|
Seriously, you'll get out of this place what you put into it. If you want more serious responses, your OP should come off as less accusatory and less like a fanboy rant. "Why doesn't the butterfly sword have better game stats?" works way better than "Who's the dummy that nerfed butterfly swords?" at generating meaningful dialogue. You didn't get any vitriolic responses, but you did receive some snark.
-Skeld
| 16 people marked this as a favorite. |
I could take some time on my day off to explain why you're needlessly antagonistic, and how you have your facts wrong, and the game design reasons why the weapon is the way it is, but you failed to observe the most important rule of the messageboards: "Don't be a jerk. We want our messageboards to be a fun and friendly place."
It's right there underneath the "submit post" button.
@Piccolo: The sword was made from 2 types of Iron. The actual "Crappy" steel you refer to was only a small part the rest was a type of Iron. & The edge was ridiculously easy to fix with general maintenance.
And the Video would be better if he wasn't holding a Stainless Steel Replica...
& Actually realized that a Sword has been proven to slice through another sword or stone. Albeit under certain circumstances.
its the Riddle of steel... they had to use riddle, because Arnold would have sounded like twinkle toes, trying to say "Se-cwet"
Its a bowie knife. which is a dagger. Its eastern so that should add 50 times "the awesome" ?
For anyone interested, I recommend the lindybeige video on YouTube The Katana about the properties of this particular weapon (he's a funny guy, IMO, and it's worth watching his other videos on weapons).
I shall refrain from going into too much detail on my thoughts about this "question" (it's really a suggestion), though, other than to say that the Butterfly Swords are at most in the short sword range for size, and are much lighter. Since they come in pairs, and 2d4 damage is better than 1d6, I think they're about right.
(laughter) *EXACTLY*. They were a piece of junk. Romanticized junk, but still junk.
Poor quality steel can't be compensated for via folding (pattern welding), so sorry. Katanas sucked. All you Highlander Katana fans need to see that video. And if you like, you can check around elsewhere.
Sure, if the Japanese had access to decent quality steel, the katana might have rocked. But they never did for as long as it was in service, so there!
@Piccolo: The sword was made from 2 types of Iron. The actual "Crappy" steel you refer to was only a small part the rest was a type of Iron. & The edge was ridiculously easy to fix with general maintenance.
And the Video would be better if he wasn't holding a Stainless Steel Replica...
& Actually realized that a Sword has been proven to slice through another sword or stone. Albeit under certain circumstances.
Oh, and non replica swords are not just expensive, but also many times illegal. I know a blade past a certain length is illegal in many cities, one of which is in my home state. I got no problem if he was playing around with a replica for the video's sake.
The katana was STILL a crap sword. Get used to it.
BTW: I hate Highlander. I know the Katana because I have Forged them and have been trained in Kenjutsu.
I prefer the Short Spear.
BTW: I hate Highlander. I know the Katana because I have Forged them and have been trained in Kenjutsu.
I prefer the Short Spear.
As I recall, the martial art form emphasizes as few cuts as possible, and by now you probably know why.
Sigh. The Japanese are nothing if not dyed-in-the-wool romantics, eh? The same goes for those silly ninja legends. Oh well.
I don't think I have an arms preference. I am impressed by axes ability to penetrate armor easily in real life, but they are harder to use properly.
I think for your typical Paladin in heavy armor, I prefer blowing the feat to get a bastard sword prof and use a shield, if only because it means I do an extra point of damage from the get-go. The class is so defensively orientated I kinda want to balance it out.
Really though, I think this idea of Weapon Focus, Specialization etc is a bad thing. Specializing in one type of weapon means you are vulnerable to getting poned when fighting random beasties. Even so, most warrior types do it anyway immediately. Me, I'd take generally useful feats that I will always want or need, like Lightning Reflexes if my PC has a crappy Dex score. Only later on do I actually specialize in a given weapon, so I have time to find a really nice enchanted weapon in the campaign. 4th level is too soon for Weapon Specialization if one is a Fighter, imo.
The katana was STILL a crap sword. Get used to it.
