The Katana

[Spacehamster]

So, they nerfed its damage down to 1D8 AND made it two handed,
anyone else finds this silly? Know its not exotic(guess exotic weapons
does not exist anymore?) so could have one of the two nerfs
put in action, make it two handed but keep 1D10 or make it
one handed 1D8.

Also a katana is a one handed weapon, the two handed version
would be the dai-katana.

Spacehamster over and out!

[Spiryt]

Also a katana is a one handed weapon, the two handed version
would be the dai-katana.

Not really, majority of actual katana techniques were two handed. The very grip/blade ratio suggests that.

As far as I can see, it's 'finesse' now, thus lesser damage compared to 'greatsword'.

[Giant2005]

Where are you getting all of that? I'd expect that statistically it would be exactly the same as the Longsword except more expensive.

[Spacehamster]

..........

[Demonic Spoon]

... Which is absolurely irrelevant when we're talking about a fantasy RPG in which Japan does not exist, and different weapon types need to be balanced against each other

[Spacehamster]

... Which is absolurely irrelevant when we're talking about a fantasy RPG in which Japan does not exist, and different weapon types need to be balanced against each other

Would not beeing worse then all other 2handers make it never used tho? :P I mean a stick does the same damage(quarterstaff) for god´s sake. :P

[Malifice]

Well even if its 2H and finesse it should do equal(or more) damage as a greatsword, Katanas are
incredibly well made and sharp and you can if trained cut through most things with it. :)

Oh God. Oh dear God no. Not on my watch.

Read:

http://1d4chan.org/wiki/Katanas_are_Underpowered_in_d20

[KenkakuKnight]

I curse myself for never being able to ignore a thread about the almighty katana. >_< *sigh*

Yes, the katana is a well made, very sharp sword. But where-ever did you learn that it can cut through "most things" (an incredibly vague description at best), and that it could do as much damage as a greatsword (another word that is unclearly defined)? The average European longsword was not just a metal stick. It was actually a surprisingly sophisticated weapon in its own right, capable of cutting just as well as a nihonto.

I rebut that the katana is perfectly fine as a d8.

[SaintRidley]

We don't care about your katana fetish, Chief Circle.

[Symphony]

So, they nerfed its damage down to 1D8 AND made it two handed,
anyone else finds this silly? Know its not exotic(guess exotic weapons
does not exist anymore?) so could have one of the two nerfs
put in action, make it two handed but keep 1D10 or make it
one handed 1D8.

Also a katana is a one handed weapon, the two handed version
would be the dai-katana.

Spacehamster over and out!

Where are the stats for a katana defined? I really wouldn't expect it to be any different than a longsword (1d8 slashing with versatile for 1d10)?

[Spacehamster]

We don't care about your katana fetish, Chief Circle.

Dont have a katana fetish just bit shocked they made a decent(well decent is a stretch since it were not worth a feat to be able to be used) weapon in 3.5 into a complete **** weapon in 5e is all. :)

[Spacehamster]

Where are the stats for a katana defined? I really wouldn't expect it to be any different than a longsword (1d8 slashing with versatile for 1d10)?

http://5edndwiki.wikidot.com/equipment-weapons
since exotic weapons does not exist anymore I understand they want the weapons to be about equal,
just feels a bit silly that it does the same amount of damage as a wood stick. xD
So yes use it 1H = d8, 2H = d10 would make sense.

[SaintRidley]

Oh, there's your problem. You're using Dndwiki. Don't.

[Spacehamster]

Oh, there's your problem. You're using Dndwiki. Don't.

Is the stats wrong there or smthn?

[Yuki Akuma]

You're imagining longswords wrong. You're probably thinking of something closer to an arming sword.

An arming sword is a one-handed sword, the blade of which is generally 69 to 81 centimeters. You could wield one with two hands, but you probably wouldn't, as the hilt isn't really long enough.

A longsword blade is generally between 90 and 110 centimeters. The hilt is long enough to allow you to hold it with two hands, but you could also wield it in one hand if you want to use a shield. Longswords are essentially the same thing as 'bastard swords', which is why bastard swords aren't a thing in D&D anymore.

A katana blade is generally 60 to 73 centimeters long. The hilt is also designed to accommodate two hands, and in fact most techniques rely on using two hands because most Japanese fencing styles don't use shields. You can wield it in one hand, though, because it's not that heavy, and of course there are techniques for wielding it in one hand.

An exclusively two-handed Japanese sword is not a 'dai-katana'. 'Dai-katana' is the title of a terrible videogame. A Japanese great sword is an 'ōdachi' (big/great sword) or a 'nodachi' (field sword). Which comes from the 'tachi', an earlier type of long sword distinct from the katana.

Katanas don't have stats in D&D 5e, but honestly I'd say to just use the stats of a longsword, because that's the closest European equivalent. A wakizashi (Japanese short sword, blade length of around 30 to 60 centimeters) should probably use the stats of a scimitar. And of course, a tanto is just a dagger.

(As for arming swords, I'd call it a longsword without versatile.)

[ambartanen]

Well even if its 2H and finesse it should do equal(or more) damage as a greatsword, Katanas are
incredibly well made and sharp and you can if trained cut through most things with it. :)

I can't tell if you are trolling or being serious. If you are actually looking for stats, the katana is a longsword in this edition.

[12owlbears]

Is the stats wrong there or smthn?

Well that wraps this thread up. Morel of the story don't use dnd wiki.

[Giant2005]

Oh, there's your problem. You're using Dndwiki. Don't.

This. After having a quick look at that page, it is obviously full of crap considering it has the stats wrong for weapons that actually exist in 5e. So the stats for weapons that don't exist would probably be wrong too if they were to materialize.

[ZeshinX]

Using the longsword stats for it seem just fine. Versatile (1d8 one-handed, 1d10 two-handed). I'm fine either way making it a Finesse weapon or not.

As far as the reverence and/or importance it carries, that's a cultural value, best served by role-playing it. It doesn't need better stats to reflect that (perhaps a higher GP value to reflect the high level of craftsmanship, and certainly in the nations that value the blade as a cultural symbol).

[Necroticplague]

Dont have a katana fetish just bit shocked they made a decent(well decent is a stretch since it were not worth a feat to be able to be used) weapon in 3.5 into a complete **** weapon in 5e is all. :)?

In 3.5, the katana was just a Masterwork Bastard sword. It was a pretty crappy weapon. If you wanted 2-handed, greatwords or fullblades were better. And one-handing it required a feat, and reduced your STR to damage with it, while being a piddly 1 average damage over a longsword.

[Spacehamster]

?

In 3.5, the katana was just a Masterwork Bastard sword. It was a pretty crappy weapon. If you wanted 2-handed, greatwords or fullblades were better. And one-handing it required a feat, and reduced your STR to damage with it, while being a piddly 1 average damage over a longsword.

Fullblades are 3.0 tho I think, did not say it were good just said they made it even worse. :)

[Spacehamster]

But in all honesty the Katana should not even be in D&D since it does not have that fantasy feel to it, anyways thanks for the
good answers and no thanks to the insulting answers.

[Yuki Akuma]

This forum has an edit button.

How are katana not 'fantasy' enough? They're certainly not European fantasy, but then again neither are scimitars. Or Monks.

[SaintRidley]

Or neanderthals. Or hippo summoners. Or Kender.

[Malifice]

Or neanderthals. Or hippo summoners. Or Kender.

A primitive kender hippo summoner armed with a katana.

I may very well have my next character idea.

I also now have a use for the bag of ball bearings in the PHB:

http://www.sfdm.scad.edu/intranet/student/sfdmcontent/Hungry_Hungry_Hippos.jpg

[Logosloki]

custom statblock for Katana based on the actual weapon:

Katana, 25gp, 1d6 slashing. Qualities:Finesse, Light, Versatile (1d8). 2lb weight.

maybe drop light. You may notice this as the scimitar stat block with one less pound in weight and versatile 1d8 added to it, because it is.

For a movie Katana, that is class based not weapon based. For a named anime katana, we're talking about a magical item not a mundane item, feel free to throw +1-3, make it talking, make it a choose your own damage type, three times per day it shoots eldritch blasts or whatever floats your boat.

[toapat]

but then again neither are scimitars. Or Monks.

Monks and Katanas? at least at the start of each edition the balance of lore is heavily based on Christian/Islamic stories. At least as far as 5th is concerned i dont think we will see much of a shift compared either, with whatever version of Unapproachable East is made being the one notable piece.
Scimitars? there is enough Arabic lore in DnD even if the PC classes dont come from it (although possibly the warlock counts in this regard) to take the name of cavalry sabers from a non-latin language.

[Dienekes]

In which I rant about the katana and it's cultural significance. Please feel free to ignore.

Ahh, the katana. A useful, pretty looking weapon that has some of the most idiotic beliefs attached to it.

Let's first go through the blatant common myths. The katana was ridiculously sharp, sharper than every other weapon. There is nothing to support this. The katana was sharp, definitely. It was a sword designed with one edge meaning the blade could have a thinner wedge, like a scimitar or falchion, or kukri. The edge itself was probably not sharpened to a ridiculous degree because all that would do is make the sword easier to damage, and at the end of the day swords are going to cling into each other and you want to not bend your sword out of shape after one bout.

The second myth, the katana is a ridiculously fast weapon, especially compared to the clunky medieval bastard swords. Well no, for a few reasons. We have to look at a couple parts of a sword to see why this is pretty false. The first one is that of weight. Simply put, the katana and the longsword/bastard sword were not that different in weights. The katana was roughly 2.5-3 lbs. The bastard sword was 2.5-4 lbs. These are not heavy weapons, in fact the difference is often negligible, there are longswords that are lighter than katanas, though that is not the norm. But probably more important than the weight in determining the speed of the weapon we should instead look at the length and pummel. The blade of a longsword tends to be about a foot longer than that of a katana. This means that if the hands in the center are moving at the same speed, the far point of the longer weapon should be moving faster. The third thing is the pommel, or more precisely the katana's lack of one. The pommel is the weight at the end of a sword that alters the balance back a bit, allowing for ease of transition between blows. The katana doesn't have it, it should be less fluid and more weighty with comparable attacks (if it's noticeable at all).

Now, I'm not really trying to put the katana down. It was an elegant weapon that was very good at what it did do; a strong cut or draw cut against unarmored targets. It's hard to find a weapon better suited for that purpose, but it was hardly a super weapon. Though, due to Japanese problems with finding easily available steel, each katana tended to be better put together than "the average" longsword, which by the 15th century could be produced in mass. However, the evidence is still out on the superiority of the highest quality katana verses the highest quality longsword.

So, in terms of D&D stats. It can be used in one or two hands, and has a bunch of minor differences between it and a bastard sword that the game does not take into account in any noticeable way. Just make it a bastard sword, maybe have all of them start out as masterwork quality (if that exists in 5e) but you have to pay for it, of course. As for making it finesseable, I honestly think a lot more weapons, including the normal bastard sword should be finesseable. Weapons are quick and elegant. The only problem is D&D is terrible at working out what a swordsman needs for being successful, and there are misconceptions at what Strength and Dexterity even is. But that is a rant for a different thread.

[Malifice]

So, in terms of D&D stats. It can be used in one or two hands, and has a bunch of minor differences between it and a bastard sword that the game does not take into account in any noticeable way. Just make it a bastard sword, maybe have all of them start out as masterwork quality (if that exists in 5e) but you have to pay for it, of course. As for making it finesseable, I honestly think a lot more weapons, including the normal bastard sword should be finesseable. Weapons are quick and elegant. The only problem is D&D is terrible at working out what a swordsman needs for being successful, and there are misconceptions at what Strength and Dexterity even is. But that is a rant for a different thread.

I've always found the 'finesse' is just the skill of the swordsman. Not his inherent agility.

Strength always counts. Would you rather get poked with a rapier by a 5 year old child or Conan?

[Alefiend]

Katanas (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VnkVlK3BFLw&list=PLMUtS78ZxryO9NKU_ceM-LhcnSnAc2kHV) are (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_YZDb98Mqnk&list=PLMUtS78ZxryO9NKU_ceM-LhcnSnAc2kHV) not (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R4plBF80UBo&list=PLMUtS78ZxryO9NKU_ceM-LhcnSnAc2kHV) "just (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gsYbRom3h7U&list=PLMUtS78ZxryO9NKU_ceM-LhcnSnAc2kHV) better." (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3gN7gNVU48M&list=PLMUtS78ZxryO9NKU_ceM-LhcnSnAc2kHV) Really. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cEm7A7Zhkvc&list=PLMUtS78ZxryO9NKU_ceM-LhcnSnAc2kHV) Fact. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ppG4y59l5QY&list=PLMUtS78ZxryO9NKU_ceM-LhcnSnAc2kHV)

Also, this (http://1d4chan.org/wiki/Katanas_are_Underpowered_in_d20). (Link to 1d4chan, so probably NSFW or delicate readers)

[rlc]

Oh God. Oh dear God no. Not on my watch.

Read:

http://1d4chan.org/wiki/Katanas_are_Underpowered_in_d20

Also, this article (http://www.cracked.com/article_20634_6-things-movies-get-wrong-about-swords-an-inside-look.html) has some more information. It fills in some of the information there and is also a more enjoyable read.

[Janus]

If a player were to use a katana, I'd be tempted to be a jerk DM and make them roll to see if the katana breaks whenever it hits medium/heavy armor.

Also, relevant:
http://fc00.deviantart.net/fs71/f/2014/054/2/6/skyrim_oddities__training_by_janus3003-d77qt09.jpg

[Scirocco]

Didn't the playtest packet feature "Oriental Weapons" where katana == longsword?

[Gracht Grabmaw]

Since we're talking about melee weapons, I noticed that the falcata is suspiciously absent from most equipment lists, so I took the liberty of stating it myself.

One-handed
Martial weapon
slashing/piercing
kills 1d4+STR Roman legionares per round

[Yenek]

What's interesting is what the katana was used for before the samurai became obsolete:

A side arm for noble mounted archers, on an archipelago where iron ore was scarce and boiled leather scale armor was THE THING.

