do so, but it is much more effective when used with both hands, just like the equivalent European bastard sword. The curve of a katana is a natural result of the tempering process, the steel is actually straight before it is quenched. The cutting process of a katana ideally is having the blade pulled along the target.
Middle eastern swords are generally much better at chopping than a katana or most European style blades, since their shape is well-suited for it.
I'm afraid I'm with Cold Napalm on most things here.
Western swords were straight because, firstly, that's the way Europeans made swords, and secondly, in Europe iron was more plentiful and hence so was decent armour. A straight blade is more efficient at thrusting than a curved one, every time. That doesn't mean you can't thrust with a curved blade, but it takes more skill to do it effectively.
European swords evolved from slashing and thrusting broadswords, to the arming sword which was essentially a more sophisticated version of the same (effectively the D&D longsword) with a better point for thrusting into armour. A sword slash was unlikely to make much impact on chain-mail, but a thrust could pierce it, or at least was more likely to find a gap.
Not all European foes would wear heavy armour, though, and against these the falchion was the weapon of choice; not the two-handed scimitar of the D&D books, but a one-handed heavy curved blade that was a good choice for a semi-skilled fighter.
From there the European sword evolved by the 17th century into the rapier, an almost purely thrusting weapon. The rapier was not just a nobleman's side-arm, it was a battlefield weapon used extensively by in the English Civil War and by the Spanish armies of that period.
The katana is however rated as the most effective personal combat weapon by modern experts. When used in both hands it's almost as swift as the rapier, and has more finesse than the arming sword or long sword (the D&D bastard sword), while having more power than the arming sword or indeed any one-handed weapon such as the scimitar which it matched for edge and quality.
When compared against the bastard sword, the katana was shorter, lighter and sharper. Both could inflict comparable wounds, but the katana's speed give it the clear advantage in any unarmoured confrontation. Armoured, it's a different story: the katana would have problems coping with contemporary European heavy armour, while the bastard sword would be easily as effective against Japanese armour of the period as against European armour, if not more so.
Katana's were good, but so were many other blades.
|
|
The katana is however rated as the most effective personal combat weapon by modern experts. When used in both hands it's almost as swift as the rapier, and has more finesse than the arming sword or long sword (the D&D bastard sword), while having more power than the arming sword or indeed any one-handed weapon such as the scimitar which it matched for edge and quality.When compared against the bastard sword, the katana was shorter, lighter and sharper. Both could inflict comparable wounds, but the katana's speed give it the clear advantage in any unarmoured confrontation. Armoured, it's a different story: the katana would have problems coping with contemporary European heavy armour, while the bastard sword would be easily as effective...
Kinda odd to agree with me eh? Hehe :) .
I have issues with modern weapons experts as they really aren't familiar with swords...but the main reason they like the katana is because they by into the hype more often then not and not on the merits of the sword. Now the katana as a weapon in the modern world has some pretty good advantages. They are short. That is quite a good thing in alleyways or homes. The people you fights don't have shields or armor. Cutting through armor is a nigh pointless attempt without a horse and no shield makes two handed weapons preferable to one handed ones. And along that lines, they assume nobody is using two weapons as well...because using two weapons is quite difficult actually, and since those expert themselves can't do it, they assume nobody can (which is quite false)...but a very large segment of people can't so the whole two handed is good still stands for most people. It is balanced very forward so even if you don't have good body mechanics, gravity will help you do good enough cuts (kinda like the falchions you mentioned there ;) ).
Now stuff that the experts seem to not understand...euro bastard swords are longer. Reach is IMPORTANT. If I can kill you .5 seconds before you can kill me, that is a HUGE advantage. Euro swords can be half sworded to be used at even closer range then a katana. The euro sword has quillions and pommels that can be used even at grappling range to good effect. You can use two arming swords or shamshirs. Yes all this take more training then to simpily pick it up and use it...and that is the point. The reason that modern weapons experts pick a katana over a euro sword, assuming they aren't just buying the hype hook line and sinker, is that they just aren't TRAINED in it.
Now as for the weight and sharpness...I have a bastard sword that weights only 2 lb 4 oz. That is about 4-16 oz lighter then pretty much any katana I have ever held. Now my favorite bastard sword weight 3lb 1 oz...which is on the high end for a katana weight and my latest custom bastard sword is gonna weight 2 lb 12 oz. So yeah there isn't as much of a weight difference between a katana and a bastard sword.
