Would a Jian be a short sword?

[MonkeySage]

I'm wondering if I should just give it the stats of a short sword or if anything might be worth tweaking. Would it be a slashing weapon, piercing, or both? What crit range might it have?

[TheThan]

I think they're too short for a shortsword, probably not large enough for a great sword. you primarly use them in one hand, so yeah, I'd go with long sword stats and leave it at that. maybe add piercing damage type to it.

[Coidzor]

longsword or shortsword, whichever the player preferred or on a case-by-case basis, but I think they're generally considered longswords.

[Red Fel]

Well, a jian is historically one-handed, as I recall, but I think there are two-handed models. I remember seeing an episode of Deadliest Warrior that compared the kilij to the jian, and it made a very interesting point - the jian's destructive power comes from being lightweight and mobile, and using a rapid pierce-and-withdraw movement. This all says to me one-handed weapon, piercing damage. The fine blade is not designed for full-edge sweeping (slashing) blows, but for light and quick jabs with the tip, like a rapier. In fact, I might go so far as to argue that it more resembles a slightly thicker, slightly heavier rapier, rather than a longsword.

[MonkeySage]

You know, I've noticed that when a slashing motion is made in demonstrations, they are slashing more with the tip, rather than the rest of blade. Given that these were originally made of bronze, it makes sense that when cutting motions are made, they seem more shallow than you would get with what d&d calls a "longsword". ^_^

So maybe the damage of a longsword, but the crit range of a rapier, dealing piercing damage.

[Mastikator]

I'd classify it as a one handed sword. It's a bit weird that it doesn't seem to have much of a guard though, swords are mainly useful against other people with swords.

[JusticeZero]

From what little I know of the jian, I would classify it as a rapier. Historical rapiers were a bit thicker than people imagine; they got thinner as our metallurgy got better, but the weapon class itself started out relatively early.

[endoperez]

From what little I know of the jian, I would classify it as a rapier. Historical rapiers were a bit thicker than people imagine; they got thinner as our metallurgy got better, but the weapon class itself started out relatively early.

Ooh, nice choice! It does fit many of the stereotypes.

[Frozen_Feet]

Jian is used most like a rapier, so I'd third that categorization.

[MonkeySage]

Do any of you think that a jian should be allowed as a monk weapon? A lot of martial arts involve the use of a straight sword, we'll use tai chi as an example.

[Red Fel]

Do any of you think that a jian should be allowed as a monk weapon? A lot of martial arts involve the use of a straight sword, we'll use tai chi as an example.

I'd say no. To explain why, it's important to distinguish the meaning of "martial arts."

The term is traditionally applied to what Monks do. You know, elegant, meditative, spiritual, but also combat-ready. But that's only partially accurate. That's focusing primarily on the second word, arts. The first word is martial, as in "of or relating to war or combat." Not all combat training methods are meditative or spiritual. For example, fencing is a martial art, but certainly not in the same way kung fu is a martial art. Eskrima is a martial art, but not like t'ai chi.

A jian is a martial weapon. It is a sword designed for military purposes. The jian was often seen in military dress and parade and such. Use of and training with the jian, elegant though it may be, was more akin to fencing than to t'ai chi.

Now, this raises the question of which, if any, of the "monk weapons" should be considered monk weapons. I won't argue with the existing definitions, despite the fact that some of them just don't seem to fit the idea of a monk. (Staves or nunchuks, sure, but a kama?) I will note, however, that many of the weapons now identified with martial arts were either adapted from mundane objects, often farming implements, or were specifically developed in tandem with a unique fighting style. The jian is neither - it is a sword, an elegant sword, but simply a sword. It is not an object with an initially non-weapon purpose, nor is it somehow unique.

Short version: No, I don't think a jian should be a Monk weapon, despite being Asian and elegant.

[endoperez]

Do any of you think that a jian should be allowed as a monk weapon? A lot of martial arts involve the use of a straight sword, we'll use tai chi as an example.

Monk isn't a martial artist. Monk tries to be one, but thanks to the rules the monk falls short of it. He isn't actually able to keep up with a fighter or a barbarian (a martial artist losing a martial challenge?) and then again, how absurd would it be if a fighter wouldn't be able to learn martial arts i.e. fighting skills?

A martial artist would be skill-based fighter. Monk is a mystical semi-fighter, and who knows how that mystical thing reacts to a sword.

I'd let a player who insisted on playing a monk to use a jian or whatever, but unless the player knew what he was doing, I'd recommend against it. There are better ways of playing a martial artist, or a mystical martial artist, or a wise old master who can occassionally kick butt.

[Waker]

I further support the notion that a Jian would be closer to a rapier. Red Fel also makes an excellent point as to why a Jian wouldn't be a standard Monk weapon, though I would be fine with it being allowable with a feat.

[Spiryt]

I'd classify it as a one handed sword. It's a bit weird that it doesn't seem to have much of a guard though, swords are mainly useful against other people with swords.

Vast majority of swords all around the word, save European/Subterranean (from around ~ 900 AD) had/have 'not much of a guard'.

So it's not really very weird at all, in fact more of a norm.

Jian is used most like a rapier, so I'd third that categorization.

It seems that it's way too short, and it indeed has not enough guard to really work anywhere close to any 'rapier'.

I would say that longsword or short sword in D&D 3.5 terms would be spot on, depending on size/flavor.

Not much point of overdoing it.

Unless you have some other system, with other options in mind....

[Wardog]

A martial artist would be skill-based fighter.

You mean, the fighter class designed better?

[Averis Vol]

The jian was anywhere from 18-31 inches long, so calling it a short sword makes about as much sense as calling a gladius a short sword. There was a two handed version called the shuangshou jian, but it wasn't nearly as popular as its one handed brother. While it was used kind of in the same way as a rapier, it was significantly lighter and still had an edge, it just also happened to have a good point. I would call it a longsword and call it a day.