Its main purpose was cutting down enemy soldiers (in the very same leather scale) who got to close. Its secondary purpose was cutting down uppity peasants wearing cloth. IIRC, none used shields.

[Soular]

Katanas (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VnkVlK3BFLw&list=PLMUtS78ZxryO9NKU_ceM-LhcnSnAc2kHV) are (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_YZDb98Mqnk&list=PLMUtS78ZxryO9NKU_ceM-LhcnSnAc2kHV) not (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R4plBF80UBo&list=PLMUtS78ZxryO9NKU_ceM-LhcnSnAc2kHV) "just (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gsYbRom3h7U&list=PLMUtS78ZxryO9NKU_ceM-LhcnSnAc2kHV) better." (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3gN7gNVU48M&list=PLMUtS78ZxryO9NKU_ceM-LhcnSnAc2kHV) Really. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cEm7A7Zhkvc&list=PLMUtS78ZxryO9NKU_ceM-LhcnSnAc2kHV) Fact. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ppG4y59l5QY&list=PLMUtS78ZxryO9NKU_ceM-LhcnSnAc2kHV)

Also, this (http://1d4chan.org/wiki/Katanas_are_Underpowered_in_d20). (Link to 1d4chan, so probably NSFW or delicate readers)

Thanks a lot Alefiend. I just lost brain cells reading some of the comments on those videos. And here I thought I was an opinionated asshat with no concept of reality or relevance.

[rlc]

What's interesting is what the katana was used for before the samurai became obsolete:

A side arm for noble mounted archers, on an archipelago where iron ore was scarce and boiled leather scale armor was THE THING.

Its main purpose was cutting down enemy soldiers (in the very same leather scale) who got to close. Its secondary purpose was cutting down uppity peasants wearing cloth. IIRC, none used shields.

it should be noted that some samurai did eventually get a hold of european armor. it stood up pretty well against katanas, too.

[Snowbluff]

I'll pop in and report that katanas being finesse weapons is pure wankery.

[Yuki Akuma]

I'll pop in and report that katanas being finesse weapons is pure wankery.

Yes. Any long sword requires a degree of dexterity, but not to the same extent as a dueling sword like a rapier does. Killing someone with a katana requires you to hit them hard and then carve at their flesh, which isn't really very 'finessey' in D&D terms.

[Knaight]

A side arm for noble mounted archers, on an archipelago where iron ore was scarce and boiled leather scale armor was THE THING.

Metal was used in armor, routinely. A lot of the time Japanese armor was even particularly heavy, and frequently employed more metal than was found elsewhere. It's other places where the lack of iron ore really makes its biggest effect. Metal generally didn't see much use in construction, and while it was pretty specialized most everywhere it did show up in gates and such in Europe (e.g. the portcullis). You see it in the differences in cooking equipment, where metal pots and pans were comparatively scarce in Japan, even compared to areas that are also somewhat metal scarce (e.g. Scandinavia). Still, military equipment used it.

As for the katana being a sidearm, yes, it was. It was a sword, not particularly great and not particularly bad. Swords generally didn't see much use as primary weapons. Rome is a glaring exception there, and even there the pila are just as relevant, auxilliary forces frequently operated with plenty of spears in melee, etc. In general, the primary weapon for melee combat with armies, all over the world, has been spears of some sort for a good long time, and Japan held with that. The samurai were largely mounted archers at times, and more melee focused at other times, but both they and ashigaru generally used the yari in said close combat, which was generally a short pike.

[VoxRationis]

Only early-period samurai (back when the tachi was more important than the katana) were primarily horse archers. Later-period samurai were cavalrymen and infantry just as much as they were archers. And Japan had metal armor in plenty, chain and scale and plate like Europe had, though not perhaps as much. The ability to defeat metal armor was just as important for two samurai fighting one another as it was for two knights. That said, the average katana had so much effort put into it because the material they were made from was absolute rubbish, and it was designed for a very different thing than most European swords, which is why it has a curved edge to give it a "draw" across a target without doing anything fancy with one's sword swing.

And scimitars have a place even in pure European fantasy because the fear of the "Mohametan" hordes has been in European heads for centuries, not without good reason (Vienna was very nearly conquered by the Ottomans, and up until Lepanto and Vienna, the Turks looked like they were completely unstoppable). Sure, you won't find them in Ye Olde Englishe Smith-Shop, but they'd show up somewhere in a campaign setting.

[Soras Teva Gee]

The only special trait I've seen of the katana that stands up to scrutiny is that it makes a good sword out of ****ty iron supplies. Or rather min-maxes the amount of good iron you need and thankfully everyone had fairly crappy armor. And since everyone did this being a little heavier for the length of cutting edge didn't matter.

While a feat approaching alchemy and well regarded that may be... other then tacking on extra gold to the cost of a longsword I see no reasonable way to model that in 5E.


I'll pop in and report that katanas being finesse weapons is pure wankery.


Yes. Any long sword requires a degree of dexterity, but not to the same extent as a dueling sword like a rapier does. Killing someone with a katana requires you to hit them hard and then carve at their flesh, which isn't really very 'finessey' in D&D terms.

We want to play this game well there's a case to be made for Dex to hit and Str to damage for all weapons except maybe crossbows. Heck maybe not even strength period. But unless martial classes come with bonuses to account for the MAD that involves its more game feature and tradition then any realism.

Honestly a two handed finesse option wouldn't be so bad (not a katana though) its the heavy finesse weapon that would change the weapon choice balance, atm. Or a 5E version of Piranha Strike.

[EvilAnagram]

The ability to defeat metal armor was just as important for two samurai fighting one another as it was for two knights.

It really wasn't. That's why warhammers, warpicks, metal-piercing daggers, and heavy swords capable of putting nasty dents into armor started appearing in Europe, but not Japan.

[Flashy]

Is the stats wrong there or smthn?

The problem with dandwiki is that it's difficult to tell the SRD stuff from the absolute ocean of low quality homebrew pages.

[Theodoxus]

This weapon chart on the wiki page doesn't make sense. What's a Basic weapon? Are the finesse weapons simple or martial?

The only way the katana works as a 2-handed finesse weapon that only does a d8 is if it's a simple weapon. WotC made all their official rules follow very precise rules. This katana breaks them.

I am dubious about everything on this page that isn't from the actual rule set.

I would not allow the use of this page in any game I ran.


A true katana, following the actual weapon rules devised by WotC would probably be a 1d8/1d10 finesse versatile weapon. If two-handed solely, it would be a 1d10 finesse. Both are currently unique to the martial weapon chart. This I would allow in a game, if a player requested to use one.

Interestingly, the cost modifier of the katana as written, is actually cheap. If you increased the cost to 70gp, I would be convinced to allow an Increased Cost modifier on the weapon, increasing the damage to 1d10/2d6 (versatile) or 1d12 two-handed. This I think, would fall in line with the traditional view (albeit incorrect) that the katana / dai-katana are weapons of mass destruction.

[Snowbluff]

We want to play this game well there's a case to be made for Dex to hit and Str to damage for all weapons except maybe crossbows. Heck maybe not even strength period. But unless martial classes come with bonuses to account for the MAD that involves its more game feature and tradition then any realism.

Honestly a two handed finesse option wouldn't be so bad (not a katana though) its the heavy finesse weapon that would change the weapon choice balance, atm. Or a 5E version of Piranha Strike.
The thing about finesse weapons is that dex is a god stat. It's tricky to work around.

[Cybris75]

The thing about finesse weapons is that dex is a god stat. It's tricky to work around.

That's just because tradition dictates that D&D have the holy six stats, and no more. I seriously wish WotC would just split Dex into two stats: manual dexterity, and agility. (Plus split Wis into intuition and will power, because those are different things)

[Spiryt]

It really wasn't. That's why warhammers, warpicks, metal-piercing daggers, and heavy swords capable of putting nasty dents into armor started appearing in Europe, but not Japan.

For all we know, warhammers, warpicks, and whatever else started to appear in Europe quite before plate armor, most probably as an effect of contact with Middle East and Choresm/Steppe.

Were for one reason or another, maces and pickaxes were the thing from quite some time.

Putting it all down into some 'arms race' like people usually do is tricky at best.

As far as daggers go they appear pretty much everywhere, including Japan.

'Heavy swords' of huge dimensions intended to kill horses (according to tales at least) and other heavy weapons were pretty common in Japan before they were in Europe too.




The only special trait I've seen of the katana that stands up to scrutiny

Katanas had plenty 'special' traits all around to be fair.

The very fact that the swords in Japan were primarily two handed is interesting, AFAICT it's something that haven't appeared pretty much anyone else.

Two handed swords in Europe had obviously started to appear very shyly in 13th century.

Then the proportions of grip and blade are very unique, at least compared to 99% of European swords.

Then there's thick spine, short abrupt point in form of kissaki.

So quite a lot of 'special' traits all along, though plenty of them could have appeared in 'neighboring' swords, that aren't nearly as famous.

[Yuki Akuma]

The dagger is pretty much the most simple bladed weapon in the world - every culture that ever made knives also made daggers. In Japan, they're called 'tantō' ("short sword").

Large blunt weapons were also a thing in Japan. Not hammers, per se, but definitely large clubs ('kanabō'), which were apparently used to smash apart armour just like European blunt weapons were (and also were effective anti-cavalry weapons). Spears ('yari') were also common, as were slashing polearms called 'naginata'.

I wouldn't be surprised if more iron went into making yari and naginata than swords, because polearms are generally much better than swords are in open field warfare.

[Theodoxus]

That's just because tradition dictates that D&D have the holy six stats, and no more. I seriously wish WotC would just split Dex into two stats: manual dexterity, and agility. (Plus split Wis into intuition and will power, because those are different things)

They did at one time. 2nd Ed had all the attributes split in twain, in their Player Options: Skills & Powers book. I was actually kinda sad when 3rd came out and they were merged again.

If they took the S&P splits, and the 4th Ed attribute defenses and played around with them, you'd get a pretty slick Saving Throw system that was more intuitive and would allow for more tactical spell casting - can't just hit the dumb fighter with an Int save, you'd have to figure out if he lacking reason or knowledge... Of course, it would make modding the spells to reflect this a challenge... but a fun one :)

BTW, the splits were:

STR: Muscle, Stamina
DEX: Aim, Balance
CON: Health, Fitness
INT: Knowledge, Reason
WIS: Intuition, Willpower (see, they knew that's what you wanted 20 years ago!)
CHA: Leadership, Appearance

ETA: Why does initiative come from Dex anyway? Neither Aim nor Balance represents an ability to get the jump on someone... It should be Wis based - Intuition, specifically. Might make that a houserule... hmm...

[EvilAnagram]

For all we know, warhammers, warpicks, and whatever else started to appear in Europe quite before plate armor, most probably as an effect of contact with Middle East and Choresm/Steppe.
Medieval Europe developed warhammers with picks specifically designed to pierce (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/22/Warhammer-r-nagel.jpg/429px-Warhammer-r-nagel.jpg) armor (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/d2/OHM_-_Streithammer.jpg/800px-OHM_-_Streithammer.jpg). They were favorite weapons when dealing with heavy armor because they could much more easily take a knight out of combat than a sword. Also, look at the horseman's pick (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/f9/Polish_Horseman%27s_picks_from_XVII_century.PNG/320px-Polish_Horseman%27s_picks_from_XVII_century.PNG), which was designed for foot soldiers with mounted knights in mind. It could pierce the metal armor, and its shape made it easier to pull horsemen off their mounts. These are weapons that would not have existed if people didn't have to adapt to plate armor.


Putting it all down into some 'arms race' like people usually do is tricky at best.
It's really not. People develop weapons and armor to deal with the threats of the time. You can't ask which is better, a rapier or a zweihander because zweihanders were developed with different threats in mind.

The same applies to Japanese warfare. They developed weapons and armor that allowed them to deal with the needs of the time. They never had the quantity or quality of iron needed to make heavy armor, so they used exquisitely made splint mail instead. They developed the katana because it was excellent when used against the threats they faced. If they had been facing lots of heavy armor, they would have developed swords closer to the greatswords of Europe in the Middle Ages because people are smart and adapt to threats.


As far as daggers go they appear pretty much everywhere, including Japan.
Yes, but I was specifically referring to the Rondel and Misericorde, which were specifically designed to pierce chain mail and plate, respectively. These designs of daggers are specific to medieval Europe and are a direct result of the need to deal with heavily armored combatants. That's why I specified "metal-piercing" daggers.


'Heavy swords' of huge dimensions intended to kill horses (according to tales at least) and other heavy weapons were pretty common in Japan before they were in Europe too.
Yes, because people design weapons to deal with specific threats. Like I said.

Nothing else you've said is worth noting. You can go ahead and swallow that weeaboo bull about how special and amazing the katana is. What's amazing about it is that they managed to make such quality works of art out of pig iron. That may come across as sarcastic, but it isn't. Katanas are excellent swords adapted to the time they were used, and they are absolutely noteworthy as examples of how people can overcome the limitations of the resources available to them, i.e., pig iron.

[Spiryt]

Medieval Europe developed warhammers with picks specifically designed to pierce (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/22/Warhammer-r-nagel.jpg/429px-Warhammer-r-nagel.jpg) armor (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/d2/OHM_-_Streithammer.jpg/800px-OHM_-_Streithammer.jpg). They were favorite weapons when dealing with heavy armor because they could much more easily take a knight out of combat than a sword. Also, look at the horseman's pick (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/f9/Polish_Horseman%27s_picks_from_XVII_century.PNG/320px-Polish_Horseman%27s_picks_from_XVII_century.PNG), which was designed for foot soldiers with mounted knights in mind. It could pierce the metal armor, and its shape made it easier to pull horsemen off their mounts. These are weapons that would not have existed if people didn't have to adapt to plate armor.


All those are absolutely non-fitting examples.

Those polish horseman picks, usually called 'nadziak' were purely horseman weapon, used mostly in 17th
century, without any foot soldiers and 'pulling horsemen out of their mounts in mind during 'design'.

Plate armor was sometimes occurring, but rare threat.

Former pieces are cavalry close quarters weapons as well.

