Yeah, but is a curved sword is a curved sword is a curved sword? Why is it different from other curved weapons like the scimitar/saber/shamshir?
Because a curved sword is not a weapon classification in D&D/PF and has never been. Yes, there have been curved swords before, but none of the other curved swords are classified as being the same. Katana and wakizashi are classified exotic Asian weapons. If katana had been pulled from an existing curved sword classification, you'd have a point, but it never was, because there is no such thing in PF.
A tanto is an Asian weapon derived from the katana, but its really just a dagger.
Don't forget jambiyas! 2nd Edition's AL-QADIM had them as their own thing (and barber's razors, too!).
Or the glaive-glaive-glaive-guisarme-glaive
...I mean, the dozen or so polearms that each have their own seperate entry. Hell, I am still not sure there is an actual difference between a bec de corban and a lucerne hammer in real life. It is certainly a more subtle difference between various swords that the layman might call a long sword (perhaps viking swords, arming swords, etc.)
Yeah, but is a curved sword is a curved sword is a curved sword? Why is it different from other curved weapons like the scimitar/saber/shamshir?Because a curved sword is not a weapon classification in D&D/PF and has never been. Yes, there have been curved swords before, but none of the other curved swords are classified as being the same. Katana and wakizashi are classified exotic Asian weapons. If katana had been pulled from an existing curved sword classification, you'd have a point, but it never was, because there is no such thing in PF.
A tanto is an Asian weapon derived from the katana, but its really just a dagger.
I can understand that...just that the original basic weapons were written in very, very broad strokes, and everything afterwards got specific. If you kept that principle, the katana would rightly be folded over into the scimitar listing.
Also, I realize tantos are daggers...but the definition between a 'dagger' and a 'short sword' is often very vague. Sometimes intentionally so, since swords tend to be legally restricted, so you see things like grosse messers which are 'great knives'..."Yes officer, this is just my knife, used for cutting...wooly mammoths. Not for cutting people at all."
So there is plenty of room to argue whether a wakizashi is a dagger. And it is hard to excuse the fact that it would still be considered a short sword at least. That is the broadest darn term in the game (much more so than 'long sword) by all account.
Sidenote- I want to see a 'great knife' in a game now. Maybe a tiny sized weapon that was originally a kitchen knife that got converted by an imp or something.
So there is plenty of room to argue whether a wakizashi is a dagger. And it is hard to excuse the fact that it would still be considered a short sword at least. That is the broadest darn term in the game...
Really? Even a main gauche which is rather large for a dagger, is still really a dagger and nothing like a short sword. Even a Bowie knife, which is both long and broad, though a big one, is still unmistakenly a dagger. A gladius is kind of short for a short sword, but its still at least 50% larger than a big Bowie knife (Bowie knives aren't univeral in size).
I have both a family heirloom katana with handle and wooden sheath, and a wakizashi, though that is blade only. Still the wakizashi that I possess is about 22 inches long as just a blade, and would probably be 26 with the handle if it had one. A 22 inch blade is nothing like a dagger. To me comparing a dagger to a wakizashi is kind of crazy. The katana is about 34 inches long, about 36 with the handle. To me, there's absolutely no mistaking those weapons are swords and could never be called a dagger. I don't see any gray areas in that discussion.
So there is plenty of room to argue whether a wakizashi is a dagger. And it is hard to excuse the fact that it would still be considered a short sword at least. That is the broadest darn term in the game...Really? Even a main gauche which is rather large for a dagger, is still really a dagger and nothing like a short sword. Even a Bowie knife, which is both long and broad, though a big one, is still unmistakenly a dagger. A gladius is kind of short for a short sword, but its still at least 50% larger than a big Bowie knife (Bowie knives aren't univeral in size).
I have both a family heirloom katana with handle and wooden sheath, and a wakizashi, though that is blade only. Still the wakizashi that I possess is about 22 inches long as just a blade, and would probably be 26 with the handle if it had one. A 22 inch blade is nothing like a dagger. To me comparing a dagger to a wakizashi is kind of crazy. The katana is about 34 inches long, about 36 with the handle. To me, there's absolutely no mistaking those weapons are swords and could never be called a dagger. I don't see any gray areas in that discussion.
And messers (which again, claim to be knives) can be 30 inches long, Spartans have used Xiphos with a blade only a foot long (figure I saw did not mention how long the handle might be, but I doubt it was over 5 inches), and so on and so forth.
Your wakizashi appears to be on the long side of the spectrum . Shorter examples of wakizashi have blades down to half that. I have stillettos longer than that, and those are generally considered daggers. Just because your personal examples are relatively clear cut doesn't mean other ones are not.
I will not make this a discussion on specific classifications of weapons, due to my own relative lack of expertise and the muddled nature of naming conventions (Where different regions use different terms for the same weapon, or the same term for different weapon), as well as the often intentionally muddled distinctions like with messers. That and the fact that I already fear that I cannot keep this civil. Good day.