Well, no. Anyone who gave you that idea is wrong. It's not the super duper mighty sword of the ages either. They range from truly excellent to low grade. Blades that were made to equip the massive armies of the Sengoku (warring states) period tended to be mass manufactured and, at best, mediocre. Individual blades made in other periods are often outstanding examples of the sword smith's art. A well made katana consisted of thousands of layers of steel wrapping a softer iron core providing excellent cutting ability and flexibility. A masterwork blade by any definition. Tha fact that the Japanese were short on iron simply meant they tended to be careful with what they had.
The katana existed in an environment that was not as heavily focsed on armor as Europe. It was about mobility and speed. The katana was perfect for it's environment. Not surprising given that it developed in that environment.
European blades from the Middle Ages didn't have the edge the katana had. They didn't need it. They replied on impact to deliver kinetic energy through the heavier European armor. They were well suited for the combat environment they existed in.
Comparing the katana with it's European counterpart without considering the combat environment and techniques used is pretty useless.
The katana was STILL a crap sword. Get used to it.
Well, no. Anyone who gave you that idea is wrong. It's not the super duper mighty sword of the ages either. They range from truly excellent to low grade. Blades that were made to equip the massive armies of the Sengoku (warring states) period tended to be mass manufactured and, at best, mediocre. Individual blades made in other periods are often outstanding examples of the sword smith's art. A well made katana consisted of thousands of layers of steel wrapping a softer iron core providing excellent cutting ability and flexibility. A masterwork blade by any definition. Tha fact that the Japanese were short on iron simply meant they tended to be careful with what they had.
The katana existed in an environment that was not as heavily focsed on armor as Europe. It was about mobility and speed. The katana was perfect for it's environment. Not surprising given that it developed in that environment.
European blades from the Middle Ages didn't have the edge the katana had. They didn't need it. They replied on impact to deliver kinetic energy through the heavier European armor. They were well suited for the combat environment they existed in.
Comparing the katana with it's European counterpart without considering the combat environment and techniques used is pretty useless.
Forgot one thing: They didn't have the kind of metal necessary to create actual metal armor. That was because what they had was crap. It's not just the AMOUNT of iron they had was tiny, it was that what they had was very low quality. Same thing happened in China, too. Only certain people could carry metal weapons in the first place (swords), so they had to focus on nonmetal ones as much as possible. So, you end up with really funky weaponry, and even fancy hand to hand combat styles.
For the longest time, Japan merely copied Chinese weaponry etc, until the 1800's when they kicked some Chinese butt using Western weapons. This of course massively wounded Chinese pride.
Katanas didn't have to get through serious armor, because nobody was wearing any. I just love it when I find people insisting that a samurai would kick the butt of a fully armed and armored knight, because I get to laughing. I don't know where this insistence that everything Eastern is so much better than anything Europe could do, but it's silly.
Mine was about battlefield practicality and Honour in single combat.
So I was trained to take enemy soldiers down as fast as possible. In a duel it was either disarming them or killing them as fast as possible depending on whether it was a death duel or not.
Also the metal used in their weapons and armour for the basic soldiers were a small Iron & Bronze Alloy.
Axes I always find easier to hit with. Though that might be do to their weight being distributed like a Spears...
I prefer the Weapon Group Proficiency Feats personally. I even updated them to Pathfinder. They lead to being slightly more flexible with Exotic Weapons in exchange for restricting weapons to specific styles.
So my fighter might choose Thrown Weapons, Heavy Blades, Light Blades, Axe, and Close Weapons. So he can wield any of those weapons without penalties. If he picked up a Halberd he couldn't wield it without the penalty.
I'm hesitant to get involved in this debate on the pros and cons of the katana, but I do feel the need to give some input. I'm also in the camp that the katana is a good sword, but by no means the ultimate weapon. In my opinion, there IS no "best" sword/weapon, because each one is designed for different things. In some cases, a dagger is going to be a heck of a lot better to have than a battleaxe.