The sharpness...if you took a cross section of sharpness of a katana and bastard swords, you would see some are pretty dull and other are razor sharp...on both kinds of swords. How sharp you can make a sword isn't contigent on the style of sword but the purpose of the sword. In both cases, those razor sharp swords were swords that did not see combat much. Swords found in battle sites in both cases had sturdy edges more the sharp ones. It's almost as if you'd want a sturdy edge that can keep on killing over a sharp edge that chips and breaks to uselessness after a few blows or something. The sharper a sword is, the thiner the edge is, the WEAKER the edge is.
I can only speak from my own experiences, I am by no means an expert with either blade, but have trained in katana and sparred with a medieval blade enthusiast with a hand-and-a-half sword (technically a long sword, in D&D terms a bastard sword).
The reach factor wasn't decisive (he had naturally more reach than me anyway), but then that might be my fighting style which focussed around getting in close - in fact, reach on the whole isn't as big a deal as you might think in my own experience, at least one-on-one. The short length and long hilt made the katana faster, not just the weight (the moment of the bastard sword is greater because of it's length, and the hilt shorter so it can supply less leverage). With regard to the sharpness, the katana's would generally stay longer because you block with the back of the blade, rather than the edge, while the bastard sword has to block with the edge (although it has two edges). Myself, I found it relatively easy to block the longer weapon and step in to deliver a 'lethal' or 'debilitating' cut before the other person could recover.
As for your critique of the experts, you are making a lot of assumptions there - first and foremost that the experts are not, in fact, experts, and do not know what they are talking about. I have trained under at least one expert who very much knew what he was talking about, and I have no reason to assume that others are not equally knowledgeable.
At the end of the day, however, the differences are actually relatively small between the various swords. An expert with one will beat an amateur with another no matter what they are armed with, a good quality blade of one type is superior to a poor quality version of another, and everyone has their favourites. Further, there are differences in how the various weapons are used as you rightly point out, and a good warrior will choose the right weapon for the job - for example, a long spear for a footman facing cavalry, a gladius for close ranks, a pair of knives for a darkened alleyway, and so on.
|
|
Euro training blunts generally are heavier then real swords for some off reason. Take the albion sword of war training blunt. It weights 10 oz more then the sword it is stuppose to replicate for training. If they aren't...then they become flat out dangerous for sparring in most cases as the blades are too thin for sparring safely purposes. Wood and rubber ones are not only the wrong weight, but the wrong balance. The one I like best is the Atrim I beam trainer which looks nothing like a sword, but it feels the most like a sword while being safe. The only downside is it doesn't bind quite right.
My assertion was that modern weapons experts are not experts with thing that aren't modern weapons. Hence their title as modern weapon experts. There maybe a few who actually have some skill with swords...but I would not call such experts. If I want an expert in japanese swords, I don't go and ask what christian tobler thinks, nor do I as obata sensei about a type XVIa longsword...so why ask a modern weapons expert about swords?!?
Reach is an advantage when you know how to make it such...otherwise, it does nothing...or worse becomes a hinderance...if you note all the advantages of the euro sword in the modern world requires you to be trained well. You either block with the forte or flat of your blade on the euro sword so really there isn't as much damage as you may think. And the flat blocks are generally speaking glides so they are more of a parry then a block. This is true for both types of swords. And in fact, you generally don't want to block with the back of the katana which can be as soft as rockwell 20 compared to the edge of 65. That is just asking for your blade to get broken. Anyways, if the opponent is doing an online attack, you never EVER want to block and stop the shot as it just lines up their sword to kill you. And if your facing anyone who is a trained swordsmen, you ALWAYS do online attacks. If somebody is an amateur and throws an offline attack, then you do a hard block and as your sword is in the inside line at that point, you kill em. If you do a flat block and let their sword slide, it will go from an offline attack to an online one...then YOU die. Oh and japanese sword arts DO have hard edge blocks...at least in some schools...to be used as mentioned above to prevent death from noobs ;) .
As far as the katana being faster on the swing...yes that is true. Short blade + long handle = very fast sword. That is definately an advantage for the katana. But then again, if you read the last duel, they also have euro swords that had 24 inch blades on 12 inch handles in europe as well if such was the need.
If you notice, I keep mentioning how similar both swords are used for combat on a basic level...and that is because on a basic level, humans all move the same and there is only so many best ways to kill somebody. Even many thousands of miles apart, people learn these basics pretty fast.
And yes, different weapons are best for different jobs...which is why I learn em all :) .
Euro training blunts generally are heavier then real swords for some off reason. Take the albion sword of war training blunt. It weights 10 oz more then the sword it is stuppose to replicate for training. If they aren't...then they become flat out dangerous for sparring in most cases as the blades are too thin for sparring safely purposes.
Very true! It also means that you develop more muscle for using the real thing.