The weapon system has always bothered me because the choices given to you seem so transparent. There are weapons that I'm convinced nobody will ever use, such as Light Maces and Shortbows, and it's not that these weapons should be stronger, they just don't make the cut. Nearly every weapon deals 1dX with a basic crit multiplier, and that's tight, whatever, but when you notice the few weapons that deal 2d4 and 2d6 it makes me wonder why we dont have 3d4 or 2d3 or other combinations to make the weapons actually seem different from one another.
I've never done the math, but I'm sure you could make it work.
The weapon system has always bothered me because the choices given to you seem so transparent. There are weapons that I'm convinced nobody will ever use, such as Light Maces and Shortbows, and it's not that these weapons should be stronger, they just don't make the cut. Nearly every weapon deals 1dX with a basic crit multiplier, and that's tight, whatever, but when you notice the few weapons that deal 2d4 and 2d6 it makes me wonder why we dont have 3d4 or 2d3 or other combinations to make the weapons actually seem different from one another.
I've never done the math, but I'm sure you could make it work.
Minor nitpick.
Some classes have Shortbow proficiency but not Longbow proficiency. Bards and Rogues, for example. Thus the Shortbow does see use, even if the reason is a bit artificial.
You will see the same to a lesser extent with Favored weapons - A battleaxe is worse than a greatsword but a battleaxe is better than any similar simple option, so a god with favored weapon: battleaxe gives a useful proficiency.
Bein' animu as f*@~
And that alone is reason to use it
Now if you'll excuse me, I need to go make my twf katana ninja
|
The weapon system has always bothered me because the choices given to you seem so transparent. There are weapons that I'm convinced nobody will ever use, such as Light Maces and Shortbows, and it's not that these weapons should be stronger, they just don't make the cut.
For what it's worth, I have seen effective builds using both weapons. Shortbows are only 1 point of damage less than longbows and several classes have proficiency with them but not longbows. Ranged Bard works just fine with a shortbow.
As for the light mace, it's a simple light bludgeoning weapon. It's good for finesse builds that need bludgeoning weapons, or for TWF builds that want to do bludgeoning damage.
Well the Warpriest does change some things up now though lol. With a war priest the Scimitar and Katana are just about the same. Just one has the deadly ability
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Hey look, it's one other "katanas are better" internet discussion. Hisashiburi trope-kun, good to see you back on this forum.
"Yard-long knife" is used in the Conan novels to describe the weapons of the Yaziri.
Katanas are slicing/slashing weapons that can be used to pierce. They became the prominent weapon because Japan was not a culture that used armor widely, nor shields. Just like the other equatorial civilizations, they used curved weapons because such things are better dealing with the leather and cloth armors of their enemies, and doing hideous damage to flesh.
For dealing with armored enemies, a samurai was mostly likely to use a spear or naginata. A katana is traditionally wielded two handed because there's nothing else to do with the other hand. Niten is not a common style, nor is long and short, and definitely not shields.
Katana means 'sword'. Really. Katanas come in all lengths, from a courtly near-wakizashi length, up to the zanbakto horse-cutting swords.
A 'standard' katana is not that long and would probably be just a scimitar. A Dai-katana, a heavy, long war katana, is probably the one statted in PF, a bastard sword equivalent. A zanbakto is definitely a form of falchion or greatsword.
A katana is shaped like a wedge. European swords are shaped more like elongated diamonds, perhaps with a fuller in the middle. The reason is that katana weren't used to cut armor, so a wedge shape was fine...a katana sliced through things, and the additional weight of the wedge helped deal with soft tissue.
Faced with hard materials, like multiple bones or armor, a katana was very likely to get wedged and stuck.
Thinner European swords had less of a problem dealing with rigid armor and got stuck less. Since the style was more hacking then slashing, it was easier to inflict a deep wound straight into a person and withdraw the sword, instead of opening them up like a katana would. However, European swords were usually wider, and the form of construction made them as a whole much tougher. Since they dealt with hard targets, supernatural sharpness just meant you'd bend the edge of the blade uselessly on their armor. You wanted a hard diamond wedge edge, to start a cut and then power through, but not the elongated razor that was used on lightly and non-armored foes.
There's an old tale about a Crusader coming to an Arab court, and a contest was held between their weapons and the sword of the crusader. The scimitar of the Arabs easily cut a silk cloth, which the crusader could not. The Crusader brought out an iron bar. The scimitar shattered against the iron bar, but the Crusader clove it in two with his broadsword.
When time came for battle, who was wearing silk, and who was wearing iron?
I was always of the impression that the 'daisho', worn in public, was the exclusive symbol of the samurai class. Wearing a katana was likely a privilege, but wearing the weapon also meant you knew how to use it, could be challenged, etc. It was probably worn more to ward off fights then anything else.
Jambiyas were their own thing in 2E because the style of wielding a jambiya is very different from the traditional method of using a dagger or knife. 2E used weapon profs individually, not 'martial weapons'.