[EisenKreutzer]

The jian was anywhere from 18-31 inches long, so calling it a short sword makes about as much sense as calling a gladius a short sword. There was a two handed version called the shuangshou jian, but it wasn't nearly as popular as its one handed brother. While it was used kind of in the same way as a rapier, it was significantly lighter and still had an edge, it just also happened to have a good point. I would call it a longsword and call it a day.

Ummm.. The gladius is a short sword.

Edit: Also, rapiers have a cutting edge like all other swords.

[Terraoblivion]

For example, fencing is a martial art, but certainly not in the same way kung fu is a martial art.

Kung-fu is essentially just the Chinese term for martial arts. Not just that, it is very often armed and the four primary weapons are staffs, spears, sabers and jians. Not just that, the fighting in wuxia movies is considered to be a fantastical exaggeration of real kung-fu. This includes all the fencing in Hero or Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon and myriads of lesser known productions.

Similarly there are thousands of styles of kung-fu. After all, everything native to China that has ever been considered a real martial art is kung-fu.

[endoperez]

You mean, the fighter class designed better?

No, because a better Fighter might be something that plays to the tank/bodyguard/bouncer stereotype, or something that plays to the man-at-arms/knight/trained soldier stereotype, or something else entirely.

A skill-based fighter might be something based on the Rogue, or something based on the Monk, or something else entirely, maybe Bard. Weapon Finesse, the various Duelist classes (I think there's at least two), something along those lines.

A comic book example:
Batman and Spider-man would be skill-based fighters.
Hulk is a barbarian.
Wonder Woman without flying would be a Fighter - strong, skilled, doesn't rely on tricks.
Superman without flight or laser-eyes would be a paladin, obviously.

[sreservoir]

Kung-fu is essentially just the Chinese term for martial arts. Not just that, it is very often armed and the four primary weapons are staffs, spears, sabers and jians. Not just that, the fighting in wuxia movies is considered to be a fantastical exaggeration of real kung-fu. This includes all the fencing in Hero or Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon and myriads of lesser known productions.

Similarly there are thousands of styles of kung-fu. After all, everything native to China that has ever been considered a real martial art is kung-fu.

not even that, kung fu is actually just the notion of [time, effort, accomplishment] with respect to some kind of a goal; martial arts is 武術。

loanwords are a complicated mess

[Terraoblivion]

Hmmm, yes, apparently the traditional usage of the phrase gong fu really is just hard work of any kind. Which is another sign that my Chinese textbooks were garbage, as if the weird obsession with discussing American domestic politics in Chinese wasn't indication enough.

In any case, the point still stands. Jian are used in kung-fu, both the simple meaning of hard work or effort and the western usage of it as the term for wushu. This is especially important as a quick check of the wikipedia entry to see which styles use it call out taichiquan, or simply tai chi in English, as one of the major ones. This is likely also the reason why jian are described as being incredibly flimsy, as the ones used in modern martial arts are thinner, lighter and more flexible than historical ones used for actual military martial arts.

[TheThan]

To complicate matters further, the swords in dnd are primarily archetypes anyway. It would be too time consuming and confusing to stat out every sort of sword in the world today. Seriously Just look at them all.

So “longsword” is a catchall for a longish, straight, one handed sword, the term greatsword is a catchall for a long, two handed sword, scimitar is a catchall for single handed curved slashing swords, and rapier is catchall for single handed light piercing sword. You get the idea.

[Averis Vol]

Ummm.. The gladius is a short sword.

Edit: Also, rapiers have a cutting edge like all other swords.

It isn't, actually. Many gladius had decent length blades, pair that with the fact that they had wide blades without fullers (in most cases) they were actually substantial blades, though throughout the times they fluctuated, like when the spatha came into use as the go to heavy infantry sword, it took a back seat and became designated as a light infantry blade. And yea, the rapier did have an edge, but with it being a diamond shaped blade it was only really sharp enough to split flesh as it was thrust in. A slash with a rapier would do very little.

[Brother Oni]

Hmmm, yes, apparently the traditional usage of the phrase gong fu really is just hard work of any kind.

The best English translation I can think of is 'skill', for example you can declare of a chef that his kung fu is good, indicating that he's a good cook.

A more accurate translation would be 'skill derived through hard work/effort'.

[Xuc Xac]

I would translate it as "painstaking effort".

[Brother Oni]

I would translate it as "painstaking effort".

The only real difference between the two is that your version makes the suffering endured more explicit.

[Zadhadras]

A jian can be any kind of straight bladed chinese sword. The shapes and types of Jian were as varied as European straight blades swords..there were one handed Jian and two handed Jian. Longer Jian and Shorter Jian. Cutting Jian and Thrusting Jian. Just interpret Jian as "Straight bladed Sword"

[Metahuman1]

I've seen different variants, usually from different regions in China or different time periods, that could be qualified as what D&D calls a Rapier, A longsword, or a Bastard Sword. So, depends on how the player describes it and his fighting style with it. Though for the Long/Bastard sword versions, I'd suggest making it slashing/piercing damage type, and for the rapier, I'd suggest making it piercing and not slashing.

[Xuc Xac]

I learned how to use a jian of the long, light, "rapier" variety. You'd expect it to be primarily a thrusting weapon but it's actually used mostly with slicing draw cuts. Thrusts are "finishing" moves used against opponents who have been worn down by cuts or who leave a convenient opening (stabbing at unguarded legs is a common way to seize an early advantage at the beginning of a fight). It's more like the "cut and thrust" swords that eventually led to the rapier.