Now, R Chance has made the same basic point that I would: the katana is designed for speed and cutting ability, and when it's made by a master smith and time and care are put into the crafting, it's going to be a hellishly effective, not to mention beautiful, weapon. Let's not forget that katanas were tested on bodies, and history tells of three- or even four-body blades--that is, they could cut through 3 or 4 human bodies on a good swing from a trained swordsman. Truth be told I've never heard of such practices from European swordsmen, but even if they did try this, I doubt many western swords would cut through 2 or 3 bodies.
Now, it is also true that katanas didn't have a lot of impact power for breaking through armor--but that doesn't write them off as useless. Also, most western swords didn't have that ability either, at least not until armor was invented and became common. And you know what? EVEN THEN, the average sword wasn't going to put a big dent in armor. This led to the creation and spread of rapier-style swords that were used for precise piercing--so as to get around armor, strike at the gaps, that sort of thing--and even special daggers that could, with force applied to the pommel, punch through steel plating.
Oh, and guns. Those got big, too.
Let's not forget that every weapon is molded to suit its environment. Katanas were good at slicing through unarmored foes, because unarmored foes is what they faced. Big swords like longswords and claymores had more impact, chopping power because they relied on that to injure someone wearing mail, and piercing weapons were developed to bypass armor. There is no BEST weapon, and no reason to attack the katana because it can't stand up against something it never faced.
An old-style Celtic Claymore(Bastard Sword) has been shown to be able to slice through 3 bodies but barely sliced into the 4th. If they put Mail on it was reduced to 2 bodies and didn't scratch the 3rd.
Of course this is with the man swinging it being 6'8" and pure muscle.
Ah, yes. My people the Celts. I would not put that past them at all--the sword AND the man, I mean.
The central-European kilij is also hallmarked as being a brutally effective blade, though I don't have a lot of stats on it off the top of my head.
IRL, and IMHO, a skilled archer was a much more devastating killing machine than a skilled swordsman.
Forgot one thing: They didn't have the kind of metal necessary to create actual metal armor. That was because what they had was crap. It's not just the AMOUNT of iron they had was tiny, it was that what they had was very low quality. Same thing happened in China, too. Only certain people could carry metal weapons in the first place (swords), so they had to focus on nonmetal ones as much as possible. So, you end up with really funky weaponry, and even fancy hand to hand combat styles.
No, I didn't forget anything. The traditional techniques of making a katana are designed to make up for the cheap quality of the iron / steel they have. The folding and lamination techniques make up for it. I'll find a decent website that can explain it and put the link below. It'll help.
For the longest time, Japan merely copied Chinese weaponry etc, until the 1800's when they kicked some Chinese butt using Western weapons. This of course massively wounded Chinese pride.
The Japanese quit "copying" Chinese weapons before the rise of the Samurai class. Japanese weapons are distinct as a result of isolation and culture as well as resources.
Katanas didn't have to get through serious armor, because nobody was wearing any. I just love it when I find people insisting that a samurai would kick the butt of a fully armed and armored knight, because I get to laughing. I don't know where this insistence that everything Eastern is so much better than anything Europe could do, but it's silly.
I assure you the armor was "serious". It was not European and the katana was not designed to deal with European armor. The fully armored and armed western knight is a killing machine. So was the bushi of Japan. Samurai is the military class. Bushi is "warrior" and Bushido is the Way of the Warrior. Everything eastern is not necessarily better, nor is it necessarily worse. It is different. The practitioners of the Japanese and Western European feudal martial arts were separated by thousands of miles and considerable periods of time. Both cultures produced outstanding dedicated warriors. Anything else is speculation.
Well I cruised around for a balanced website and found this one. it's pretty educational and, I think, a fairly balanced article:
Let's not forget that katanas were tested on bodies, and history tells of three- or even four-body blades--that is, they could cut through 3 or 4 human bodies on a good swing from a trained swordsman. Truth be told I've never heard of such practices from European swordsmen, but even if they did try this, I doubt many western swords would cut through 2 or 3 bodies.Now, it is also true that katanas didn't have a lot of impact power for breaking through armor--but that doesn't write them off as useless. Also, most western swords didn't have that ability either, at least not until armor was invented and became common. And you know what? EVEN THEN, the average sword wasn't going to put a big dent in armor. This led to the creation and spread of rapier-style swords that were used for precise piercing--so as to get around armor, strike at the gaps, that sort of thing--and even special daggers that could, with force applied to the pommel, punch through steel plating.