==Aelryinth
Is the style for jambiyas necessarily that different?
Or more precisely, from all styles of knife fighting? There are a lot of different knife fighting styles (since knives and daggers could see use cross class lines)
Particularly when consider the vast array of different knives and daggers, which could encourage different styles.
I would think that the only way for jamibiyas' style to be different is if it had a really, really unorthodox style.
Sidenote (just cause you made me think of something interesting)- there are some curved swords which could work rather well against shields, although it is a bit unorthodox. Some Egyptian Khopeshes could be rather effective, since their curve could be used to curve over the shield. If it is an example that retained a nice stabbing point (such as the one found in king Tutankhamun's grave), you could do a nasty wound. The mentioned example also have a hooking edge which could be used to pull down a shield as well.
Similar techniques were used in Europe with swords like the Sica.
|
Guys, guys. The sin of the Katana isn't that requires a feat to use. While I'm no expert on fighting with a katana, it is typically depicted as being used with two hands. Unless you intended to two-weapon fight with a Wakizashi or using a Sword and Pistol build or Spell Combating (you probably should just use the Kensai archetype if you're going to do that) build, chances are you can just hold the Katana in one hand while using your open hand for whatever it is you're doing. Since you'll probably use the weapon two-handed (using a shield with a Katana is pretty much Anti-Flavor), you won't need Exotic Proficiency since you can just use it as a Martial Weapon.
NO. The real sin of the Katana is just how difficult it is to weapon finesse it. You need a magic item or a swashbuckler dip to be able to weapon finesse with the Katana.
You want to know a sin on Paizo's part?! Failing to include text that allows some archetypes for Cavalier (or Rogue*) to be modified to work with the Samurai (or Ninja*) class. Why? Daring Champion is almost everywhere I want to be with the Samurai class. Seriously, I want to finesse with a Katana and I don't want to feel forced to do a swashbuckler dip or wait until I can afford a magic item. UGH!
*I am a fan of the Vishkanya Deadly Courtesan archetype. Sadly, it can't work with Ninja despite the Vishkanya in Bestiary 3 having the Ninja class. Grr.
They became the prominent weapon because Japan was not a culture that used armor widely, nor shields. Just like the other equatorial civilizations, they used curved weapons because such things are better dealing with the leather and cloth armors of their enemies, and doing hideous damage to flesh.
Not only that, but Japan has limited amounts and conditionally crappy metal. Volcanic islands aren't great sources of iron (or gold for that matter). Thus using enough metal for a full suit of armor made no sense. The curved sword is ideal for slashing while mounted on horseback - straight sword slashes from horseback tend to stick into its target, rather than slicing through, as I've stated further up thread, prior to the largely ceremonial samurai of the Edo Period, samurai were mounted archers primarily. Once you're out of arrows, then you draw your katana (as the katana was a secondary weapon).
All the masterwork done in swordsmithy with all the folds, mixed metals in different parts of the blade was necessary due to the poor metal. The work wasn't done to make an extraoridinary blade, rather if you didn't put care in the production, you'd end up with a crappy sword, that might break sooner rather than later - all because of the low quality of metal.
They became the prominent weapon because Japan was not a culture that used armor widely, nor shields. Just like the other equatorial civilizations, they used curved weapons because such things are better dealing with the leather and cloth armors of their enemies, and doing hideous damage to flesh.Not only that, but Japan has limited amounts and conditionally crappy metal. Volcanic islands aren't great sources of iron (or gold for that matter). Thus using enough metal for a full suit of armor made no sense. The curved sword is ideal for slashing while mounted on horseback - straight sword slashes from horseback tend to stick into its target, rather than slicing through, as I've stated further up thread, prior to the largely ceremonial samurai of the Edo Period, samurai were mounted archers primarily. Once you're out of arrows, then you draw your katana (as the katana was a secondary weapon).
All the masterwork done in swordsmithy with all the folds, mixed metals in different parts of the blade was necessary due to the poor metal. The work wasn't done to make an extraoridinary blade, rather if you didn't put care in the production, you'd end up with a crappy sword, that might break sooner rather than later - all because of the low quality of metal.
You could use leather armor as well, and they did to some extent...but you must also realize- the available farm land was also limited. As such, cattle were a more pricy commodity since they tend to use up a lot of land in comparison to the food they produce (and this trend continues today as meat other than fish is seen as an occasional treat by many in Japan), and as such you did not have much leather to go around for full coverage and a good deal of layers.
Another thing to consider is the fact that their reliance on a single edged blade shows that Japan did not have much room to experiment with their weapons.
Making a single edged weapon is much, much simpler than a double edged weapon. While it is not necessarily too much of a factor in 'which is better', it does show that the blacksmiths did not have the iron to waste of random features that might add a little advantage.
The europeans did, however, and they could try almost everything and anything (just look at the dozens of polearm designs). As such, they had a lot more trial and error to work with on their designs, which can lead to a wider, more robust array of weapons for different situations.