Actual 'foot, possibly anti cavalry, hammerlike' weapon would be something like this:

http://www.christies.com/lotfinderimages/d45927/d4592709r.jpg




The same applies to Japanese warfare. They developed weapons and armor that allowed them to deal with the needs of the time. They never had the quantity or quality of iron needed to make heavy armor, so they used exquisitely made splint mail instead. They developed the katana because it was excellent when used against the threats they faced. If they had been facing lots of heavy armor, they would have developed swords closer to the greatswords of Europe in the Middle Ages because people are smart and adapt to threats.

You do realize that splint or any scale armor is generally heavier than than one made out of bigger plates, right?

Japanese people were thus absolutely making heavy armor.

You can read a bit about it here.
http://www.myarmoury.com/feature_jpn_armour.html

Katana, like pretty much any sword out there, is obviously rather useless as far as forceful defeating such armor goes.

And again, there's simply NOTHING indicating that greatswords were answers to any particular armor.

People can discuss this a lot but armor is usually last thing anyone mentions.

Japanese had 'developed' greatswords WAY EARLIER than Europeans.

http://www.pinterest.com/pin/335236765983945238/

Sword of blade length of almost 4 feet.



Yes, but I was specifically referring to the Rondel and Misericorde, which were specifically designed to pierce chain mail and plate, respectively. These designs of daggers are specific to medieval Europe and are a direct result of the need to deal with heavily armored combatants. That's why I specified "metal-piercing" daggers.

"Rondel dagger" is name of specific furniture of a dagger - consisting of rondels, indeed.

http://weaponscollector.com/images/111-0242/111-0242b_small.jpg

Misericorde was somehow poetic name for dagger used to finish off opponent.

There's little evidence that it was really referring to any particular type of dagger at all.

Not sure where are you taking those 'piercing' and 'respectively' from.


There's absolutely nothing indicating that such dagger would have any real chance of piercing armor, of course. Not were much larger weapons were failing.

They were used to get around armor.

We have plenty of written and painted sources depicting such use - usually in grapple.

Immobilizing opponent to stab him in uncovered area.



http://www.holmgang-schwertkampf.de/fileadmin/user_upload/Bildarchiv/Turniere/Nuernberg/talli_6.JPG

http://manuscriptminiatures.com/media/cache/manuscriptminiatures.com/original/118-53_large.jpg

http://arkon66.w.interia.pl/2chmiel/mng_1.jpg



We obviously have mentions of more and more complete, if possible, armor to combat it.


He wanted to cut the count's noble parts by plunging the knife in at the place where the body armor is joined to the leggings, but the armor sowed [sic] into the leggings will not separate and open up to the knife, and thus Cornut's hopes are thwarted. However, he circles the count and looks for other ways to reach his goal. Pushing the two whalebones out of the way and soon pulling off the whole of his helmet, he inflicts a large wound upon his unprotected face.

Mention of mail being tied together/to clothes to prevent people from stabbing them... underneath.






Nothing else you've said is worth noting. You can go ahead and swallow that weeaboo bull about how special and amazing the katana is.


Heh.

You are charging blindly on, and completely pointlessly too. For whatever reason.

I am generally much, much 'bigger fan' of European warfare. In fact I don't know all that much about Japanese one.

I still can pick and list actual unique aspects of 'katanas' that made it different, from, say, most European swords.

Actual differences, in construction, and characteristics rising from it, not another boring point about 'metal differences'



What's amazing about it is that they managed to make such quality works of art out of pig iron. That may come across as sarcastic, but it isn't. Katanas are excellent swords adapted to the time they were used, and they are absolutely noteworthy as examples of how people can overcome the limitations of the resources available to them, i.e., pig iron.[/QUOTE]

Japanese sand ores, iron made out of it, and tamahagane (sword steel) made out of that iron all don't have anything to do with pig iron.

You can seriously check it in Wikipedia before writing.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pig_iron

Pig iron is product of great furnaces in steel industry.

It's specific 'kind' or iron, consisting huge amount of iron and is usually intermediate product.

Because Japanese people didn't have great furnaces as such, they wouldn't be able to produce pig iron, even if they wanted to make sword out of it from some weird reason.


You're probably thinking about the fact that Japanese sand ores were, from one reason or another, poorly suited to make 'heavy duty' weapons out.

As far as I understand, it's mostly due to high content of different slag, but it's better to leave answer to people better at this.

As such, Japanese smiths were folding and reforging one billet of iron repeatedly, to 'hook out' as many undesired material as possible.

Thus famous katana 4851 thousands OMG!1! layers.

--------------------


In short, it's good that the myth of 'superior, steel cutting katana, due to layers, hmm, somehow' is giving ground.

The next one that should die, is definitely

"Japanese swords were okay against light armor, but wouldn't handle heavy one etc."

Japanese warfare had seen much more heavy armor than European one for a very long time -

~1000 AD there were warriors riding around with large, rather clunky and overbuild pieces of lammelar armor.

In Europe at the same time, most common and complete armor would be a helmet and thigh/elbow long mail.

[neonchameleon]

Japanese had 'developed' greatswords WAY EARLIER than Europeans.

If late 12th Century is the best you can do, nope. Richard the Lionheart definitely wielded a two handed sword - and was one-upped by Saladin when in reply to his cutting through an iron bar, Saladin cut through a silk cushion.

Of course if you want an early two handed sword, you need to go back a long time. The Indians facing Alexander the Great sometimes used two handed swords (http://burnpit.us/2012/05/battle-hydaspes-river-alexander-great-defeats-indian-king-porus).


As such, Japanese smiths were folding and reforging one billet of iron repeatedly, to 'hook out' as many undesired material as possible.

Thus famous katana 4851 thousands OMG!1! layers.

Not just to hook them out, but also to break the impurities up so they only crossed one single layer at any point of the blade rather than reached across the whole blade.

[Spiryt]

If late 12th Century is the best you can do, nope. Richard the Lionheart definitely wielded a two handed sword - and was one-upped by Saladin when in reply to his cutting through an iron bar, Saladin cut through a silk cushion.


Huh?

How old is that story, and how does it proves that Richard had wielded 'two handed sword'?

They have probably never actually meet each other, and this story is probably Victorian or otherwise quite modern.

It presents famous sword myths in pretty much purest form.

In Europe two handed swords are generally dated to ~1240 at earliest.

Indian, Chinese, Scythian, etc. swords with long handles and possibly two handed use are different story, of course.

[Mr.Moron]

Katana
Cost: 4500gp
Special Two-Handed Weapon
Damage: ∞
Weight: -1 lbs
Properties: Superior Edge, Clean Stroke, Light, Finesse, Finesse, Finesse

Superior Edge: Armor is useless against the master-crafted edge of the Katana blade. Attack rolls from this weapon treat the target as though they had no armor or natural armor. If their armor limits their dexterity bonus that restriction still applies (+0 for Heavy Armor and +2 for Medium, typically).

Clean Stroke: If this weapon deals enough damage to drop the target it hits, it may apply the remaining damage to another target adjacent to that one so long as the original attack roll would meet or exceed their AC. You may repeat this process a number of times equal to the strength or dexterity modifier being applied to the attack roll.

Note: Because this weapon is not a martial or simple weapon only entries that call it out specifically are proficient.
Note: Because this weapon has the Finesse property three times you may add up to three times your dexterity modifier to attack and damage rolls with this weapon.

[TheOOB]

I'd use longsword stats for a katana, and I'd say that's generous for the katana. A katana is not some perfect weapon, it's the best weapon that could be made in feudal Japan considering terrible much of their steel was, and how limited their metallurgy techniques were. It's true that Katana were usually made by very skilled sword smiths, but that's a)because of how little good steel there was to, and b)Katana were usually family heirlooms. There were a lot more crappy swords in Europe than in Japan, but that's not because European swords were worse, it was because there were a lot more swords(good steel was never that hard to find).

A European sword made by a skilled smith would be the superior to a Katana, the higher quality metal would likely break a Katana in battle, and the straight two edged design allowed for far more versatility.

The Katana is a slashing swords that is wielded almost exclusively two-handed, but can be wielded one handed. So it's not a greatsword. The blade is around 2-3 feet long so the weapon is unlikely to be finesse or light. Longsword makes sense.

[rlc]

ETA: Why does initiative come from Dex anyway? Neither Aim nor Balance represents an ability to get the jump on someone... It should be Wis based - Intuition, specifically. Might make that a houserule... hmm...
because speed does represent that ability and it doesn't make sense to roll based on the literal speed mechanic, so they went with dexterity.

Huh?

How old is that story, and how does it proves that Richard had wielded 'two handed sword'?

They have probably never actually meet each other, and this story is probably Victorian or otherwise quite modern.

It presents famous sword myths in pretty much purest form.

In Europe two handed swords are generally dated to ~1240 at earliest.

Indian, Chinese, Scythian, etc. swords with long handles and possibly two handed use are different story, of course.

richard defeated saladin in battle. i wouldn't say they never met.

[Theodoxus]

because speed does represent that ability and it doesn't make sense to roll based on the literal speed mechanic, so they went with dexterity.

I'd still give it to player choice. Combat doesn't tend to start out as a High Noon Duel. But I don't like penalizing clerics who tanked dex because they're in heavy armor, yet are perceptive enough to suss out what the enemy they just stumbled upon is likely to do.

Anything that narrows the focus of a god stat is Good (tm) in my book.

[Naanomi]

Some of the 'legendary sharpness' stuff comes from sword smithing techniques largely for show and perhaps ritualized dueling in the period of Japanese history *after* they were used on the battlefield significantly. Not having to contend with armor or, often, any fighting at all means sword smiths could 'show off' those razor sharp edges that would be otherwise impractical.

Also, somewhat related, a two-handed/versatile finesse weapon has mechanical consequences to consider regarding Great Weapon feats/class features and Backstabbing that need to be considered from a gaming aspect as well.

[rlc]

I'd still give it to player choice. Combat doesn't tend to start out as a High Noon Duel. But I don't like penalizing clerics who tanked dex because they're in heavy armor, yet are perceptive enough to suss out what the enemy they just stumbled upon is likely to do.

Anything that narrows the focus of a god stat is Good (tm) in my book.
that's fine. i'm just saying why it makes sense that they did it the way they did.

Some of the 'legendary sharpness' stuff comes from sword smithing techniques largely for show and perhaps ritualized dueling in the period of Japanese history *after* they were used on the battlefield significantly. Not having to contend with armor or, often, any fighting at all means sword smiths could 'show off' those razor sharp edges that would be otherwise impractical.
plus, the fact that japan was just so far away had a lot to do with europeans making up stories about them. marco polo said, "I can report to you in sober truth a veritable marvel concerning a certain palace of the ruler of the island. You may take it for a fact that he has a very large palace entirely roofed with fine gold . . . They have pearls in abundance . . . and many other precious stones in abundance. It is a very rich island, so that no one can count its riches."

Also, somewhat related, a two-handed/versatile finesse weapon has mechanical consequences to consider regarding Great Weapon feats/class features and Backstabbing that need to be considered from a gaming aspect as well.
which is why it would make sense to be weaker than other great weapons if that's what it is.

[neonchameleon]

Huh?

How old is that story, and how does it proves that Richard had wielded 'two handed sword'?

They have probably never actually meet each other, and this story is probably Victorian or otherwise quite modern.

You're right. It was Walter Scott. One of these days I'll work out which facts I know are true and which from the ... romanticised ... history books I was given when I was little.

[Telwar]

Why use a katana when you can use a chainsword?

[Knaight]

Why use a katana when you can use a chainsword?

Because the katana is an actual sword. The chainsword is an accident waiting to happen.

[Mr.Moron]

Why use a katana when you can use a chainsword?

Because a chain sword can't slice a mountain in a half.

[Naanomi]

Because a chain sword can't slice a mountain in a half.
They are also much less likely to contain an ancient demon or the soul of one of your ancestors

[Logosloki]

Because a chain sword can't slice a mountain in a half.

Chain Axe on the other hand...

Hmmm, I think I know what to play next...Tiefling fiend blade warlock, refluff all abilities to be physical attacks. Hope no questgiver wants a head as proof because that will be going to my patron if they are a worthy opponent.

[pwykersotz]

Katana
Cost: 4500gp
Special Two-Handed Weapon
Damage: ∞
Weight: -1 lbs
Properties: Superior Edge, Clean Stroke, Light, Finesse, Finesse, Finesse

Superior Edge: Armor is useless against the master-crafted edge of the Katana blade. Attack rolls from this weapon treat the target as though they had no armor or natural armor. If their armor limits their dexterity bonus that restriction still applies (+0 for Heavy Armor and +2 for Medium, typically).

Clean Stroke: If this weapon deals enough damage to drop the target it hits, it may apply the remaining damage to another target adjacent to that one so long as the original attack roll would meet or exceed their AC. You may repeat this process a number of times equal to the strength or dexterity modifier being applied to the attack roll.

Note: Because this weapon is not a martial or simple weapon only entries that call it out specifically are proficient.
Note: Because this weapon has the Finesse property three times you may add up to three times your dexterity modifier to attack and damage rolls with this weapon.

You forgot to include a stipulation that the weapon gains another finesse property for every 100 extra times it is folded. That way a master crafter who folds the iron a million times has the best one!

[MadBear]

geez guys, you're ruining my "KATANA IS THE ROXXOR" buzz I have going.

why can't you just blindly accept that the katana is the best weapon ever made. It can easily break all other weapons, cuts through all armor, and if humans were fast enough it can easily cut all bullets in half. We should all just feel lucky that those Samurai graced us by never crossing the ocean, because their skill with a Katana would have them taking over the world. It's only their benign grace that has allowed us to survive to this day. I mean they folded their metal like a bazillion times, and every fold makes it infinitely better. So that's mathematical proof that a Katana's power is Infinity X a Bazillion. The only threat that a samurai could even face on the planet was a ninja, and they're supernatural beings. There's a reason that we can't play samurai in 5 edition, and it's because a 1st level Samurai= a 20th level caster (40th level caster if he starts with a katana).

[rlc]

We should all just feel lucky that those Samurai graced us by never crossing the ocean, because their skill with a Katana would have them taking over the world.

or it would help them build railroads.