My assertion was that modern weapons experts are not experts with thing that aren't modern weapons. Hence their title as modern weapon experts. There maybe a few who actually have some skill with swords...but I would not call such experts. If I want an expert in japanese swords, I don't go and ask what christian tobler thinks, nor do I as obata sensei about a type XVIa longsword...so why ask a modern weapons expert about swords?!?
I see the problem. You assumed I meant:
Modern Expert = expert with modern weapons
When I actually refer to:
Modern expert = expert with archaic weapons living in modern times
|
|
I see the problem. You assumed I meant:Modern Expert = expert with modern weapons
When I actually refer to:
Modern expert = expert with archaic weapons living in modern times
Ah, well that makes a difference, but like I said, what is the expert trained in? Most are trained in a katana. Japanese sword arts is WAY more popular then western sword arts...so you will see more people claim that the katana is the best. Look at tae's comments. he seems to think that a katana is awesome at stabbing because he just has had no expierience with anything else. And that is what a lot of these experts do. Lets take my two experts. If I asked obata sense about what is the best sword, he is going to say a katana. If I ask christian tobler, he will tell me a XVII variant longsword. There are more japanese sword experts in the world so we get a skewed view of it.
The truth is, the best sword is whatever your best trained in and failing that what ever feels the best in your hands (some people naturally gravitates towards the blade heavy katana, others for the hilt heavy rapier and all that is inbetween)...barring armor. Once armor gets thrown into the mix, well that is a whole new ball game, but not something you are likely to face in the modern world...then again, how likely are you to be in a sword fight in the modern world?!? I have been in one...and I have been told that it is a freak occurance, and such things only happen to me :P .
Oh any if there was some sort of duel or all firearms/ranged weapons and armor dissapear and we have to use archaic weapons with no armor for some odd reason...my weapon of choice...the sword and shield (if no shield, then another sword). See I actually trained in two weapon fighting so for me, having two seperate weapons (yes a shield is a weapon) is better then any one weapon.
Ok... read over this, and I have one thing to say. FANTASY!
I understand that we all, as players and game masters, want to add a level of realism to the game. I do it too. But when push comes to shove it is a GAME!
I'm not gonna claim to be an expert on medieval weapons, because I'm not. Not even close. What I can say is that I have watched a vast number of fantasy, sword and sand, and wire-fu movies. As such I can say I understand the "literary" use of weapons. People swing swords, so slashing damage for swords. Yeah, does Aragorn probably stab some guy with the Sword of Kings in the Lord of the Rings? Probably. Doesn't change the fact that most people just see him cutting orcs to bits with it. When I watch Rurouni Kenshin are the stabbing people with their katanas? Nope, cutting people to bits with it.
Fact of the mater is, we're talking about a game where my 14th level half-orc Duelist can jump an average distance of 36 feet with just a bit of a running start. 24.7 feet is the world record for the longjump. It's a mater of what is fun, not what is realistic. I don't have my books in front of me, but I'm fairly sure pistols don't do bludgeoning damage. This is despite the fact that single shot pistols had weighted grips so that after the shot was discharged the user could flip it around and use is as a rudimentary club. But that's neither here nor there.
In answer to the subject of this discussion, I think it's been established that the Samurai doesn't always use swords. And, unlike the Gunslinger and his gun, doesn't need one to use half of his class features. I'd suggest taking the Heirloom Weapon equipment trait out of the Adventurer's Armory if you wanted an ancestral katana. Happy gaming!
Oh, and I realize that the short sword is a stabbing weapon, much like the Roman Gladius. Also, there is no such thing as a short sword. ;p
Some examples of Tanto's, the "dagger".
It was not part of the "set" of Katana and Wakizahi, but it appears most soldiers would also have a Tanto of some kind on their person.
http://www.angelfire.com/goth/silverscythe/tanto.htm
Oh, and I realize that the short sword is a stabbing weapon, much like the Roman Gladius. Also, there is no such thing as a short sword. ;p
True, but is a good catch-all term for weapons ranging from the gladius and xiphos to the baselard, katzbalger, and cinquedea. Essentially it's any short (less than 24") blade worn as a side-arm rather than a primary weapon. All of them are useful for slashing and stabbing, all of them are useful for close-quarters defense, like in the narrow streets and alleys, where an arming sword or longsword would be hindered.
|
|
Oh, and I realize that the short sword is a stabbing weapon, much like the Roman Gladius. Also, there is no such thing as a short sword. ;p
Funny thing...there is depending on what era your talking about. In roman era for instance, there is a distinction between a short sword (gladius) and a longsword (spatha). In fact this seems to be a distinction held in antiquities...so until we go to hastings, most scholars keep the distinction of short sword and long sword...and then it becomes arming sword(which is both the antiquities short and long sword) and long sword(AKA D&D bastard swords)...which as you can well tell may cause some confusions when an antiquities scholar and a medieval scholar meet to have a sword discussion :p .