EDITED IN:
I figured it out! You don't wanna melt them down to forge another sword, due to the poor quality steel, but it COULD make perfectly serviceable sling bullets!
Nope. You want lead for that. Lead is perfect for projectiles since the way it deforms allows it to transfer the energy in a more destructive manner. That is why bullets use lead, actually (they are copper jacketed nowadays because copper can better deal with the heat and muzzle velocity, but lead is still the core)
Heck, even if you just talked about throwing them, longswords are better as ranged weapons (they are nice and straight, and the hilt helps; it basically comes down to a javelin throw like technique)
Is the style for jambiyas necessarily that different?Yes. A jambiyas is an inward curved purely cutting weapon. European daggers (going back at least to the Roman pugio) are straight. Some later daggers don't have cutting edges at all.
Abstract combat styles away. The PF dagger does not describe either a jambiyas (slashing only) or a stiletto (piercing only).
Well, many stiletto would keep cutting edges so that people couldn't just grab them.
And jambiya are not completely useless for stabbing either. Rather curved, sure, and thick too. But some styles of piercing daggers, like the cinquedea, are designed to be thick to leave a wide stab wound.
The jambiya's specific curve does interesting things with its cuts, but it might not be incompatible with many forms of knife fighting.
Admittedly, the same could be said about the kukri, which has similar concerns, but it gets its own entry. Not sure why (kukri have been known to be used with a stabbing technique...often as a prelude to being ripped out of the enemy's gut)
But eh, I am also still miffed that longswords don't also do piercing...thinking about it, could the short sword be meant a stilletto style design in older D&D versions? Although there are various short swords that could fit the stats too (I personally like to think of them like swiss degen...mostly because I have an infatuation with some of the pieces I've seen pictured)
You could use leather armor as well, and they did to some extent...but you must also realize- the available farm land was also limited. As such, cattle were a more pricy commodity since they tend to use up a lot of land in comparison to the food they produce (and this trend continues today as meat other than fish is seen as an occasional treat by many in Japan), and as such you did not have much leather to go around for full coverage and a good deal of layers.
Japan has Euro-cattle now, but in the feudal period they were limited to oxen or horse hide as the primary source of leather. Horses have always been commonly found animals throughout Japanese history.
Additionally only the Eta (the lowest social caste in feudal Japanese society) were allowed to butcher animals, treat leather and create leather goods including saddles and armor. Touching dead things (outside of the kitchen and combat) was considered taboo, so the Eta had a monopoly on industries like leather working, which allowed the Eta to be more properous than much of the higher castes, despite not having many rights.
|
|
"What's a katana good for"?!?!?
Why, it slices, it dices, it shaves, it circumcises, it makes Julian fries, it cuts cheese into little toothpick-ready cubes with a precision that simply cannot be matched by any competing Occidental sword! Order yours NOW and we'll even include a free cutting board and our EXCLUSIVE ornamental display stand!
Samurai Mohel.
Frightening and funny all at once.
I think I've actually seen a movie with that theme, very weird one distopic world with super samurai vs genetically engineered mutants (who deformed to use something as a weapon e.g. armour piercing pens) that ended with the main female lead becoming one and having a katana hand or something. Contained interspersed "adds" for various content including a seppuku kit (used by two teenage girls as it was the cool thing) and katanas.
As for the weapons I've always wondered about the Bohemian ear spoon in first ed.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Absolutely NOTHING (listen to me!)
"What's a katana good for"?!?!?
Why, it slices, it dices, it shaves, it circumcises, it makes Julian fries, it cuts cheese into little toothpick-ready cubes with a precision that simply cannot be matched by any competing Occidental sword! Order yours NOW and we'll even include a free cutting board and our EXCLUSIVE ornamental display stand!
Samurai Mohel.
Frightening and funny all at once.
I think I've actually seen a movie with that theme, very weird one distopic world with super samurai vs genetically engineered mutants (who deformed to use something as a weapon e.g. armour piercing pens) that ended with the main female lead becoming one and having a katana hand or something. Contained interspersed "adds" for various content including a seppuku kit (used by two teenage girls as it was the cool thing) and katanas.
As for the weapons I've always wondered about the Bohemian ear spoon in first ed.
Wasn't Mutant Girl Squad, was it? That was a pretty bizarre movie. Gave me game ideas.
The khopesh and forward curving swords (like the falcata) are not things that stood the test of time militarily. They were too slow to use in a duel, and too awkward to use in formations. The only time they shined was MAYBE in small squad or open melee combat.
In short the khopesh should have a TH penalty for its awkwardness of trying to incorporate a sickle into a sword, and the falcata should in no way be better then a standard battle axe...it isn't even as heavy. The falacata's status as an uber weapon is completely an RPG thing.