[TheOOB]

geez guys, you're ruining my "KATANA IS THE ROXXOR" buzz I have going.

why can't you just blindly accept that the katana is the best weapon ever made. It can easily break all other weapons, cuts through all armor, and if humans were fast enough it can easily cut all bullets in half. We should all just feel lucky that those Samurai graced us by never crossing the ocean, because their skill with a Katana would have them taking over the world. It's only their benign grace that has allowed us to survive to this day. I mean they folded their metal like a bazillion times, and every fold makes it infinitely better. So that's mathematical proof that a Katana's power is Infinity X a Bazillion. The only threat that a samurai could even face on the planet was a ninja, and they're supernatural beings. There's a reason that we can't play samurai in 5 edition, and it's because a 1st level Samurai= a 20th level caster (40th level caster if he starts with a katana).

While I understand your post is satirical, I still feel obligated to mention that a Samurai is nothing more than a fighter(or perhaps a ranger or paladin, or even a barbarian, rogue, or cleric), and in fact due to Japans isolationist policies were likely less skilled than European knights who had a entire continents worth of study on swordsmanship to learn from.

[EvilAnagram]

or it would help them build railroads.
That's ridiculous and offensive.

A katana couldn't replace a rail spike. The steel is too weak.

[pwykersotz]

That's ridiculous and offensive.

A katana couldn't replace a rail spike. The steel is too weak.

I laughed way to hard at that.

[Shinken]

While I understand your post is satirical, I still feel obligated to mention that a Samurai is nothing more than a fighter(or perhaps a ranger or paladin, or even a barbarian, rogue, or cleric), and in fact due to Japans isolationist policies were likely less skilled than European knights who had a entire continents worth of study on swordsmanship to learn from.

This is so wrong I can only believe it's satire. Do you know anything about japanese history and culture at all?

[MadBear]

This is so wrong I can only believe it's satire. Do you know anything about japanese history and culture at all?

care to elaborate?

[TheOOB]

This is so wrong I can only believe it's satire. Do you know anything about japanese history and culture at all?

Yes I do, actually. I know that the majority of what we consider to be samurai cultural was created during the edo period, over 200 years of peace and isolation. Not having enough wars to justify a large warrior class on martial skill alone, a certain romanticized code of honor was developed to help justify the warrior classes place as the ruling class. During this time period many more practical combat techniques were dropped for more "honorable" ones.

Just as the countries technology level stagnated over that time period, so to did it's knowledge of the martial arts.

[Occasional Sage]

This is all performance art.

...

Right?

[SiuiS]

The answer here is so obvious I am not surprised you mere humans missed it.

This is not a post thread about katanas. This is not a thread about Japanese swords, or their culture or fabrication or experiences or edge or anything like that.


This thread begins with a definitive article. This thread is about THE katana. The ur-shinken. The platonic ideal of Katana throughout time and transcending culture.

The katana can cut through a tank. It doesn't matter that the katana is not long enough to actually reach through that entire cut, or made of a material which could support that level of force transfer, or ever wielded with enough force should it somehow be long enough and strong enough. It doesn't even matter than this cutting power is evinced nowhere else the swordsman does not will it, neither cutting through the saiya not instantly decapitating anyone threatened with it. It is The Katana, and that is what The Katana does. It becomes the soul of whichever noble warrior wields it with pure intent to the fullest of Bushido, and it doesn't matter a lick that that doesn't make any sense since Bushido has nothing to do directly with how you wield a sword.

The Katana definitely should not be a two handed d8 finesse weapon. The Katana should be a one-handed great sword that automatically bestows power attack on anyone using it in two hands and which adds +20 to your initiative when sheathed provided your first action in any combat is to draw and cut.



And now you know.

[captpike]

Because the katana is an actual sword. The chainsword is an accident waiting to happen.

nothing beats using two sets of katana-chucks at one time.

[Eldan]

The answer here is so obvious I am not surprised you mere humans missed it.

This is not a post thread about katanas. This is not a thread about Japanese swords, or their culture or fabrication or experiences or edge or anything like that.


This thread begins with a definitive article. This thread is about THE katana. The ur-shinken. The platonic ideal of Katana throughout time and transcending culture.

The katana can cut through a tank. It doesn't matter that the katana is not long enough to actually reach through that entire cut, or made of a material which could support that level of force transfer, or ever wielded with enough force should it somehow be long enough and strong enough. It doesn't even matter than this cutting power is evinced nowhere else the swordsman does not will it, neither cutting through the saiya not instantly decapitating anyone threatened with it. It is The Katana, and that is what The Katana does. It becomes the soul of whichever noble warrior wields it with pure intent to the fullest of Bushido, and it doesn't matter a lick that that doesn't make any sense since Bushido has nothing to do directly with how you wield a sword.

The Katana definitely should not be a two handed d8 finesse weapon. The Katana should be a one-handed great sword that automatically bestows power attack on anyone using it in two hands and which adds +20 to your initiative when sheathed provided your first action in any combat is to draw and cut.



And now you know.

I like that idea. Someone should stat up a series of artefacts that are the Platonic Ideals of Weaponry.

Like the platonic dagger, that kills automatically if used in a surprise round from behind. Or the platonic longsword that's also a blessed, a holy symbol and can only be wielded by the noble and honourable.

[SiuiS]

Since we're talking about melee weapons, I noticed that the falcata is suspiciously absent from most equipment lists, so I took the liberty of stating it myself.

One-handed
Martial weapon
slashing/piercing
kills 1d4+STR Roman legionares per round

Why would you state Falcata? Does the word itself cause the damage?


The only special trait I've seen of the katana that stands up to scrutiny is that it makes a good sword out of ****ty iron supplies. Or rather min-maxes the amount of good iron you need and thankfully everyone had fairly crappy armor. And since everyone did this being a little heavier for the length of cutting edge didn't matter.

While a feat approaching alchemy and well regarded that may be... other then tacking on extra gold to the cost of a longsword I see no reasonable way to model that in 5E.


Extrapolate. If crap iron with an awesome method of formation produce passing swords, then the same technique on standard or exemplar materials should produce an excellent weapon.



We want to play this game well there's a case to be made for Dex to hit and Str to damage for all weapons except maybe crossbows. Heck maybe not even strength period. But unless martial classes come with bonuses to account for the MAD that involves its more game feature and tradition then any realism.

I disagree. From experience, you need strength for attack rolls because with low dexterity but ample strength you can still use the weapon at all, but without strength no amount of dexterity is going to do anything whatsoever. You need a minimum ability to actually move weights in your arms without being slowed down.

[Totema]

Extrapolate. If crap iron with an awesome method of formation produce passing swords, then the same technique on standard or exemplar materials should produce an excellent weapon.

I don't really have a horse in this race, but that's not how it works, I'm afraid. Japanese swordsmiths used the folding technique to remove impurities from their steel, and since their steel was made with iron-bearing sand rather than ore, there were tons of impurities in even their best steel pieces. On the other hand, steel made from ore is already very pure, so folding would do little to improve swords made from that material.

[SiuiS]

I don't really have a horse in this race, but that's not how it works, I'm afraid.

My bad. I made the mistake of thinking giant endothermic reptiles which expell elemental force and stay aloft through denial of physics and lair in impossible holes in the ground which would bankrupt nations to create on top of piles of money smelted by short bearded creatures which live for centuries and can hit metal so hard and which such finesse that it becomes supernatural meant that maybe fighters could have nice things.

[Totema]

My bad. I made the mistake of thinking giant endothermic reptiles which expell elemental force and stay aloft through denial of physics and lair in impossible holes in the ground which would bankrupt nations to create on top of piles of money smelted by short bearded creatures which live for centuries and can hit metal so hard and which such finesse that it becomes supernatural meant that maybe fighters could have nice things.

Ah, the fault is mine, because I was assuming we were trying to find the consequences of applying a boring real-life forging technique in a fantasy elf world.

[EvilAnagram]

The folding technique would be pretty terrible on swords made from decent steel. You'd be working the carbon out of the blade until it was too soft to be useful. Make up cooler techniques the master-craft your swords.

[Morty]

Trying to pin down the differences between different styles of swords strikes me as rather futile - the system isn't granular or realistic enough for that. Never has been. Systems like GURPS or Riddle of Steel may be good for that, but not D&D. Just use a longsword or scimitar and call it a katana.

[GungHo]

Because a chain sword can't slice a mountain in a half.

The Jimi Hendrix-Souled Monk can, however, do this with the edge of a hand.

[Mr.Moron]

Trying to pin down the differences between different styles of swords strikes me as rather futile - the system isn't granular or realistic enough for that. Never has been. Systems like GURPS or Riddle of Steel may be good for that, but not D&D. Just use a longsword or scimitar and call it a katana.

It's granular enough to differentiate between Prestidigitation and Wish. I think if it can handle differences that small, there is room to make a difference between a longsword and a katana.

[rlc]

what would you guys say is the equivalent of damascus steel? mithril? adamantium?

[Red Fel]

Extrapolate. If crap iron with an awesome method of formation produce passing swords, then the same technique on standard or exemplar materials should produce an excellent weapon.

Except that's not quite how it works. The techniques used in Japanese swordsmithing weren't designed along the lines of "treat a weapon made by this process as it if were made of a higher quality material." The techniques were designed more along the lines of "treat a weapon made by this process as if it were made of this particular quality material."

The distinction is important. A weapon under the former method would take poor materials and turn them into a weapon the equivalent of common material, or common materials into an uncommon-material weapon, or uncommon materials into a high-quality-material weapon, and so forth. Or, to put it differently, put in a material of Q quality, and you get a weapon of Q+ quality, every time. Extrapolating upwards, as you say.

But a weapon under the latter method produces a specific quality - a slightly-inferior quality of steel. That does not extrapolate. If you use the materials the Japanese had, you'd get this quality of steel. If you used a higher quality source of iron, you'd still receive a slightly-inferior quality of steel in the finished weapon, perhaps with somewhat fewer impurities. Or, to put it differently, put in a material of Q quality, and you get a weapon of S quality, where S is mostly independent of Q. That S remains fairly constant, even as Q varies. It doesn't extrapolate upwards.

Now, there is some variance. For example, if you put in Mithral or Adamantine, you wouldn't get a steel weapon; assuming the forging techniques are similar, however, you'd still get the equivalent quality (slightly inferior) of the source metal. But it wouldn't simply turn whatever material you use, regardless of quality, into supermetal. That's not how it works.

[Dienekes]

It's granular enough to differentiate between Prestidigitation and Wish. I think if it can handle differences that small, there is room to make a difference between a longsword and a katana.

A d20 system could be made to be granular enough. However, D&D has largely not bothered working out the details for things that would be useful for differentiating different types of swords, or weapons in general. Differences in weapon length being more precise than the standard reach degrees, different benefits for crits, different types of attacks for different weapons beyond slash and piercing damage.

You might want to look at the Codex Martialis made by our own Galloglaich. I don't own it myself, but I've heard good things.


what would you guys say is the equivalent of damascus steel? mithril? adamantium?

Masterwork steel, probably.

[Janus]

adds +20 to your initiative when sheathed provided your first action in any combat is to draw and cut.
:biggrin: That was awesome, and sadly I've met people who believe that kind of crap.

[Shinken]

Yes I do, actually. I know that the majority of what we consider to be samurai cultural was created during the edo period, over 200 years of peace and isolation. Not having enough wars to justify a large warrior class on martial skill alone, a certain romanticized code of honor was developed to help justify the warrior classes place as the ruling class. During this time period many more practical combat techniques were dropped for more "honorable" ones.

Just as the countries technology level stagnated over that time period, so to did it's knowledge of the martial arts.

Then you should also know that samurai is just a social class, that peasants did most of the real fighting, that they were the ones wielding actual swords. Calling samurai a "warrior class" makes it even worse, since most samurai only carried weapons for show - they were artists more than anything else. I couldn't care less about romanticized bullcrap, but saying japanese warriors did less fighting is preposterous if you consider how many wars happened in that area and how well they documented their fighting techniques (a practice that predates bushido crap by centuries).
So, no, samurai are not superwarriors, katana are not lightsaber, but dismissing japanese war prowess because of that is just plain ignorant.

[SiuiS]

The folding technique would be pretty terrible on swords made from decent steel. You'd be working the carbon out of the blade until it was too soft to be useful. Make up cooler techniques the master-craft your swords.

We have. But people still insist that physics and metallurgy doesn't work that way, so you don't get nice things unless you're a wizard.

There's the water hammer tempering, purification of the metals and properties Alchemically, aligning the materials and process to astronomical cycles, at tuning your smith work to the spiritual resonance of your ancestors; better steel, better technique, better materials, better procedures. But no one cares because it's all still mundane, until it's magic.

If I say a smith can take good material and make a super samurai sword out of it using similar process to making regular samurai sword out of crap materials, why do I have to give a rigorous and detailed explanation of the specific exceptions to real world science before people will say "sure, in a land of goblins and demons and intelligent malicious math, your master smith can do something master-smith-esque enough to get you a +2 weapon, extraordinary instead of magical".


It's granular enough to differentiate between Prestidigitation and Wish. I think if it can handle differences that small, there is room to make a difference between a longsword and a katana.

Wow.


Except that's not quite how it works. The techniques used in Japanese swordsmithing weren't designed along the lines of "treat a weapon made by this process as it if were made of a higher quality material."

You're right, and that's not what was said, either. They make an end product of higher quality than the materials would suggest. Not they make materials of higher quality than the materials would suggest and then make a regular sword out of it. That's kinda crucial, details wise.

That already happens in D&D, otherwise staves and clubs would all suffer the -1 damage for being made from inferior materials, wouldn't they?

[VoxRationis]

I disagree. From experience, you need strength for attack rolls because with low dexterity but ample strength you can still use the weapon at all, but without strength no amount of dexterity is going to do anything whatsoever. You need a minimum ability to actually move weights in your arms without being slowed down.

Strength prerequisites, my friend. While it makes sense that you need to be able to move the weapon, without hand-eye coordination, reflexes and agility, you aren't going to hit anything either.

[Sidmen]

what would you guys say is the equivalent of damascus steel? mithril? adamantium?

Damascus Steel is just high-carbon steel (the natural deposits around Damascus and in Spain - for the famed Spanish Steel - had higher than usual carbon content - and the middle age smiths didn't really know much about what made steel good).