Oh, and guns. Those got big, too.
Let's not forget that every weapon is molded to suit its environment. Katanas were good at slicing through unarmored foes, because unarmored foes is what they faced. Big swords like longswords and claymores had more impact, chopping power because they relied on that to injure someone wearing mail, and piercing weapons were developed to bypass armor....
Problems. First, that bit about chopping bodies in half? That is mostly a goofy legend. The reality is that they put an extra long handle on it (not for combat) and used it on dead bodies.
Second, you DO know that as armor got better in the West, so too did the weaponry, getting larger and better able to cut through armor? Kinda an arms race. Throughout history, it was mostly armor that was on top, but since the invention of firearms this swung wildly to offense. Now it's starting to swing back to armor (lots of fancy new duds that are quite good at stopping bullets, even if you get the wind knocked out of you afterward).
Third, do you know how most fully armored knights died? Either infection (tuberculosis, dysentery, malaria etc), or getting nailed in the face when they put up their visors to see what the heck was going on via arrow. Many ended up knocked off their horses via pike, lying on the ground, tackled by lots of peasant types. Then they'd get ransomed, if they were lucky.
Fourth, put simply, katanas do not deserve the hype. ANY sword was great at taking out unarmored types. Still and all, most used other weapons for general combat, as katanas were at most dueling weapons (sidearms). One of those ritualistic things that the Japanese idolize so much.
Fifth, those rapiers? Not so good. Your typical arming sword (or longsword) could easily best a rapier, if both were equal in skill. Rapiers were simply more fashionable at the time period, not better. The nobility at the time was all concerned with looking good, and rapiers were a part of that. Actual war swords were considered archaic and unfashionable.
As a side note, you know those silly pointed shoes Euros wore at the same period that rapiers got fashionable? The length of the tip was considered to be the same as your johnson, so essentially it was one of those silly bragging contests. That should tell you the lengths they went to (literally!) to remain in fashion.
Ah, yes. My people the Celts. I would not put that past them at all--the sword AND the man, I mean.
The central-European kilij is also hallmarked as being a brutally effective blade, though I don't have a lot of stats on it off the top of my head.
IRL, and IMHO, a skilled archer was a much more devastating killing machine than a skilled swordsman.
Archery was more like Modern Artillery. Pinning the enemy while your infantry moved forward.
Isn't the Kilij basically a shorter Scimitar?
@Piccolo: Remember that Arming Swords were used in Fencing.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
No, I didn't forget anything. The traditional techniques of making a katana are designed to make up for the cheap quality of the iron / steel they have.
For the longest time, Japan merely copied Chinese weaponry etc, until the 1800's when they kicked some Chinese butt using Western weapons. This of course massively wounded Chinese pride.
The Japanese quit "copying" Chinese weapons before the rise of the Samurai class. Japanese weapons are distinct as a result of isolation and culture as well as resources.
I assure you the armor was "serious". It was not European and the katana was not designed to deal with European armor. The fully armored and armed western knight is a killing machine. So was the bushi of Japan. Samurai is the military class. Bushi is "warrior" and Bushido is the Way of the Warrior. Everything eastern is not necessarily better, nor is it necessarily worse. It is different. The practitioners of the Japanese and Western European...
Katanas didn't have to get through serious armor, because nobody was wearing any. I just love it when I find people insisting that a samurai would kick the butt of a fully armed and armored knight, because I get to laughing. I don't know where this insistence that everything Eastern is so much better than anything Europe could do, but it's silly.
Oh aye, you did. Let's have some fun bursting your bubble, shall we?
Folding does not help much. Remember that video that was just placed in this thread? Lemme remind you: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XLWzH_1eZsc&feature=youtu.be
The Japanese tried to take on the Chinese for centuries, and kept losing badly, and the Chinese got an ego about it, as they did based on all "barbarians" they came up against, until the 1800's with Japan, and especially with the West. Most of the Japanese stuff couldn't do squat against the Chinese. They DID do a lot of fighting against each other, though.
