How big is my katana?

Ashtagon · Aug 20, 2012

Wikipedia says that a katana is defined by a blade at least 24" long. Add another 8" (generous) for a grip, and at 32", it's barely long enough to be classed as a longsword.

The longest modern "replica" katana I have found has a blade of 33". With grip, it comes up to 41" (estimated).

By compariosn, wikipedia identifies bastard swords as having a blade length of 39-48", plus an additional 8-11" grip, for a total length of 47-51". Wikipedia identifies longswords (in an older version of the article, before it got merged with bastard swords) as 35-36" blade length and total length 41-47"

The bastard sword is a good foot longer than the katana, which barely makes the length category for longswords.

Given that D&D rules do allow for longswords to be used two-handed, is there action any reason beyond "ethnic cool" for the weapon to be given bastard sword stats?

(please, no thread crapping with *that* post)

Jackinthegreen · Aug 20, 2012

Katana are somewhat more awkward to fully wield proficiently in one hand than a longsword is, mostly due to the differences in design and use. Likewise, those differences mean it's generally a more damaging weapon.

Dozen · Aug 20, 2012

(said bullpies, nevermind. Please delete post.)

Greenfield · Aug 20, 2012

The curved blade of the Katana makes it ideal for slashing attacks, much less effective for piercing. The Longsword could do both.

The Katana is designed for blade speed, and is meant to be handled with two hands. You actually pivot it on one hand, using the length of the grip for leverage.

The long sword, on the other hand, is wielded with more of a full arm motion.

Regarding the blade lengths though, any blade will be limited by the length of the user's arm: You have to be able to draw the blade free of the scabbard. Those illustrations of the man with the five foot blade across his back. drawing it over his shoulder? Unless he has a "Break Away" scabbard that lets him draw it up a little and have it released, that model is pure fantasy. He can't actually draw the blade. His arm isn't long enough to get the tip clear of the scabbard.

The same limits apply to a blade worn on the belt. Many a European style swordsman will grip his scabbard with one hand as he draws, then unhook it and toss it away, essentially allowing the draw of a longer blade.

The Katana scabbard, however, isn't on a conveniently cast aside over-the-shoulder style belt, and the bladesman expects to be able to re-sheath his weapon after use.

Since the combat style relies on a lightning swift draw and cut, rather than the extended reach and cut/stab technique of the one handed European blade, the shorter blade is better suited.

The Katana also had and held a much better edge than its European counterpart, so despite it's lighter weight and shorter length, the greater damage is appropriate.

Drowbane · Aug 20, 2012

Katana were made to fit. If they have an average length, it is solely based on the average height (and thus arm length) of the average samurai.

So how tall is your character?

Sekhmet · Aug 21, 2012

The average height of a traditional samurai is about 5'3", according to available sources.
The average English knight was about 6'1".

To put it into perspective, the katana is more or less equivalent in proportion to the English long sword when compared to their wielder's height.

emoplato · Aug 21, 2012

Yeah, I am not on the camp in which the katana should be fully equated to a bastard sword. I really think that D&D 3.5 really down-played the differences in weapons to automatically figure that an axe-fighter is going to be pretty much same as a sword-fighter if they have similar stats. On one hand it was simple and didn't play to favorites too much among the non-exotic weapons. On the other though we know there are things you can do with an axe that a sword can't as well as vice versa. The Katana as the masterwork bastard sword is one of these pitfalls as we are talking about a couple of very different swords. As said before a katana is designed as a slasher being light-weight, a primary edge, curved, and a tanto-tip made it easy to complete the strike in arcs even at the tip without having to draw the sword out of the victim. The bastard sword though is a multi-purpose sword being able strike fatal on either side as well as being able to pierce at the tip.
Personally, I thought the longsword as described in core should be the basis for a broadsword. The bastard sword would gain piercing as a damage type and keep its other features. The katana then would have stats for itself and be an one-handed exotic melee weapon as it is considerably lighter. It would only deal 1d6 slashing damage(hold it anime fan boys

) 18-20/x3(better?) as I am comparing it against the Great Scimitar 1d8 18-20/x2.

Jackinthegreen · Aug 21, 2012

I've worked on an equation to calculate the average damage one can expect from a weapon factoring in 5% automatic fail due to Natural 1 as well as 5% crit confirm fail from the same source. It can also factor in non-auto-fail hit chance as well as crit chance and the crit multiplier. I've got it in my own Excel spreadsheet at the moment, but I'm pretty sure I can make an OpenOffice version of anyone wants to look at it and fiddle. I'll probably make a new thread here just to go over it.

Keep in mind all of these calculations assume 95% hit chance and 95% crit confirm.

A 1d6 katana with 18-20/x3 crit would have a base of 4.305 damage assuming 95% hit chance and 95% crit confirm. A Great Scimitar being 1d8 18-20/x2 has a base of 4.89375, so a difference of about .6 without extra damage.

Going up to +5 damage, the katana deals 10.455 average damage while the great scimitar is at 10.33125. At +4 damage the katana is behind with 9.225 versus the great scimitar's 9.24375. +5 is absolutely trivial to get, so that katana really isn't balanced against the great scimitar.

Changing the katana to 19-20/x3 lowers its base to 3.98125. At +5 damage it does 9.66875 compared to the great scimitar's 10.33125, which is behind. At +10, the katana is at 15.35625 with the scimitar at 15.76875.

It's not until we get to between +18 (katana's 24.45625 and scimitar's 24.46875) and +19 (katana's 25.59375 and scimitar's 25.55625) that the katana is better.

For reference, I'll compare a regular scimitar to a longsword. The scimitar has a base of 3.80625 versus the longsword's base of 4.69125. The scimitar doesn't come out ahead of the longsword until +20 damage (25.55625 and 25.54125 respectively).

Essentially, if damage is the only consideration, making the katana a 1d6 19-20/x3 weapon would roughly maintain the paradigm against a great scimitar that a scimitar has against a longsword.

Wyvernhand · Aug 21, 2012

A Katana is exactly as long as it needs to be to cut through a tank. I saw it once on the internet.

Dordledum · Aug 21, 2012

Sekhmet said:
The average English knight was about 6'1".

People were a lot shorter in the middle ages, ever visited a medieval castle/armoury? check the door heights end armours, they are tiny.

6'1" was exceptionally tall outside of Scandinavia in those times. I think the '5'3" average you qoute for Samurai would come closer to the average Western-European from those times.