Mithril is aluminum, at least a fantasy version of it that is as strong as steel. If we assume cruddy medieval steel and really good modern aluminum you could probably do it.

Adamantium is a pure fantasy construct. Maybe it's Iridium?

[EvilAnagram]

Damascus Steel is just high-carbon steel (the natural deposits around Damascus and in Spain - for the famed Spanish Steel - had higher than usual carbon content - and the middle age smiths didn't really know much about what made steel good).
Damascus steel didn't simply have more carbon. Examinations of a Damascus steel blade found carbon nanotubes (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/11/061116-nanotech-swords.html) in its molecular makeup. More carbon doesn't necessarily create a beter steel. Too much will make it too brittle, and too little will make it too soft. However those Indian smiths made it, and we still don't know how they made it, it required more effort than simply adding graphite.

And don't knock on the knowledge blacksmiths of the day had. They knew certain materials helped in creating great steel, even if they didn't know why. They also knew how to create extremely good steel for the technology of the day. Even if you don't count the Indian smiths' ability to weave carbon-frickin'-nanotubes into their blades, nordic smiths advanced metallurgy by leaps and bounds, and the smiths of the middle ages gradually revolutionized steel over centuries.


Mithril is aluminum, at least a fantasy version of it that is as strong as steel. If we assume cruddy medieval steel and really good modern aluminum you could probably do it.
I have seen no evidence of this in any of Tolkien's works. Source?

[rlc]

Damascus Steel is just high-carbon steel (the natural deposits around Damascus and in Spain - for the famed Spanish Steel - had higher than usual carbon content - and the middle age smiths didn't really know much about what made steel good).

Mithril is aluminum, at least a fantasy version of it that is as strong as steel. If we assume cruddy medieval steel and really good modern aluminum you could probably do it.

Adamantium is a pure fantasy construct. Maybe it's Iridium?

No, way too much carbon is pig iron. Damascus steel was a technique from India, but Europeans thought it was from Damascus because that's where they encountered it. It was also thought to be magic because of how it looked (from the nanotubes mentioned in the last post), which is why I mentioned magical metals. We've more or less reconstructed it, but we have several centuries of scientific knowledge.

[Sidmen]

Damascus steel didn't simply have more carbon. Examinations of a Damascus steel blade found carbon nanotubes (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/11/061116-nanotech-swords.html) in its molecular makeup. More carbon doesn't necessarily create a beter steel. Too much will make it too brittle, and too little will make it too soft. However those Indian smiths made it, and we still don't know how they made it, it required more effort than simply adding graphite.

And don't knock on the knowledge blacksmiths of the day had. They knew certain materials helped in creating great steel, even if they didn't know why. They also knew how to create extremely good steel for the technology of the day. Even if you don't count the Indian smiths' ability to weave carbon-frickin'-nanotubes into their blades, nordic smiths advanced metallurgy by leaps and bounds, and the smiths of the middle ages gradually revolutionized steel over centuries.


I have seen no evidence of this in any of Tolkien's works. Source?
Yeah, sorry for the short explanation, I was remembering it from a documentary I watched a while ago. Maybe they were just talking about Toledo (or Spanish) steel - which was of exceptionally high quality for the era. Its possible I'm mixing in Damascus steel into the same documentary, or that they talked about it in a separate part. IIRC, it was talking about how in Toledo they were forging steel with ores whose carbon content lent itself to making quality steel.

As for Mithril - it's a silvery metal with half the weight but all the strength of steel - which was incredibly rare. Aluminum is a silvery metal much lighter than steel but which can approach its strength - and which is incredibly rare without electrolysis. It's either that, or titanium - since it would share many of those qualities.

[Totema]

Damascus steel didn't simply have more carbon. Examinations of a Damascus steel blade found carbon nanotubes (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/11/061116-nanotech-swords.html) in its molecular makeup. More carbon doesn't necessarily create a beter steel. Too much will make it too brittle, and too little will make it too soft. However those Indian smiths made it, and we still don't know how they made it, it required more effort than simply adding graphite.

I recall reading that Damascus steel is forged in such a way that it produces marstenite, a particularly hard and durable variety of steel microstructure. However I'm afraid I have no idea how exactly this was done (or really anyone for that matter, I think this is one of the metaphorical holy grails of metallurgy), other than the fact that it had to be specially tempered to prevent the carbides from separating.

Edit: Apparently I confused it with Wootz steel, the true metal of lost legends. :smalltongue:

[EvilAnagram]

As for Mithril - it's a silvery metal with half the weight but all the strength of steel - which was incredibly rare. Aluminum is a silvery metal much lighter than steel but which can approach its strength - and which is incredibly rare without electrolysis. It's either that, or titanium - since it would share many of those qualities.
I always thought of it as a magical metal.

[The Glyphstone]

Why use a katana when you can use a chainsword?


Because the katana is an actual sword. The chainsword is an accident waiting to happen.


Because a chain sword can't slice a mountain in a half.


They are also much less likely to contain an ancient demon or the soul of one of your ancestors


Wait, wait, guys...I got it....ready?

a Chain-katana. And each of the little teeth on the chain-katana are actually tiny katanas.

[Talyn]

I genuinely can't tell who is being sarcastic/satirical and who is being serious in some of these posts...

[MeeposFire]

Wait, wait, guys...I got it....ready?

a Chain-katana. And each of the little teeth on the chain-katana are actually tiny katanas.

Does it come wrapped in bacon and made of uranium? If not it is still not as optimal as the old 3.5e katanas from the old WotC forum days.

[Hytheter]

Ah yes, the Chain Katana: Weapon of Choice for the Space Samurines of the 41st Millenium. Created by the Adeptus Mechanicus from the best quality Adamantium, folded over 40,000 times. So sharp that in the right hands it can even cut a moon in half from the surface of the planet it orbits.

[Sidmen]

I always thought of it as a magical metal.
There's nothing wrong with that - it is a fantasy world after all. But Titanium and Aluminum would both fit the bill if you wanted a real-world analogue. Titanium would probably be easier.

[SiuiS]

Strength prerequisites, my friend. While it makes sense that you need to be able to move the weapon, without hand-eye coordination, reflexes and agility, you aren't going to hit anything either.

That I'm not so sure about. It's as simple as picking a target and firing – you will definitely telegraph but it's not as bad as a slow and loose movement that doesn't actually meet the target because the force and trajectory is insufficient for getting to the intended contact point.

You do need both. I will not say otherwise. But in the debate of dex versus STR for attack rolls, strength is not nearly as bad a choice as everyone assumes.



And don't knock on the knowledge blacksmiths of the day had. They knew certain materials helped in creating great steel, even if they didn't know why. They also knew how to create extremely good steel for the technology of the day. Even if you don't count the Indian smiths' ability to weave carbon-frickin'-nanotubes into their blades, nordic smiths advanced metallurgy by leaps and bounds, and the smiths of the middle ages gradually revolutionized steel over centuries.


I have seen no evidence of this in any of Tolkien's works. Source?

Oh, yeah definitely. We can, now, replicate the end result a lot of the times but we cannot actually figure out how anyone with their tech level even got to that point. There's a lot of nuance in smithing that we miss simply because we assume that our advanced science is so much better than their bunkum.


There's nothing wrong with that - it is a fantasy world after all. But Titanium and Aluminum would both fit the bill if you wanted a real-world analogue. Titanium would probably be easier.

I think titanium is the best fit. Although aluminum is interesting; don't we need electrolysis to get it pure enough to use? The idea of an alloy that dwarven smiths use lightning vaults to create is a neat one.

[TheOOB]

Then you should also know that samurai is just a social class, that peasants did most of the real fighting, that they were the ones wielding actual swords. Calling samurai a "warrior class" makes it even worse, since most samurai only carried weapons for show - they were artists more than anything else. I couldn't care less about romanticized bullcrap, but saying japanese warriors did less fighting is preposterous if you consider how many wars happened in that area and how well they documented their fighting techniques (a practice that predates bushido crap by centuries).
So, no, samurai are not superwarriors, katana are not lightsaber, but dismissing japanese war prowess because of that is just plain ignorant.

So your response my to my post saying how the prowess of the Samurai warrior class is greatly exaggerated is a post about how the prowess of the Samurai warrior class is greatly exaggerated?

Going back to the Katana. An interesting note that the curve in the blade of the Katana is a result of the process used to bind that harder steel used on the edge to the softer steel used on the core of the blade. The curve is actually an undesirable feature of the sword(straight blades are better at most things except calvery fighting where the spear is generally superior anyways), and later Japanese swords tended to have a much more subtle curve that earlier ones(compare pictures of Tachi to Katana). Had the Japanese had access to better steel and a good number of good nordic swords to study, their swords would likely have been straight double bladed swords with a more prominent crossguard(because everyone liked stealing nordic swords, whose design where stolen in the first place).

Also note that due to the preciousness of good steel in Japan(or what passed as good steel), only the best smiths made swords, lesser smiths made weapons that use much less metal, such as yari(spears), thus the average amount of skill that went into a Katana was more than what went into a "common" arming sword. That said, a western sword made by a master smith would be the better than a Japanese sword made by a master smith.

[Cybris75]

You do need both. I will not say otherwise. But in the debate of dex versus STR for attack rolls, strength is not nearly as bad a choice as everyone assumes.

That's partly because strength is speed, and strength is also precision. RPGs don't model that well, but e.g. my drawing skills improved drastically when I started working out. The stronger arm muscles translated to better precision when holding pencils. I guess it would be even more pronounced when swinging around a few pounds of steel.

[TheOOB]

That's partly because strength is speed, and strength is also precision. RPGs don't model that well, but e.g. my drawing skills improved drastically when I started working out. The stronger arm muscles translated to better precision when holding pencils. I guess it would be even more pronounced when swinging around a few pounds of steel.

Basically, unless you're fencing or trying to slip a dagger in the chink on someone's armor, your ability to make a quick, focused, and more importantly powerful strike is more important than your pure manual dexterity.

I think it's important to remember that an attack roll doesn't necessarily represent a single swing of the sword. A four round duel probably has dozens of strikes with only a few finding home, and you need strength to not only parry a blow, but also knock it aside enough to leave an opening for your own attack.

[Cybris75]

Basically, unless you're fencing or trying to slip a dagger in the chink on someone's armor, your ability to make a quick, focused, and more importantly powerful strike is more important than your pure manual dexterity.

I'm saying you need both, and strength contributes to the precision of hitting where you want to hit. Strength and Dexterity are related.


you need strength to not only parry a blow, but also knock it aside enough to leave an opening for your own attack.

Not disagreeing, but surely it's important to hit the opponents blade with precision when parrying, as well as being strong enough to actually force their blade to stop or move.
In my opinion, an insanely imbalanced weapon like a warhammer should give the wielder a penalty to attack rolls and armor class, because you can't actually move that thing fast enough unless your Strength is 24+. And missing with the thing should give an even bigger penalty to AC.

[Morty]

In order to properly use a hand-to-hand weapon, or a bow, you need a mixture of upper body strength, endurance, manual dexterity, reflexes, reaction time and awareness. But D&D has always boiled it down to strength for close combat and dexterity for ranged combat, occasionally letting people use the other attribute, depending on the edition. You can't really change it without completely revising the core assumptions of the combat system.

[SiuiS]

So your response my to my post saying how the prowess of the Samurai warrior class is greatly exaggerated is a post about how the prowess of the Samurai warrior class is greatly exaggerated?

Ah yes. "Samurai". We have dismissed these claims.


Going back to the Katana. An interesting note that the curve in the blade of the Katana is a result of the process used to bind that harder steel used on the edge to the softer steel used on the core of the blade. The curve is actually an undesirable feature of the sword(straight blades are better at most things except calvery fighting where the spear is generally superior anyways), and later Japanese swords tended to have a much more subtle curve that earlier ones(compare pictures of Tachi to Katana). Had the Japanese had access to better steel and a good number of good nordic swords to study, their swords would likely have been straight double bladed swords with a more prominent crossguard(because everyone liked stealing nordic swords, whose design where stolen in the first place).

Also note that due to the preciousness of good steel in Japan(or what passed as good steel), only the best smiths made swords, lesser smiths made weapons that use much less metal, such as yari(spears), thus the average amount of skill that went into a Katana was more than what went into a "common" arming sword. That said, a western sword made by a master smith would be the better than a Japanese sword made by a master smith.

This is interesting. The curvature directly affects blade geometry, and an Appleseed blade profile provides better cutting power, but a straight sword is still better? I've heard curvature increases cutting power as well when the blade is used properly, although I confess I've never broken down the math my own self. Are you certain the straight blade would have been better?

And aye, the curvature is from cooling if I recall.


That's partly because strength is speed, and strength is also precision. RPGs don't model that well, but e.g. my drawing skills improved drastically when I started working out. The stronger arm muscles translated to better precision when holding pencils. I guess it would be even more pronounced when swinging around a few pounds of steel.

Intriguing. Your drawing skill improved?
I think the issue is that most people do not have a working understanding of what the bare minimum of both stats would be for a warrior. A lot of what people think of as huge boosts is actually just removing a penalty and getting to the point you should be at – leaving only gross guesstimating about what actual surplus attributes would accomplish. I feel that something like art improving is more likely to fall under the "I am now at zero level from a penalty" category, but I cannot say for sure.

That's not to belittle you at all, though. It's just a thought I've had for years and never fully articulated. Drawing skill improvements are just an easy example; it's fully possible for bonuses to improve such things.

[Sidmen]

I think titanium is the best fit. Although aluminum is interesting; don't we need electrolysis to get it pure enough to use? The idea of an alloy that dwarven smiths use lightning vaults to create is a neat one.
Aluminum can be extracted chemically without electricity - it's just not economically feasible to do and the end result was worth more than gold by weight. In our world, we first realized how to do this in the mid 1820's.

[rlc]

Most arguments for why curved blades cut better seem to either have something to do with more psi or better locomotion. And people seem to be saying that curved blades are better for cavalry because it's easier to take your sword out of a dead body.
So in other words, typing some words into google might not be the best place for this kind of research.