JAPANESE ARMOR WAS A JOKE, PERIOD. It would work against crappy Japanese weapons, simply because their metal sucked. Lamellar was not all that, either. I did learn that their thick paper armor was neat stuff, but didn't do well when it rained, thanks to Mythbusters.
Don't you dare start quoting Bushido to me. That's a joke. Wanna know when it came into play? AFTER THE SAMURAI WERE EXTINCT. Here:
http://www.cracked.com/article_18510_6-supposedly-ancient-traditions-that-t otally-arent.html?wa_user1=2&wa_user2=History&wa_user3=article& wa_user4=recommended
Sheesh, this is starting to remind me of Looney Tunes and Bugs Bunny vs Elmer Fudd. You guys can do better than this.
The kilij was a nice combination of curved swords like the scimitar, saber, talwar, and shamshir. It had the keen-edged cutting curve that let it slice through cloth and flesh, with a weighted tip that gave it chopping power. Big in, I believe, the Ottoman Empire; Vlad Dracul used one, if memory serves.
Piccolo:
1) They did that, actually, and regardless of extra power from the longer handle, you still need a good blade to pull it off.
2) I said that weapons advanced as armor did. But no, I don't believe they ever successfully created a weapon that could cut through armor. Smash through it? Sure; hammers. Punch through it, piercing? Certainly: all sorts of weapons started getting spikes, including the pommels of warswords. But cut through like a sword typically is meant to? Reference me something.
3) I knew this, actually, but I fail to see the relevance in an argument over weapons and armor.
4) The katana was the premiere weapon of the samurai after they stopped using the yumi. Certainly, warriors used other weapons: yari spears, kanabo clubs, even axes and other kinds of swords (see: nodachi). I think you're confusing the katana with the wakizashi, which was the "sidearm" blade of the samurai, said to house his honor. Certainly, there's ritualism, but pretty much every warrior culture in history has a level of ritualism to it. What do you call chivalry, and the fact that many nobles were buried with their swords?
5) No, perhaps the rapier wasn't as effective in combat as a more typical sword, but you do have to admit that they aren't all fashion and no function. A rapier will pierce. And the fact also remains that weapons were quickly developed to bypass or punch through armor. Thick armor quickly fell out of fashion in Europe except for jousting matches. It was heavy and cumbersome (though certainly not as much as some people would have you believe) and ineffective against modern weapons.
I know that fashion was a big deal, but again, it bears little relevance... Especially when certain fashions, like engraved armor for jousting and whatnot, sprang out of the fact that functional armor for the battlefield had become a thing of the past.
The Samurai preferred the Yari & Yumi as their Primary Weapons. Even after the Katana came around. The Difference was the fact that the Katana replaced the Tachi when Samurai changed from Mounted Archers & Commanders to Foot Archers & Commanders. Typically they were more of Switch Hitters focusing on the Archery Side.
Bushido was just some idiot trying to bring back "The Samurai Way". Ironically, he wrote it by combining what little "Code of Honour" the Samurai had with the Romanticized "Chevaliers' Code" that came with the French & Spanish.
End up that way, no? But the thing I see is the Butterfly Sword is still one of the Best Weapons for a TWF. They are cheap to make Masterwork.
So this is a katana thread after all.
It's devolved into that...
how did this become another katana thread.
All this pales in comparison to the power of the force.
I've never actually seen a katana fanboy. I've seen plenty of anti-katana people, and plenty of accusations about 12d6 tank cutting power, but I've never actually seen a katana fanboy on any DnD boards, from WotC to Paizo.
The most I've seen are the people who argue, probably reasonably, for Japanese weapons/fighters to not be considered worthless and crap, against ARMA-type folks who argue that the European fighting dominance equates to rendering all other styles obsolete.
Euro-fanbois actually exist, but no katana fanbois. I wonder why that is, and why the perception is the reverse.
I actually prefer Balsa's Fighting Style... Short Spear. And this is why I rule that Short Spears are a Monk Weapon.
It is the only weapon where +300GP gives you 2 Masterwork Weapons.