A Katana is no more intrinsically finessable then a bastard sword. It's heavy, and the balance of the blade is farther up the cutting edge. Finessable weapons have balances at the beginning of the hilt or further back, so you have precise point control (like the rapier) or are very light so it doesn't matter (light weapons).
The fact they are portrayed so dexterously in fiction and movies is because that's showy swordsmanship. A naginata looks like a finessable weapon if you are performing weapon drills with it...so does a rifle. They aren't. Try picking one up. The reason they move so fast and sure is because there are two hands being used, not because they are finessable. People really underestimate how crucial being really strong is for moving a weapon well.
My apologies when I say leather, but it's a euphemism for non-metal light armors. Rope armor, layered silks, leather, lamellar and what have you. Yes, historic lack of metal was behind much of this...so was the fact it got bloody hot.
The jambiya style is indeed very different from the standard knife/dagger style, because it is so curved. It's all slashing motions that start with the blade against the forearm, with some hooking stuff involved if you capture the other person's weapon. It's basically fallen out of favor because the straight dagger being able to be used point up or point down is considerably more effective for slashing, piercing, and trapping.
The katana is a dueling weapon and used in war most often from horseback (but naginatas were preferred for that role), or in the formal challenge-exchange of duels that were sometimes prominent in samurai culture (and happened even on battlefields). In an actual battle free-for-all, a samurai was far more likely to start with a bow, move to a yari, and then pull out his tanto or wakizashi for close quarters fighting. A standard katana is much too long to be used in most close-quarters combat (which is why classic sailing weapons like the cutlass are much shorter then dueling swords like the rapier..so you can use them belowdecks!).
==Aelryinth
|
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
A Katana is no more intrinsically finessable then a bastard sword. It's heavy, and the balance of the blade is farther up the cutting edge. Finessable weapons have balances at the beginning of the hilt or further back, so you have precise point control (like the rapier) or are very light so it doesn't matter (light weapons).
The fact they are portrayed so dexterously in fiction and movies is because that's showy swordsmanship. A naginata looks like a finessable weapon if you are performing weapon drills with it...so does a rifle. They aren't. Try picking one up. The reason they move so fast and sure is because there are two hands being used, not because they are finessable. People really underestimate how crucial being really strong is for moving a weapon well.
For the record, I care far more about the Rule of Cool then historical accuracy.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
For the record, I care far more about the Rule of Cool then historical accuracy.A Katana is no more intrinsically finessable then a bastard sword. It's heavy, and the balance of the blade is farther up the cutting edge. Finessable weapons have balances at the beginning of the hilt or further back, so you have precise point control (like the rapier) or are very light so it doesn't matter (light weapons).
The fact they are portrayed so dexterously in fiction and movies is because that's showy swordsmanship. A naginata looks like a finessable weapon if you are performing weapon drills with it...so does a rifle. They aren't. Try picking one up. The reason they move so fast and sure is because there are two hands being used, not because they are finessable. People really underestimate how crucial being really strong is for moving a weapon well.
I'm more concerned about the rule of fairness.
If you allow it for the katana, you should allow it for every weapon from the bastard sword on down. Otherwise, jump through hoops like anyone else.
==Aelryinth
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It turns out most other weapons don't need to go through hoops as it were. Swashbuckler is freely available. If you want dex to hit and damage on any piercing or slashing one-handed weapon, swashbuckler or cavalier with an archetype is there. Many of those weapons don't have a cultural footprint that makes people think Dex to hit and damage so it really isn't a huge issue in most other weapons case as people are fine being strength based on those things.
The only other weapons I can think of having a real issue with this (personally) are the Sawtooth sabre (Red Mantis Assassins are the saddest) and Whips.
I'm fine with putting effort into making Whips a strong weapon but it feels like I can't use the weapon for the early levels due to just how feat intensive it really is to EITHER be good at maneuvers or be able to do damage to creatures with armor or +3 or more natural armor - ie. You put all your feats for the first 3 levels into just being able to use the whip (and be dex based) against humanoid enemies in which case you have a fairly subpar weapon which only has the benefit of a good reach but the damage is 1d3+4? Yeah you probably won't power attack as that won't be available due to all your feats going elsewhere. Or you can be good at maneuvers but not even really get to be able to damage against almost every single humanoid enemy you might face.
Anyway, my solution to your "problem" as it were is just get rid of Piranha strike and force anyone who wants Power Attack to have the STR requirement. So even my finesse based characters tend to have a 13 strength since I do not like Piranha Strike. For the record I do ALSO believe in fairness and despise the level to damage (and its doubling) and the Auto-Disarm and Auto-Trip and Combat Maneuver Immunity the Swashbuckler has.
The khopesh and forward curving swords (like the falcata) are not things that stood the test of time militarily. They were too slow to use in a duel, and too awkward to use in formations. The only time they shined was MAYBE in small squad or open melee combat.
In short the khopesh should have a TH penalty for its awkwardness of trying to incorporate a sickle into a sword, and the falcata should in no way be better then a standard battle axe...it isn't even as heavy. The falacata's status as an uber weapon is completely an RPG thing.