[Yenek]

and if humans were fast enough it can easily cut all bullets in half.

Funny thing, this is probably true. Lead is notoriously soft. :smallbiggrin:

Of course, you then have a notched katana (from the fast bullet meeting its thin wedge) and two smaller bullets still flying at you at somewhat slower speed, close enough for the deflection to be meaningless - so you still get shot anyway. If you're fast enough to cut bullets in half, you're fast enough to dodge them and should be doing the latter.

[blackseven]

This is interesting. The curvature directly affects blade geometry, and an Appleseed blade profile provides better cutting power, but a straight sword is still better? I've heard curvature increases cutting power as well when the blade is used properly, although I confess I've never broken down the math my own self. Are you certain the straight blade would have been better?

From what I know, that's not necessarily true that the straight blade is better at "everything except cavalry." The curved blade allows for better slicing cuts, IIRC. You can see this in how Japanese cuts tend to emphasize a slicing follow through. Also, the curved blade is easier to use for iaijutsu-style draw cuts.

I really tend to hate katana threads that come up. I understand that back in the early days of popular access to the internet (late 90s, early 2000s), there were definitely too many weeaboo types, because that era coincided with the latest surge in anime popularity. The over-estimation of the katana (and Eastern martial arts in general, but mostly Japan) needed to be put into historical perspective by people familiar swords and martial arts styles from outside Asia. However, I think the pendulum has gone too far the other direction, where people on forums like this dismiss the katana (and the East Asian martial traditions) as crap compared to good European weapons. I mean, we have the "lol Asians didn't use metal armor" BS right in this thread! UGH.

[Cybris75]

Intriguing. Your drawing skill improved?

Yes, my hand-eye coordination improved a lot with the strength of my arm muscles, and I could draw much more precisely. My mental imaging of what I wanted to draw didn't change, I was just more precise at execution.


I think the issue is that most people do not have a working understanding of what the bare minimum of both stats would be for a warrior. A lot of what people think of as huge boosts is actually just removing a penalty and getting to the point you should be at – leaving only gross guesstimating about what actual surplus attributes would accomplish.

That depends on your definition of baseline competence with the specific skill. If you start at 8 and 10 is considered competent, then you will see 8 and 9 as stages where you are being penalized.
Mathematically, it doesn't make any difference if you go from strength 8 to strength 10 or from strength 16 to strength 18 - the difference is the same. D&D defines 10 as average for humans, but that is a whole other can of worms because there is no mathematically average human.

In my experience, going from one level of skill to a higher level always makes me feel like I improved and removed obstacles to my understanding. Wether that is adding a bonus or removing the penalty doesn't make a difference to me.


I feel that something like art improving is more likely to fall under the "I am now at zero level from a penalty" category, but I cannot say for sure.

That's not to belittle you at all, though. It's just a thought I've had for years and never fully articulated. Drawing skill improvements are just an easy example; it's fully possible for bonuses to improve such things.

I'm not a D&D character, so I don't have stats and can't prove one way or the other. The important lesson for me was that I got better at something that was important to me.

[Mr.Moron]

Funny thing, this is probably true. Lead is notoriously soft. :smallbiggrin:

Of course, you then have a notched katana (from the fast bullet meeting its thin wedge) and two smaller bullets still flying at you at somewhat slower speed, close enough for the deflection to be meaningless - so you still get shot anyway. If you're fast enough to cut bullets in half, you're fast enough to dodge them and should be doing the latter.

Why would you only cut it in half once? You've got a Katana! Cut it in half 5 or 6 times, then the two pieces would be too small to hurt you.

[Dienekes]

Not disagreeing, but surely it's important to hit the opponents blade with precision when parrying, as well as being strong enough to actually force their blade to stop or move.
In my opinion, an insanely imbalanced weapon like a warhammer should give the wielder a penalty to attack rolls and armor class, because you can't actually move that thing fast enough unless your Strength is 24+. And missing with the thing should give an even bigger penalty to AC.

No. War hammers are not as heavy as you think they are. They also are not slow on the individual strike. However because they are unbalanced in much the same way as a katana or axe it takes two hands or a lot of training to use fast and effectively.

Which gets to my point with this thread. Strength and Dexterity are both important, though if you take Str to mean getting your muscles to surge as fast and strong as they can in a burst then I give swordsmanship to Str. However, that type of strength is not the same (though they are related) to the maximum weight you can lift. Str models both, inelegantly, but there it is.

However, I'd like to point out that skill and training are way more important than Str or Dex will ever be. It's weird that D&D puts such a large emphasis on attributes. Personally, Mutants and Masterminds did it better with just having a Fighting attribute alongside Strength and Dexterity.

[Cybris75]

No. War hammers are not as heavy as you think they are. They also are not slow on the individual strike. However because they are unbalanced in much the same way as a katana or axe it takes two hands or a lot of training to use fast and effectively.

Are you talking about real-life warhammers or the fantasy versions with ridiculously oversized heads?


Which gets to my point with this thread. Strength and Dexterity are both important, though if you take Str to mean getting your muscles to surge as fast and strong as they can in a burst then I give swordsmanship to Str. However, that type of strength is not the same (though they are related) to the maximum weight you can lift. Str models both, inelegantly, but there it is.

True, there are lots of muscle groups in the human body, and you really have to train for the thing you want to do. A weight lifting champion should have a different physique than a melee fighter. But we can't add multiple strength scores to an RPG - I would probably model that with skills.


However, I'd like to point out that skill and training are way more important than Str or Dex will ever be. It's weird that D&D puts such a large emphasis on attributes. Personally, Mutants and Masterminds did it better with just having a Fighting attribute alongside Strength and Dexterity.

Well, D&D 3 put a lot of emphasis on the base attack bonus, which represents training. But the imbalance between BAB and ability modifiers is big at low levels.

[Naanomi]

Which gets to my point with this thread. Strength and Dexterity are both important, though if you take Str to mean getting your muscles to surge as fast and strong as they can in a burst then I give swordsmanship to Str..
And DnD (and most other RPGs for that matter) completely dismiss the effect that stats like Intelligence, Wisdom, and even Charisma have in real combat. In many ways I'd rather fight an unintelligent but strong fighter than the alternative... actually, I work as a Special Educator specializing in students with aggressive behavior so that is sort of part of what I do every day; at least in terms of avoiding attacks and what would be 'grappling' in DnD terms.

[Morty]

This is why I think that ability scores should be either removed or decoupled from basic competencies, combat or otherwise, as far as D&D goes.

[Spiryt]

Going back to the Katana. An interesting note that the curve in the blade of the Katana is a result of the process used to bind that harder steel used on the edge to the softer steel used on the core of the blade. The curve is actually an undesirable feature of the sword(straight blades are better at most things except calvery fighting where the spear is generally superior anyways),


Which is why people all around the world were spending a lot of time making curved swords?:smallconfused:

Seriously, though NO. If something was that 'undesired' it wouldn't be made and used.

At the end of medieval period Europeans started to experiment more and more with curved blades.

Were those undesired too?



and later Japanese swords tended to have a much more subtle curve that earlier ones(compare pictures of Tachi to Katana). Had the Japanese had access to better steel and a good number of good nordic swords to study, their swords would likely have been straight double bladed swords with a more prominent crossguard(because everyone liked stealing nordic swords, whose design where stolen in the first place).

This is just weird... :smallconfused:

They had metric tonne of straight sword from the continent to 'study', since the earliest times, and slightly curved, very strongly single edged blade had 'won', as in became most popular...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chokutō

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tsurugi_(sword)

In the very Europe, particularly the 'nordic' one, one edge wasn't really going anywhere, and coexisted with double edge.

Secondly I doubt that 'Nordic' people had any better steel than Japanese. Japanese iron ores were 'poor' by period standards, that doesn't say much about product - steel.

As far as cruciform hilt goes, it was without a doubt European/Middle Eastern invention, hard to say much about exact chronology of loaning/inspirations.

http://www.freha.pl/index.php?act=attach&type=post&id=12263

[Hytheter]

iirc curved edges are slightly better at cutting flesh, but cutting is not much good against armor.

Straight edges are better at stabbing, which was more important for hitting the weak points in heavy armour.

So a curved blade is better for unarmored opponents, but straight swords are more versatile and better against armour.

[Spiryt]

iirc curved edges are slightly better at cutting flesh, but cutting is not much good against armor.

Straight edges are better at stabbing, which was more important for hitting the weak points in heavy armour.

So a curved blade is better for unarmored opponents, but straight swords are more versatile and better against armour.

During Antiquity and Migration Period, or early medieval in general, people would be often countering almost no armor at all, yet the straight swords were predominant.

Likewise, plenty of straight swords, European or not were very rather suited for precise thrusting., or even thrusting at all.

Many late La-Tene sword for obvious example.



http://1501bc.com/page/solingen/04300055.jpg

http://1501bc.com/page/solingen/04300059.jpg



So such generalizations can't really explain much.

[SiuiS]

That depends on your definition of baseline competence with the specific skill. If you start at 8 and 10 is considered competent, then you will see 8 and 9 as stages where you are being penalized.
Mathematically, it doesn't make any difference if you go from strength 8 to strength 10 or from strength 16 to strength 18 - the difference is the same. D&D defines 10 as average for humans, but that is a whole other can of worms because there is no mathematically average human.

In my experience, going from one level of skill to a higher level always makes me feel like I improved and removed obstacles to my understanding. Wether that is adding a bonus or removing the penalty doesn't make a difference to me.

I'm not a D&D character, so I don't have stats and can't prove one way or the other. The important lesson for me was that I got better at something that was important to me.

Yeah. That's all true. I just have a kneejerk reaction to people who wouldn't know wrist strength if popeye gave them a canoodling, discussing how much their dexterity helps with their waza.

[NightDweller]

And DnD (and most other RPGs for that matter) completely dismiss the effect that stats like Intelligence, Wisdom, and even Charisma have in real combat. In many ways I'd rather fight an unintelligent but strong fighter than the alternative... actually, I work as a Special Educator specializing in students with aggressive behavior so that is sort of part of what I do every day; at least in terms of avoiding attacks and what would be 'grappling' in DnD terms.

To be fair, there are stats like combat expertise and even more int based combat feats in pathfinder.

[Giant2005]

To be fair, there are stats like combat expertise and even more int based combat feats in pathfinder.

You are well named NightDweller, for your skills in the necromantic arts are peerless. I think you may have just raised one of the most ancient 5e threads in existence.

[MrStabby]

You are well named NightDweller, for your skills in the necromantic arts are peerless. I think you may have just raised one of the most ancient 5e threads in existence.

It is pretty spectacular.

A form of performance art.

On the other hand it does us no harm to be reminded that people feel butthurt about the weirdest things from time to time.

[Âmesang]

I was fortunate enough to be allowed to use a katana (I mean, "elven curved blade") for a recent character… primarily because my figurine was depicted with a two-handed curved blade and it'd allow her to sneak attack; thus the referee and I used the stats present in the D&D Next playtest: two-handed, finesse, 1d10 slashing.

[Asmotherion]

By a long request of my party, I had made a Homebrew Katana.

It goes like this:

Katata
40 gp
1d8 slashing
Versatile (1d10), Finess

I'm just putting it here, for anyone who wants it...

[Ziegander]

I'm going to have to revive the Katana Savant (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?238644-The-Katana-Savant-D-amp-D-3-5-Base-Class&p=13017625) for 5e now, aren't I?

[DracoKnight]

I'm going to have to revive the Katana Savant (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?238644-The-Katana-Savant-D-amp-D-3-5-Base-Class&p=13017625) for 5e now, aren't I?

Do it! :smallbiggrin:

[Gryndle]

So, they nerfed its damage down to 1D8 AND made it two handed,
anyone else finds this silly? Know its not exotic(guess exotic weapons
does not exist anymore?) so could have one of the two nerfs
put in action, make it two handed but keep 1D10 or make it
one handed 1D8.

Also a katana is a one handed weapon, the two handed version
would be the dai-katana.

Spacehamster over and out!

This is completely incorrect. I have been a student of the katana since June 13th 1981. Most katana techniques are 2-handed, . It CAN be used one handed, and few strikes (such as the nutisuke unsheathing cut) are better one handed.

and the term dai-katana doesn't mean a large sword. the "great" in dai-katana refers to its providence or pedigree, not its size. A katana that is a family heirloom, meant to be used by samurai that exemplifies the best qualities of the family, or a katana with a long history is a dai-katana. Using "dai-katana" to describe a large sword has its origins in 1980's comic books and anime. Its the kind of slip that my sensei would have slapped me in the back of the head for if he were still with us.

a large katana is typically called a no-dachi, o-tachi or o-katana.


that said, In game terms I just use the longsword stats for a katana. short sword, for wakizashi, great sword for no-dachi, and a versatile scimitar for kodaichi (sword between katana and wakizashi in length)

[danpit2991]

if you want to get technical the closest european weapon to the katana is the humble cutlass

katana-

-Weight 1.1–1.3 kg (2.4 - 3 lbs)
Blade length 60–73 cm ( 23 – 28 in)

cutlass-

- weight 1.0 - 1.3 (2.3 - 3 lbs)
blade length 60 74 cm (23-29 in)

the main difference is blade thickness and of course 1 vs 2 handed use

[CaptainSarathai]

I almost got into this, I really almost did. Japanese cultural history fascinates me, without necessarily deluding me (hint: they're as awful as anyone else)
I was going through here tagging multi-quotes and getting ready dominate this tread like Nobunaga's tanegashima dominated the Takeda at Nagashino.
...then I saw the post dates.


I'm going to have to revive the Katana Savant (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?238644-The-Katana-Savant-D-amp-D-3-5-Base-Class&p=13017625) for 5e now, aren't I?
I read it, and I think at this point, just play a Valor Bard.

So in lieu of the wall of text I was going to type, I give you this:

Bard dramatically, with straining deep voice and feigned accent - "I-ya, ama Sa-moo-rye Mastu!"