@Azaelas Fayth: You have my respect for no other reason that you have watched Moribito :)
To those STILL arguing over this thread...I refer you to my first post on page one.
@Azaelas Fayth: You have my respect for no other reason that you have watched Moribito :)
To those STILL arguing over this thread...I refer you to my first post on page one.
I actually have the first novel... I can't find a copy of the second.
Oh aye, you did. Let's have some fun bursting your bubble, shall we?Folding does not help much. Remember that video that was just placed in this thread? Lemme remind you: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XLWzH_1eZsc&feature=youtu.be
[/The Japanese tried to take on the Chinese for centuries, and kept losing badly, and the Chinese got an ego about it, as they did based on all "barbarians" they came up against, until the 1800's with Japan, and especially with the West. Most of the Japanese stuff couldn't do squat against the Chinese. They DID do a lot of fighting against each other, though.
JAPANESE ARMOR WAS A JOKE, PERIOD. It would work against crappy Japanese weapons, simply because their metal sucked. Lamellar was not all that, either. I did learn that their thick paper armor was neat stuff, but didn't do well when it rained, thanks to Mythbusters.
Don't you dare start quoting Bushido to me. That's a joke. Wanna know when it came into play? AFTER THE SAMURAI WERE EXTINCT. Here:
http://www.cracked.com/article_18510_6-supposedly-ancient-traditions-that-t otally-arent.html?wa_user1=2&wa_user2=History&wa_user3=article& wa_user4=recommendedSheesh, this is starting to remind me of Looney Tunes and Bugs Bunny vs Elmer Fudd. You guys can do better than this.
If ignorance is bliss and that video was blissful. He made a couple of points and that was, I gather, what he wanted. The katana is not a supersword / lightsabre. I'm not saying it was. As a reaction to the "katana is the greatest evar" it is understandable. Objective? No. Entertaining? Yes. A good factual guide? no. Does it make a point in countering the absurd level of katana worship in some circles? Maybe.
As for Bushido, I didn't quote it. It's a codification of what had existed; on the same level as the Code of Chivalry from Europe. Idealized, romanticized. I mentioned it to tie in the proper term for warrior, bushi, as opposed to "samurai" which is a social class. It means, roughly, "servant" iirc. The military clans originally served the noble / landowning clans who ruled Japan during the Heian Period. Eventually the Samurai moved up the ladder.
Anyway, if you bothered to read the website I posted it mentioned that the folding and laminate served to counter the low grade iron ore they had and allow them to produce some pretty good blades. That pretty much somes it up.
I'm pretty much done with this. You aren't out for a debate; you're out to "win". I don't really have a horse in this race. I'm not a worshipper of the "almighty katana" nor am I one of the "katana suxxorz" crowd. Have fun and good luck.
Why do talks about katana either land on "They are the BEST!" or "They are the WORST!"? It seems so rarely that they fall in the middle ground.
I am not saying they are "The Best" only that they aren't as bad as some people think. I don't think anyone is saying they are "The Best".
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well, yes, you are a voice of reason here. I'm talking about other conversations I've overheard or have been a part of where they are like "WOO, YEAH! KATANAS ARE SO FLIPPIN' AWESOME!". I think they are a sword, like many other swords, and are naturally inferior to the MIGHTY AXE.
|
|
I've never actually seen a katana fanboy. I've seen plenty of anti-katana people, and plenty of accusations about 12d6 tank cutting power, but I've never actually seen a katana fanboy on any DnD boards, from WotC to Paizo.
The most I've seen are the people who argue, probably reasonably, for Japanese weapons/fighters to not be considered worthless and crap, against ARMA-type folks who argue that the European fighting dominance equates to rendering all other styles obsolete.
Euro-fanbois actually exist, but no katana fanbois. I wonder why that is, and why the perception is the reverse.
A few years ago, during the heyday of 3.5e, WotC banned katana threads from their forums because they got so crazy. RPGNet supposedly had some pretty epic katana threads a few years ago. Katanas really don't get all that much play around here because the forums tend to be more laid back and because most people recognize katana threads for what they are and either avoid them or poke fun.
-Skeld