Well, with you mentioning the falcata, I suppose you know that such weapons are believed are to be part of the weapon family, including the kopis and kukri.
If we are to believe that such weapons are the influence that lead to the kukri (which is always something of a questionable thing when you discuss ancient weapon development, admittedly), then the design still survives and continues to see use to this day (a claim that most swords cannot make).
And while the khopesh might have originated as retrofitted farming equipment (which is the history behind a lot of weapons, mind you), later examples over the few hundred years of use certainly were more developed and specialized.
|
I think I've actually seen a movie with that theme, very weird one distopic world with super samurai vs genetically engineered mutants (who deformed to use something as a weapon e.g. armour piercing pens) that ended with the main female lead becoming one and having a katana hand or something. Contained interspersed "adds" for various content including a seppuku kit (used by two teenage girls as it was the cool thing) and katanas.
Tokyo Gore Police. Brilliant movie. My personal favorite of Japan's over-the-top gore films. Highly recommended. It's on Hulu.
EDIT: I see someone else thought maybe Mutant Girls Squad. The description still sounds more like TGP to me, though. I don't think MGS had any seppuku kit adds. Ruka's hand was less a katana and more of a creepy monster head. With claws.
Nope. You want lead for that. Lead is perfect for projectiles since the way it deforms allows it to transfer the energy in a more destructive manner. That is why bullets use lead, actually (they are copper jacketed nowadays because copper can better deal with the heat and muzzle velocity, but lead is still the core)
On top of that, lead is much denser than any other common substance. Lumps of lead could easily be melted down to make bullets of whatever size you want. And a lead ball won't damage the bore of your gun.
I think I've actually seen a movie with that theme, very weird one distopic world with super samurai vs genetically engineered mutants (who deformed to use something as a weapon e.g. armour piercing pens) that ended with the main female lead becoming one and having a katana hand or something. Contained interspersed "adds" for various content including a seppuku kit (used by two teenage girls as it was the cool thing) and katanas.Tokyo Gore Police. Brilliant movie. My personal favorite of Japan's over-the-top gore films. Highly recommended. It's on Hulu.
EDIT: I see someone else thought maybe Mutant Girls Squad. The description still sounds more like TGP to me, though. I don't think MGS had any seppuku kit adds. Ruka's hand was less a katana and more of a creepy monster head. With claws.
You're probably right.
I still haven't seen that one, although I check for it every time I visit our local DVD resale. I've managed to find Machine Girl and other similarly bizarre films there, so hopefully it's a matter of time.| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
...and nobody has posted the old saw:
A katana can cut through a TANK! It's true! I saw it on the internet!
LOL
It was brutally common back in the flame wars of the '90s.
Contributor
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Time to play a Samurai in Reign of Winter and test that theory....and nobody has posted the old saw:
A katana can cut through a TANK! It's true! I saw it on the internet!
Yeah... all we have is a spear, a couple of light weapons, and my sword.
I have some concerns. ^_^
|
|
I think I've actually seen a movie with that theme, very weird one distopic world with super samurai vs genetically engineered mutants (who deformed to use something as a weapon e.g. armour piercing pens) that ended with the main female lead becoming one and having a katana hand or something. Contained interspersed "adds" for various content including a seppuku kit (used by two teenage girls as it was the cool thing) and katanas.Tokyo Gore Police. Brilliant movie. My personal favorite of Japan's over-the-top gore films. Highly recommended. It's on Hulu.
EDIT: I see someone else thought maybe Mutant Girls Squad. The description still sounds more like TGP to me, though. I don't think MGS had any seppuku kit adds. Ruka's hand was less a katana and more of a creepy monster head. With claws.
You're probably right.
I still haven't seen that one, although I check for it every time I visit our local DVD resale. I've managed to find Machine Girl and other similarly bizarre films there, so hopefully it's a matter of time.
If you have Hulu Plus: Hulu link
Any other similar titles you can recommend? I've seen many of them, but I'm always open to new ones.
A villain based on the Engineers from Tokyo Gore Police could be interesting.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
It seems like all complaints about weapon disparities could be almost entirely resolved if proficiency with any one weapon was just material for a trait. I mean, nobody really cares about that extra +1 or +2 average damage from any given Exotic or Martial weapon. Weapon choice tends to be one of the least important choices of the game, and when it's not, it's because you have a character built around a particular choice (like a whip), and in that case, hey, kudos, just grab that weapon.
The point is, there aren't many "trap" weapons because there's just not that much distance to fall into a pit.
But feats...those matter more. And having to spend a whole feat to grab a crappy weapon just ain't worth it. That's the real trap here.
And can I just say, I am disappointed in all of you. I came here for arguments about katanas cutting through skyscrapers and I have nothing for my troubles.
And can I just say, I am disappointed in all of you. I came here for arguments about katanas cutting through skyscrapers and I have nothing for my troubles.