Paladin - "Pretty sure you're just a Bard"

Bard redoubling efforts - "But ROOK, peasant, I have..."
>>Bard whips out a sword from a scabbard worn edge-down on his belt, nearly severing his own forefinger in the process. Paladin leans back from the wild swing. A cat yowls off screen.
>>Cut to 'intensity shot' of only Bard's eyes. Following audio does not synch properly to visuals
Bard - "...a katana"

>>Angelic choir. Cut to wide shot, sword above head. Flock of pigeons released from behind Bard (get J. Woo's people to call our people).

>>Slowly pan toward sword. Upon closer inspection it is a dull, cheap Chinese knock-off. Likely purchased at a shopping-mall venue with 'Sun' or 'East' or possibly even both in the name. It has a tassel on the handle, and fuller, into which is etched a 6-year-old Chinese child-laborer's painful rendition of a dragon

>>Pan back to standard shot. Bard's upstretched arm has caused shirt to rise, revealing a pit-stain, and also his flabby gut poking out from below the hem

Paladin - "oh, excuse me. I see I was wrong. You're a Bard with a longsword."

Bard shocked, momentarily drops vocal affectations. Naturally voice is whiny and underdeveloped, slight hair-lip - Longsword?! I - I

Bard this time with accent - "I wih defend my honur, and prove the value of my blade by cutting this... tah- tuh- tat-am-ee mat!"

>>Bard pulls out a tightly bundled tatami mat from who-knows-where, and affixes it to a stand as the Paladin watches bemusedly.

>>Cut to close up of Bard's hands tightly gripping hilt. Sound of leather creaking.

>>Cut to close-up of Bard's eyes, looking very intense. Add "speed lines" in post
Bard - "ruaaaaaaaaaaaaa!"
louder
Aaaaaaaaaaaaaah!!
louder. painfully loud. positively shrieking. add heinous amount of veins and sweat to forehead and temples in post
HYAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH!!!!

>>zoom out. Bard still shrieking. Set has been replaced with typical American college campus. The Bard has not moved, only staring at the mat and yelling incoherently. People are whispering, snickering, or trying hard not to look, and give a wide berth. Three girls of average-to-above-average attractiveness point and giggle. In the background, an overweight freshman with braces and terminal acne, wearing a 'Naruto' tshirt from gradeschool, furiously gets her rocks off in the bushes while gazing longingly at Bard

>>Bard finally swings, with a final squealing shriek, and wielding the sword like a baseball bat

>>multiple drawn-out slo-mo shots from several angles. Matrix style. More doves. Wailing J-metal (just get some washed-up hair-metal band. 'Bolt Thrower' or somesuch) guitar solo

>>Extreme close-up of edge of blade touching into tatami mat

>>blade shatters spectacularly

Bard - [small, inaudible sound of shock and defeat]
>>Bard's eyes well up with tears, he breaks down, and runs off wailing crying

Bard echoing from off screen - You don't even watch anime!!"
>>Freshman sneaks out from bushes and runs feebly after him

Paladin bewildered, turns to camera and shrugs - "Nandeyanen?"
---
Based on a certain DM and an ex I've "dealt with," as well as the numerous videos to be found online of ignorant people shattering katana blades by striking improperly (more like casting a fishing line than swinging a bat)

[rlc]

We're getting more eastern-style subclasses now. I guess this is as good a time as any to bump this thread.

[CaptainSarathai]

if you want to get technical the closest european weapon to the katana is the humble cutlass

katana-

-Weight 1.1–1.3 kg (2.4 - 3 lbs)
Blade length 60–73 cm ( 23 – 28 in)

cutlass-

- weight 1.0 - 1.3 (2.3 - 3 lbs)
blade length 60 74 cm (23-29 in)

the main difference is blade thickness and of course 1 vs 2 handed use

Cavalry saber. Both in use and in size (except 1 or 2 hand wield) You have to account for the relative size of person-to-weapon at the time.
Katanas are really just based on traditional Chinese swords, and were originally straight and sometimes even double edges. They were meant - as mentioned years ago - as cavalry side-arms. The curve in a sword is usually an evolution of it being used on horseback, "in the press" where attacks usually come from above the head. Look at strikes in kendo - even on foot, the point of origin for most strikes is very high. High guard position almost exclusively (yes, Kendo is a poor approximation of samurai practical styles, but it's just about all we've got next to Iaido and aikido)

By comparison, the cutlass was basically a big-lass knife, based on the "hanger." It was essentially made for untrained, ham-fisted novices in a culture where only nobility could afford/carry a sword (classed as not having a full-tang).
I dress up like a pirate annually, because we're all nerds here and I like rennfaires. I have a surplus model 1917 Naval boarding cutlass. Thing's got more in common with an axe than a sword. I'd hate to get hit with it, all the same - it won't take your arm clean off, but it would probably mangle every bone in your arm, and probably half your ribs beside.

[Malifice]

By a long request of my party, I had made a Homebrew Katana.

It goes like this:

Katata
40 gp
1d8 slashing
Versatile (1d10), Finess

I'm just putting it here, for anyone who wants it...

Underpowered. Needs an autokill rule.

[Toofey]

Hey look at this
http://www.nytimes.com/1981/09/29/science/the-mystery-of-damascus-steel-appears-solved.html


The finest blades ever made, he added, were the Samurai swords of Japan, whose blades may contain a million layers of steel. The layers resulted from hammering out a bar to double its original length, then folding it over as many as 32 times.

The multiple layers used by the Japanese and by makers of the Malay dagger or kris are sometimes referr ed to as ' 'welded Damascus steel.'' Although the production method diffe rs from that of true Damascus steel, the blades may show a very si milar pattern.

[rlc]

Reading that made me cringe.

[SethoMarkus]

~~snip~~

That was absolutely beautiful <3

[pwykersotz]

Reading that made me cringe.

Ditto. :smallyuk:

[Lombra]

Just refluff a longsword and dip kensai already.

[Toofey]

What are you going to do guys that was a PHD in metallurgy, and more the one who cracked the recipe for Damascus steal saying the Katana was the finest blade. That's expertise right there.

[DragonSorcererX]

It is fun how people discuss that a Katana should be DEX, and that a Katana should be powerful...

The thing is that, most fictional characters have MAD, and this make their stats ****ty, but at the same time they have three class features called "Plot Armor", "Plot Weapon" and "Plot Ability Checks".




One-handed
Martial weapon
slashing/piercing
kills 1d4+STR Roman legionares per round

I love to see Roman Legionaire-like people being killed! In my Campaign Setting the Hobgoblins will be pseudo-ancient romans... and I will be happy to use a Magical Nuke Macguffin on their city...

[Spellbreaker26]

The problem with mechanically representing the Katana is that in terms of swords it's a panda - it developed in isolation and is very inefficient. It's a slashing weapon, traditionally a weapon that is most effective from horseback, but unlike the scimitar, talwar, sabre etc it's two-handed (well, mostly two-handed) and so is somewhat trickier to use mounted.

I had a think about it and I think I would go for the same weapon I would use for the falx (an altogether better weapon in my opinion) - greatsword. One could make a very good case for longsword but as katanas are not to my knowledge paired with shields very often I feel that would be mechanically inelegant. For the Dai-katana, that is often treated as an anti-cavalry weapon I believe, and so I would have the player use the stats for the glaive or halberd if they wanted to employ one. DnD is not a flawless combat simulation anyway and I feel that this will capture the spirit of both weapons if not their exact historical significance. For one, the lack of an "armour penetration" stat for weapons or magic and what-have-you forces a certain amount of simplicity.

[SethoMarkus]

10/10 experts agree that the katana is the most perfect sword ever designed.*










*For fighting vampires, in the hands of a Daywalker.

[Spellbreaker26]

I love to see Roman Legionaire-like people being killed! In my Campaign Setting the Hobgoblins will be pseudo-ancient romans... and I will be happy to use a Magical Nuke Macguffin on their city...

What did the Romans ever do to you?

[Woggle]

One could make a very good case for longsword but as katanas are not to my knowledge paired with shields very often I feel that would be mechanically inelegant.
Neither was the longsword, outside of DnD. A longsword is a primarily two-handed weapon by design.

[Spellbreaker26]

Neither was the longsword, outside of DnD. A longsword is a primarily two-handed weapon by design.

Yes, but the longsword in DnD is pulling double duty it seems as anything bigger than an arming sword and smaller than a Zweihander falls into the longsword bracket. Another simplification to prevent the game getting bogged down in minutia (even though builds that would replicate legionaries or Saxons are completely neutered because of it).

[Talamare]

Well, The Katana was a pretty pathetic weapon in real life as well. Made with weak metal because Japan didn't have access to better stuff. Not to mention rarely used in the battlefield. Japan was so isolated that they didn't have access to different ideas on how to craft/improves weapons. The most high tech ancient Katana is about equal in strength and sharpness as a Roman Sword.

Basically everything you think of when you think the Katana is amazing; It's because of Hollywood, not History.

2 Handed and 1d8 sounds 100% correct.

[Hawkstar]

What did the Romans ever do to you?
The better question is...

What have the Romans ever done for us?

[Spellbreaker26]

The better question is...

What have the Romans ever done for us?

A lot... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9foi342LXQE

[Ziegander]

It's happening... (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?508874-The-Katana-Savant-2-0-(Joke-Class-Work-in-Progress))

[DragonSorcererX]

What did the Romans ever do to you?

They are overrated... ruining my favorite podcast by doing a crossover of Mundane Human Roman Army against Sauron's Army and the Mundane Human Roman Army wins... if they were VHumans I would give them a chance to win, but there are no Feats in real life (also, I hate Inferior Mundane Plebs).


A lot...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9foi342LXQE

When I think of this movie, I only remember the part were the Emperor talks about his friend Bigus Dickus (the second best Monty Python joke, the best one is the Holy Hand Grenade of Antioch).

[danpit2991]

Cavalry saber. Both in use and in size (except 1 or 2 hand wield) You have to account for the relative size of person-to-weapon at the time.
Katanas are really just based on traditional Chinese swords, and were originally straight and sometimes even double edges. They were meant - as mentioned years ago - as cavalry side-arms. The curve in a sword is usually an evolution of it being used on horseback, "in the press" where attacks usually come from above the head. Look at strikes in kendo - even on foot, the point of origin for most strikes is very high. High guard position almost exclusively (yes, Kendo is a poor approximation of samurai practical styles, but it's just about all we've got next to Iaido and aikido)

By comparison, the cutlass was basically a big-lass knife, based on the "hanger." It was essentially made for untrained, ham-fisted novices in a culture where only nobility could afford/carry a sword (classed as not having a full-tang).
I dress up like a pirate annually, because we're all nerds here and I like rennfaires. I have a surplus model 1917 Naval boarding cutlass. Thing's got more in common with an axe than a sword. I'd hate to get hit with it, all the same - it won't take your arm clean off, but it would probably mangle every bone in your arm, and probably half your ribs beside.


except saber's were usually at least 34 inches a cutlass is realy just a short saber

here is a video describing what i said go to 3:00 to see side by side
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R4plBF80UBo

[CaptainSarathai]

The problem with mechanically representing the Katana is that in terms of swords it's a panda - it developed in isolation and is very inefficient. It's a slashing weapon, traditionally a weapon that is most effective from horseback, but unlike the scimitar, talwar, sabre etc it's two-handed (well, mostly two-handed) and so is somewhat trickier to use mounted.
So, you need to understand the evolution and use of the katana. HUGE amount of text incoming, expanding spoilers at own risk:

See, Japan kinda had this love-hate relationship with China; in that they loved their stuff, and hated the f***ing Chinese (to be fair, Japan hated just about everyone - still do, ethnic Koreans still can't vote). The problem is that Japan really, really wanted to be China, or at least, be all up inside of China.
So originally, the Samurai wielded short, straight, double-edged swords with a narrow cross guard. A lot like what you dig out of the ground around early Nordic sites, or all over China.
Makes sense, this was fresh out of the bronze-age, early iron weapons. At the time, the Samurai were mercenary thugs (so were early knights! And later knights. And well, really, most knights up until the Enlightenment got established). Their fighting consisted of riding to battle, parking the horse, and shooting arrows at each other from a safe distance. And cutting the murder-sh** out of peasants.


When you're a whole horse above the poor sod you're attempting to eviscerate, you're only option is to chop downward. You only need the groundward side of your sword to be sharp. When he's beside you instead of in front, you are making a draw-cut; the blade bites in like an axe, and then gets pulled through like a gnarly papercut. Curved swords are really good at all of this for several reasons.
1. Curved swords have more blade surface for their length. We all know the shortest distance between two points is a line. Curved swords go the long way. That's more slicing action on the draw.
2. Single-edged swords don't need to as wide, or as thick. You only need enough steel for one edge, and only need to reinforce one edge.
3. Chopping with a curved sword hits harder than chopping with a straight sword of the same weight. The sword can do the same work with less weight.
4. So you have a lighter, thinner, blade. That's weaker. Curving a blade makes it stronger, as all force is directed toward the center of the curve's radius, rather than more perpendicularly as you have with a straight sword.


So you get the Tachi - the first "made in Japan" sword, and ancestor to the katana. Tachis began slightly curved, and then became more and more curved to keep up with armor advancements, and also style. See, having a straight sword made you look like an out-of-date ********, and was therefore a "shamefru dispray".

The problem with curved swords, however, is that because of point #1 above, they are heavier for their length than a similarly thin straight sword. They also get a bit unwieldy in anything but mounted chopping. Now that Samurai had become a social class rather than a weekend hobby, and the sword became a badge of office, Samurai found thesmelves on foot with their swords a lot more often.

Then, along came some guy who discovered that you can sandwich softer steel inside a shell of more brittle, harder steel, and temper it in such a way as to retain the best qualities of both materials and get that nice curve. Boom, now you have a katana. And in Japan, they really were superior swords. They were stronger, with less curve and therefore struck a balance between weight and efficiency. The first katana must have seemed truly godlike, lighter and stronger than a tachi, but also sharper without being brittle.


There was just one problem; the Japanese already had worked out tempered steel armor around the same time, and despite usual claims, samurai armor is actually some pretty effective stuff - not better than, but on par with (in all the most important ways) a suit of European plate. The katana was obsolete as a battlefield weapon as soon as it was invented. This is why you see kanabo (clubs, hammers, maces) and naginata (spears/halberds) and yari (pikes) on the battlefield.