I think that discussing what historical swords were better crafted that others is somewhat moot. Any weapon added to the weapon chart is going to need to be within the same scope as the others. Katanas will not likely be automatically masterwork, as cheaply made katanas were a reality in wartime japan.
The only thing that will likely differentiate a katana from a bastard sword is perhaps they will treat it like a larger scimitar with lower the base damage dice than a bastard sword and a pumped up the crit chance, and that will be fine. It just needs something to make it slightly mechanically different from other weapons on the chart if its going to have its own entry.
Edit - If I am wrong, may Zatoichi strike me down
|
|
I think that discussing what historical swords were better crafted that others is somewhat moot. Any weapon added to the weapon chart is going to need to be within the same scope as the others. Katanas will not likely be automatically masterwork, as cheaply made katanas were a reality in wartime japan.
The only thing that will likely differentiate a katana from a bastard sword is perhaps they will treat it like a larger scimitar with lower the base damage dice than a bastard sword and a pumped up the crit chance, and that will be fine. It just needs something to make it slightly mechanically different from other weapons on the chart if its going to have its own entry.
Edit - If I am wrong, may Zatoichi strike me down
And I do believe that is okay with almost everyone and is the most common stats for katana when you flat out just don't use the bastard sword stats. The reason these threads get so long and convolutes is because people like tae, make rather wild assertions and it becomes this whole laborous thing of setting things straight(TV shows like the one he linked to really don't help)...even on much unrelated subjects. Because lets face it...most people here don't have a degree in historical anthropology...and probably don't care about the difference between an antiquities longsword and a medieval one...but I do :P . However, I do think that you are wrong about the stats. I do believe there will be a powercreep aspect because that is the nature of games. Look at the falcata.
Ah, well that makes a difference, but like I said, what is the expert trained in? Most are trained in a katana. Japanese sword arts is WAY more popular then western sword arts...so you will see more people claim that the katana is the best. Look at tae's comments. he seems to think that a katana is awesome at stabbing because he just has had no expierience with anything else. And that is what a lot of these experts do. Lets take my two experts. If I asked obata sense about what is the best sword, he is going to say a katana. If I ask christian tobler, he will tell me a XVII variant longsword. There are more japanese sword experts in the world so we get a skewed view of it.
This is true, but there are some objective tests you can run - for example I have seen a comparison between longsword and katana that involved using both to make three slices from sheathed through a standardised target. Both did it very well, but the katana did it faster.
The truth is, the best sword is whatever your best trained in and failing that what ever feels the best in your hands (some people naturally gravitates towards the blade heavy katana, others for the hilt heavy rapier and all that is inbetween)...barring armor. Once armor gets thrown into the mix, well that is a whole new ball game, but not something you are likely to face in the modern world...then again, how likely are you to be in a sword fight in the modern world?!? I have been in one...and I have been told that it is a freak occurance, and such things only happen to me :P .
Oh, strange things happen to me too, but that's beside the point here - you are absolutely correct in what you say about the best weapon. It all comes down to personal style, physique, preference, training and a shedload of other factors which can depend on the circumstances far more than anything else.
Oh any if there was some sort of duel or all firearms/ranged weapons and armor dissapear and we have to use archaic weapons with no armor for some odd reason...my weapon of choice...the sword and shield (if no shield, then another sword). See I actually trained in two weapon fighting so for me, having two seperate weapons (yes a shield is a weapon) is better then any one weapon.
Hmm. I'd probably go for a katana for show (good for intimidation value) and half-a-dozen concealed goodies that will do the actually dirty work if it comes right down to it.
|
|
Hmm. I'd probably go for a katana for show (good for intimidation value) and half-a-dozen concealed goodies that will do the actually dirty work if it comes right down to it.
Why a katana? If I wanted the intimidation factor, I would pick a zweihander or a great dane axe or a nodachi or a zhan ma dao.
And you and your close range....
Hmm. I'd probably go for a katana for show (good for intimidation value) and half-a-dozen concealed goodies that will do the actually dirty work if it comes right down to it.
Why a katana? If I wanted the intimidation factor, I would pick a zweihander or a great dane axe or a nodachi or a zhan ma dao.
And you and your close range....
Because it's lighter than those options and I know how to use it better. Archery is for long range, of course ...
First rule for surviving a sword-fight? Bring a gun. ;)