Would you say there's a distinct lack of
cutting remarks?
You're probably right.
I still haven't seen that one, although I check for it every time I visit our local DVD resale. I've managed to find Machine Girl and other similarly bizarre films there, so hopefully it's a matter of time.If you have Hulu Plus: Hulu link
Any other similar titles you can recommend? I've seen many of them, but I'm always open to new ones.
A villain based on the Engineers from Tokyo Gore Police could be interesting.
No Hulu, I only even got Netflix last year.
As for quirky titles I'd suggest, Vampire Girl vs Frankenstein Girl comes to mind.
Agree with Lazar. Formations were killed by irregular long range rifle fire. THe last gasp of them was actually during the Civil War, when Tucker charged at Gettysburg in formation, and his men were torn apart.
The best defense against gunfire is to belly crawl, not to march.
Formations saw use right up through the 19th century because the military always excels to fight the LAST war, not the current one. Where the opponents are always changing things so that whoever is best at the last war doesn't get to fight it.
This is why nobody fights an open war with the united states. We annihilated Iraq, which had the greatest tank army in the mIddle East. We totally destroyed their air power and naval power in addition. We are masters of fighting open warfare.
So, nobody fights us that way. And fighting guerilla warfare is much, much harder. And we are slllllllooooowww to change doctrine. The US Army is basically geared out to fight a WW2/Korean War set piece battle and win!
Kukris are still in use because they are a tool taught to the Gurkhas from birth...a combination of knife and hand axe (a Kukri is effectively a hand axe that is mostly blade, like the falcata is a battle axe that's mostly blade). It's their signature weapon for their culture. That does NOT make it a superior weapon, it makes them one they are very comfortable using. I'm not sure there's any formal army other then the Gurkha regiment that teaches the kukri...might be a Canadian one?
Khopesh are a Bronze Age weapon, and fell into disuse very quickly, relatively speaking. They are a symbolic Egyptian weapon, but they suck in a duel and are lousy in tight quarters. Falcata are merely axe equivalents that didn't work as well, and were harder to make. As armor got better and better, they also fell into disuse, because axes are better at penetrating armor, and straight swords better for fencing/swordsmanship. I'm not saying they aren't lethally effective...it's just they are a combination weapon that didn't do either of the jobs of a sword or axe better then those.
===============
Lead is by far the preferred material for bullets. Steel isn't much better then stone. Lead flies a lot farther and faster, and carries a lot more kinetic energy with it.
Making lead bullets is actually pretty easy. Other then using a mold, the fastest way is what are called 'shot towers', you can still see them in New England in places. Make a tower between sixty and a hundred feet high, fill the bottom with about four feet of water. Take a bucket of molten lead to the top with a scooper of the size bullet you want. Scoop the molten lead out and drop it down the tower.
By the time it hits the bottom, it will be perfectly spherical from the wind (like a raindrop), and hitting the water instantly cools it to keep its shape. Simple and effective without need of advanced metalworking capabilities.
==Aelryinth
It turns out most other weapons don't need to go through hoops as it were. Swashbuckler is freely available. If you want dex to hit and damage on any piercing or slashing one-handed weapon, swashbuckler or cavalier with an archetype is there. Many of those weapons don't have a cultural footprint that makes people think Dex to hit and damage so it really isn't a huge issue in most other weapons case as people are fine being strength based on those things.
The only other weapons I can think of having a real issue with this (personally) are the Sawtooth sabre (Red Mantis Assassins are the saddest) and Whips.
I'm fine with putting effort into making Whips a strong weapon but it feels like I can't use the weapon for the early levels due to just how feat intensive it really is to EITHER be good at maneuvers or be able to do damage to creatures with armor or +3 or more natural armor - ie. You put all your feats for the first 3 levels into just being able to use the whip (and be dex based) against humanoid enemies in which case you have a fairly subpar weapon which only has the benefit of a good reach but the damage is 1d3+4? Yeah you probably won't power attack as that won't be available due to all your feats going elsewhere. Or you can be good at maneuvers but not even really get to be able to damage against almost every single humanoid enemy you might face.
Anyway, my solution to your "problem" as it were is just get rid of Piranha strike and force anyone who wants Power Attack to have the STR requirement. So even my finesse based characters tend to have a 13 strength since I do not like Piranha Strike. For the record I do ALSO believe in fairness and despise the level to damage (and its doubling) and the Auto-Disarm and Auto-Trip and Combat Maneuver Immunity the Swashbuckler has.
The whip was never intended as a fighting weapon. It's power is intimidation. Trying to balance rule of cool against the fact that it's a horrible weapon is quite hard.
Basically, you have to turn it into an extended arm and make it a useful tool, distracting it from its lousy weapon use. Without a disintegration field or something to actually give it an edge, it does indeed suck. Without some form of immateriality so it can be retrieved and not grabbed by the enemy, it's not going to be as good as manuvers as people want.