The katana did not die out immediately however. Just like in the West, swords were still edified as status symbols. Just like in the West, sword duels became the norm, rather than sword melees. In the West, longswords gave way to backswords (think a rapier with sharp edges - oh, didn't know rapiers weren't even sharp at the edge? Now you do), and then to rapiers.
In Japan, the katana also became even thinner and lighter.

If you watch fencing or kendo, you'll notice that there is little direct blade-to-blade blocking. Instead, it's all about deflecting the blow to one side, or misdirecting it if you cannot dodge. Even Musashi teaches this, that you should "stick to his blade like glue - do not strike and bounce off." Musashi's advice kept you from breaking your sword, as steel-to-steel crossblocks with a rapier or katana would shatter the blade.

So, it makes perfect sense to treat a Katana like a Rapier, just swapping Slashing for Piercing damage.


But wait! The katana was two-handed!
Yeah, it was. But you can't swing it harder. It will break. Trust me. Like the rapier was perfected for stabbing, the katana is perfected for the draw cut.
The difference, is that to perform a draw cut, you need a greater length of the blade. When you watch fencers, they are fighting with only the very tip of their weapons because that's the dangerous bit and they keep everything else the hell away from it, hence the sideways stance and the outstretched arm. Stabbing is also done away from your body, so you can start at range, and lunge closer to your enemy.

For a draw-cut, it is almost entirely reversed. The "dangerous bit" of your weapon starts at the "belly" of your blade (lowest part of the curve). You need to hit with that. Then, rather than push away like a stab, you need to draw the blade (see what I did there?) towards yourself. Your reach therefore, is shorter than when the strike begins.
When your body is that close to your enemy, there's not much sense trying to take a fencer's stance and protect yourself. Also, when every blow basically comes from above, and starts with their hand above your head, something else becomes really apparent.
How would you block that, quickly and efficiently from a high-guard, without crossing swords?


When kendo sparring gets close and personal, you'll see them using their hands to kinda "fist bump" one another to knock the opponent's blade up and away. If he strikes you, you block his hands and keep them from moving down. Using two hands gives you an advantage in this little duel of strength, yeah?
Also note that Musashi himself espouses using your entire body as a weapon. This is where Kendo fails to live up to the ferocity of actual sword duels (fencing has same problem). Kendo was meant as an exercise and mental conditioning. It has rules for safety and conduct and sportsmanship that you wouldn't see in a life-or-death fight. What you would need is kenjutsu, the actual skill taught to samurai. The problem is that nobody really knows it anymore (even kendo was banned for years after WW2) and so even the most reputable schools (99% aren't) are working on speculation. Kenjutsu is an MMA-style mashup of:
Kendo: sword fighting
Iaido: striking from a draw with a sword, disarming with a sword, and fighting multiple attackers
Aikido: fighting as an unarmed combatant against an armed opponent, focusing on unarmed disarms, and viewing the sword as the central theme of all weapons wielded against you, captured, or improvised (modern forms also teach gun disarms)
Judo/Jujitsu: body kinetics, redirection of force, as well as grappling. Jujitsu also gets into a little more striking, with kicks and punches


So now, there's a lot more for that second hand to do. That second hand is also why there's no pommel weight on a samurai sword. Used one-handed, the long handle counterbalances the light blade well enough. All you really need is the center of the sword's mass to be slightly in front of the controlling hand for a slashing weapon (stabbing, you want the weight in the hand, hence the elaborate heavy baskets in addition to the pommel, on rapiers - it moves the mass back, while protecting the hand and looking "artsy")
When wielded two handed, the katana is light enough that the second hand is only there for control.
What's interesting and unique about the katana (as the primary "draw cut" sword in the world) is the grip. In Japan, the strength of a swordsman was measured by his little finger, particularly on his left hand. Because the draw cut is not about the initial force of the blow, but rather applying the right pressure on the follow-through slice, the katana uses as much of the hand-length as possible for leverage.
For a one-handed katana grip, the hand should be just below the tsuba (guard). The first finger and thumb should grip the sword loosely, like you're making the "okay" hand sign. The sword should rotate around this pivot. The middle and ring fingers keep the blade from rocking toward the blunt edge. The pinky finger then rocks the blade toward the sharp edge. This is why a proper katana strike more closely resembles fly-fishing than an axe strike. You have limp wrists, a soft grip, and you pivot the sword in your hand.
A two-handed grip is the same; the dominant hand on top steers the blade, held with the first finger and thumb. The bottom hand is used like a rudder to keep the blade straight, and the lowermost fingers are used to pivot the blade. You want the sword to rotate around the middle of your grip. A katana is essentially a big sushi-knife; long, smooth, even pressure will create the best cuts. Not whacking away like a baseball bat. Many expensive and even priceless swords have been ruined by ugly Westerners handling them like brutes.


I had a think about it and I think I would go for the same weapon I would use for the falx (an altogether better weapon in my opinion) - greatsword. One could make a very good case for longsword but as katanas are not to my knowledge paired with shields very often I feel that would be mechanically inelegant.
Short answer pulled from above:
The katana is a rapier with slashing instead of piercing. The two-handed property is tricky, because the second hand didn't add much raw force to the blow, but it was simply 'better' to use 2 hands. I'll catch hell from anyone who didn't read above, but:

Katana: 4lbs, d6 slashing, Light, Finesse, Versatile(d8)


For the Dai-katana, that is often treated as an anti-cavalry weapon I believe, and so I would have the player use the stats for the glaive or halberd if they wanted to employ one.
There is no dai-katana. O-dachi means "big sword" and was used for the kind of weapon you're likely referring to (Garyu's "drying pole" from 'Musashi' or Sephiroth's gigantic sword).
Anyway, the actual use of those swords is a bit contested, and very, very few have been found. Anyway, they would have had the same weaknesses as a regular katana, albeit on a larger scale, and were mostly just used for the extra reach. So I'd actually make them:
O-Dachi: 8lbs, d10 slashing, 2 hands, finesse

Otherwise, for all intents, in a fantasy game with imperfect simulations, it's easier to just use the Longsword and Greatsword for various lengths of katana.

[CaptainSarathai]

Got ninja'd in a thread about Katanas... lol

except saber's were usually at least 34 inches a cutlass is realy just a short saber

here is a video describing what i said go to 3:00 to see side by side
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R4plBF80UBo

27". Video by the same guy. And he compares a later era cutlass to them in that video, similar to my 1917. Mine has a 25" blade, and from what I've seen, later cutlasses are both straighter and longer. Earlier cutlasses and dussacks are very swept back, like the falchion.
Also, the cutlass isn't a smaller saber at all - it developed independently for different needs. The big cavalry saber came first(of the sabers), and the cutlass was the foot equivalent (well, hangers and messers that became cutlasses). Then the infantry saber, with the 27" blade.
Cutlass drill also informed British infantry and cavalry saber drill, having been developed first. The only notable addition being the strikes to the legs on the longer sabers.

Lastly, you have to consider size. Yeah, the katana is about 90% the length of an infantry saber, but look at the people carrying them. I've seen period samurai armor in museums, and it is very small compared to what we think of.
The average height of men during the 16th century was 5'8" and they actually dropped to 5'6" during the 17th-18th centuries. Estimates on the height of knights from the era based on bones and armor puts them around 6'
By comparison, the average height of the armor/bones of samurai, is 5'3". So the idea that a person who is about 10-20% shorter, using a weapon that is only about 10% shorter, makes it obvious that the katana was not "small" by any means - they thought they were pretty big. They also thought that Westerners were gigantic and their weapons were massive.

How that scales in D&D terms, where most people are "European Heroic" height...

[Sigreid]

Yes, but the longsword in DnD is pulling double duty it seems as anything bigger than an arming sword and smaller than a Zweihander falls into the longsword bracket. Another simplification to prevent the game getting bogged down in minutia (even though builds that would replicate legionaries or Saxons are completely neutered because of it).

My understanding of the historical legionaries (assuming you mean roman) is their kit was typically spear, javelin, short sword, large shield and backed up by some pretty impressive heavy weaponry. I've heard more than one historian say that the Romans didn't fight their way to an empire so much as engineer their way to one.

Edit: Also, another thing that is missing from this discussion is the effect of heavy infantry. If the fighting history of your area involves a lot of big men with big shields standing shoulder to shoulder, straight double edged swords with a good point would be the go to style as you'd typically be doing quick thrusts around the edge of the shields. The only other real way to do it with out interfering with the shield wall would be to hold the sword above the shield in a manner similar to the German fencing clubs. Even when the shields became less common, there would be a strong cultural bias that "this is the way swords are made".

[Spellbreaker26]

My understanding of the historical legionaries (assuming you mean roman) is their kit was typically spear, javelin, short sword, large shield and backed up by some pretty impressive heavy weaponry. I've heard more than one historian say that the Romans didn't fight their way to an empire so much as engineer their way to one.

Edit: Also, another thing that is missing from this discussion is the effect of heavy infantry. If the fighting history of your area involves a lot of big men with big shields standing shoulder to shoulder, straight double edged swords with a good point would be the go to style as you'd typically be doing quick thrusts around the edge of the shields. The only other real way to do it with out interfering with the shield wall would be to hold the sword above the shield in a manner similar to the German fencing clubs. Even when the shields became less common, there would be a strong cultural bias that "this is the way swords are made".

I do mean Roman, and while that historian has a point the Roman heavy infantry also did a lot of heavy lifting. My problem is that the shortsword is treated as a dual wielding weapon even though dual wielding works entirely differently in virtually every game than it did in real life. So a shield + shortsword build is just flat out worse than a shield + "longsword" or what have you.

I do think that because DnD is not a game about armies but individuals it really does change how we should see the weaponry and that I fear is why some weapons I like, such as the spear or shortsword are given short shrift while weapons of the nobility are given centre stage.

To CaptainSarathai:
Katanas and Rapiers are a pretty good comparison; I would still take away the light quality from the katana. There's no way you could dual wield them; at least shortswords and scimitars have the benefit of being more suited to that (though it should be said I'm not a huge fan of how they did scimitars either).

[Knaight]

I do think that because DnD is not a game about armies but individuals it really does change how we should see the weaponry and that I fear is why some weapons I like, such as the spear or shortsword are given short shrift while weapons of the nobility are given centre stage.

The spear is a solid weapon for skirmishing; I don't think this is an individuals and not armies issue.

[Spellbreaker26]

The spear is a solid weapon for skirmishing; I don't think this is an individuals and not armies issue.

Yeah but spear and shield combinations are pretty much useless - just have a javelin that you throw before you hit and then draw your d8 weapon. A spear that was d6 thrown and d8 regular would be nice for hoplite builds.

[Sigreid]

I do mean Roman, and while that historian has a point the Roman heavy infantry also did a lot of heavy lifting. My problem is that the shortsword is treated as a dual wielding weapon even though dual wielding works entirely differently in virtually every game than it did in real life. So a shield + shortsword build is just flat out worse than a shield + "longsword" or what have you.



Oh, yeah, they did have to fight. But their power came largely from superior weapons, logistics and tactics. What we run into with D&D really is it is hard to impossible to create a playable and fun game that accurately represents weapons and armor and their strength and weaknesses. Ironically AD&D really made the best D&D run at this if you used the weapon speed and armor penetration rules that pretty much everyone ignored.

[Knaight]

Yeah but spear and shield combinations are pretty much useless - just have a javelin that you throw before you hit and then draw your d8 weapon. A spear that was d6 thrown and d8 regular would be nice for hoplite builds.

Sorry, that was poorly phrased. What I was saying is that in real life the spear is a very good weapon for skirmishing, so that it's not in D&D is indicative of something other than being skirmish focused.

[Spellbreaker26]

Oh, yeah, they did have to fight. But their power came largely from superior weapons, logistics and tactics. What we run into with D&D really is it is hard to impossible to create a playable and fun game that accurately represents weapons and armor and their strength and weaknesses. Ironically AD&D really made the best D&D run at this if you used the weapon speed and armor penetration rules that pretty much everyone ignored.

Agreed on the last part (armour penetration rules would be really nice), not so much the first. Superior logistics and tactics, yes, but their weapons were copied wholesale from the Gauls and Iberians. The legions would have more consistent equipment by the time of, say, Gaius Marius, but the professional warriors among some of their enemies would have been equally heavily armed.


Sorry, that was poorly phrased. What I was saying is that in real life the spear is a very good weapon for skirmishing, so that it's not in D&D is indicative of something other than being skirmish focused.


The spear is good for plenty of things other than skirmishing; the Battle of Isandlwana proves that even in the age of rifles it was a deadly tool on the main battlefield.

[Sigreid]

Agreed on the last part (armour penetration rules would be really nice), not so much the first. Superior logistics and tactics, yes, but their weapons were copied wholesale from the Gauls and Iberians. The legions would have more consistent equipment by the time of, say, Gaius Marius, but the professional warriors among some of their enemies would have been equally heavily armed.


This will be my last comment on it hear as I think we've taken the thread way off track. The weapons I was referring two were the heavy weapons I had mentioned earlier. while the foot soldier was equipped with the weapons of the day not too different from his opponents, he was backed up by crews using things like siege weapons and the "scorpion" a crew mounted heavy repeating crossbow that had pretty amazing range, power and rate of fire.

Of course a part of their success was also due to the fact that your tribe/village was almost certainly better off as part of the Roman Empire as membership brought with it aqueducts, bath houses, better trade and other advantages. At least until the decline started.

[Knaight]

The spear is good for plenty of things other than skirmishing; the Battle of Isandlwana proves that even in the age of rifles it was a deadly tool on the main battlefield.

Yes, and? It's a good skirmishing tool; if the rules were made such that good skirmishing tools were treated as good weapons the spear would have been made more effective. That it was also the primary battlefield weapon for most cultures for most of human history is irrelevant.

[Sigreid]

Yes, and? It's a good skirmishing tool; if the rules were made such that good skirmishing tools were treated as good weapons the spear would have been made more effective. That it was also the primary battlefield weapon for most cultures for most of human history is irrelevant.

I'm also not convinced that the designers understand that war spears were not pointy sticks but more closely resembled sword blades mounted on the end of poles.