Ah, Zorro, what hath thou wrought.
==Aelryinth
This is why nobody fights an open war with the united states. We annihilated Iraq, which had the greatest tank army in the mIddle East. We totally destroyed their air power and naval power in addition. We are masters of fighting open warfare.
Well, it doesn't help that the US is relatively isolated from most countries that might be hostile to it, making it hard to attack in full force.
Wars with the US is somewhat similar to the war between the US and Britain- the distance the US has to go to send troops and supplies means it is easier to wait out their patience when it comes to funding the war.
Of course, the much larger landmass, population, and ability to supply raw materials compared to 18th century England does mean that tactic has problems too.
Since I am American, and as such unfortunately have a sorrowfully poor education for world history or anything after WWII (much to my regret-seriously, I've only had the world wars covered once and I have a damned bachelor's degree; most of my slightly more 'current' knowledge comes from lit classes...during black history month), I must ask- what does war look like when it isn't so...asymmetrical and distant?
I am honestly wondering about good sources on this kind of subject since I have no entry points from my education.
read some Russian accounts of WW2 against the Germans. Putin is bringing them back into vogue.
The Russians really were quite heroic in some of the things they did to overcome the Nazis, that's why they sing about it to this day, and why they get irked when the rest of Europe conveniently forgets they lost more people in WW2 then I think all the other Allies combined.
But yes, a key part of American military doctrine is to fight in someone else's back yard. Much, much nicer to the civilian population back home.
==Aelryinth
read some Russian accounts of WW2 against the Germans. Putin is bringing them back into vogue.
The Russians really were quite heroic in some of the things they did to overcome the Nazis, that's why they sing about it to this day, and why they get irked when the rest of Europe conveniently forgets they lost more people in WW2 then I think all the other Allies combined.
But yes, a key part of American military doctrine is to fight in someone else's back yard. Much, much nicer to the civilian population back home.
==Aelryinth
Well, it is less of a 'doctrine' as 'convenient advantage of having an ocean or at least a few Latin American countries between you and anyone that would want to attack your mainland'.
Unless Canada has pulled somethings over in the parts of the history book that my classes never bothered to get to, the last time I am aware of armed conflict with another nation that they could WALK to was against Mexico during the 19th century (although there does appear to be a relatively small amount of conflicts that occurred along the borders during the Mexican revolution).
I cannot say what would have happened if the the topography was different. Or even if 90% of the population of Native American peoples weren't wiped out by foreign diseases.
read some Russian accounts of WW2 against the Germans. Putin is bringing them back into vogue.
The Russians really were quite heroic in some of the things they did to overcome the Nazis, that's why they sing about it to this day, and why they get irked when the rest of Europe conveniently forgets they lost more people in WW2 then I think all the other Allies combined.
And there are countless documentaries about how the allies saved the world from the Nazis on D-Day and non about how Russia was already well on its way rolling up the eastern front.
While it is sure that D-Day shortened the war the Russians would have captured Germany without it, too.Heck, I'm glad I grew up in one of the Allied occupation zones but the Russian part in freeing Europe is often conveniently ignored.
In fairness, we like to focus on the contributions by those we regard as the "good guys". We don't really like to glamorize the country that went on to commit horrible atrocities.
Then again, we did glamorize [huge can of worms].
read some Russian accounts of WW2 against the Germans. Putin is bringing them back into vogue.
The Russians really were quite heroic in some of the things they did to overcome the Nazis, that's why they sing about it to this day, and why they get irked when the rest of Europe conveniently forgets they lost more people in WW2 then I think all the other Allies combined.
And there are countless documentaries about how the allies saved the world from the Nazis on D-Day and non about how Russia was already well on its way rolling up the eastern front.
While it is sure that D-Day shortened the war the Russians would have captured Germany without it, too.Heck, I'm glad I grew up in one of the Allied occupation zones but the Russian part in freeing Europe is often conveniently ignored.
The best way I've heard it phrased is that the war was won by British intelligence, Russian blood, and American steel.
read some Russian accounts of WW2 against the Germans. Putin is bringing them back into vogue.
The Russians really were quite heroic in some of the things they did to overcome the Nazis, that's why they sing about it to this day, and why they get irked when the rest of Europe conveniently forgets they lost more people in WW2 then I think all the other Allies combined.
And there are countless documentaries about how the allies saved the world from the Nazis on D-Day and non about how Russia was already well on its way rolling up the eastern front.
While it is sure that D-Day shortened the war the Russians would have captured Germany without it, too.Heck, I'm glad I grew up in one of the Allied occupation zones but the Russian part in freeing Europe is often conveniently ignored.
In fairness, most of the people the Soviets "freed" would say that it was really more like trading one set of brutal totalitarian foreign occupiers for a different, set of brutal totalitarian foreign occupiers.
More to the point, World War II was a team effort. It's no surprise every nation likes to play up their own contribution, and downplay what everyone else did.