Japanes Sword Additions and Corrections

I find that D&D has not done to well with some of the Japanes weapons more specifically the swords like the Katana. I more of want to clear things up then change things, but the Katana definitaly needs to be reworked. The main reason I say this is because the Katana is not a battle sword, it is a dueling and show weapon, but still no less deadly. I am not an expert but I do have some knowledge about them.

Here is the list of the weapons that I know of tjhat either can be added and/or need too be fixed....


No-Dashi
This sword is used on horse back, the blade of this weapon is extremely long giving it tramendous reach. Because the sword lenght it has a long grip and required two hand to use. This particular weapon would count as a greatsword at least if not larger, but there is no sword larger then a greatsword. The quality of the weapon depends on the owner of the weapon, but most where owned by samuria and as so most are master work.


Katana
This ornate weapon was primarily a dueling and show weapon, it was never used in real combat. The blade of this weapon is curved and has a razor sharp edge that is capable of slicing through bone witlittle effort. When made the weapon smith meassured the owner and made the lenght of the blade based off of that. When a samuria was in a duel the the blade was weild one handed as it was pulled out of the scabered in a duel the opening stroke. This was also the strike that determined the victor of the duel. Becuase the varies in length the Katana should range from a long sword to a bastard sword. Of course the quality of the weapon is always going to be masterwork.


Battle Sword
This simple weapon is the primary sword used in combat, it had a straight blade and was thicker. This weapon still used the folded steel method of construction, this gave the blade a sharp cutting edge, and tensile strength of that equvilant to the Katana. The blades length was usually on standard lenght, but varied sometime between maker and/or was made specifically for the owner. The standard length is an equivilant of a long sword, but can also be bastard sword length. The quality of the weapon will always be masterworks.

I ran into something similar. The Katana and its kin should be special, not just existing weapons with a new name.

Here's what we did IMC:
(All of these are exotic weapons that become Martial when you have the right Feat)
Katana: 2d4 damage, 19-20/x2, Large weapon
Wakizashi: 2d3 damage, 19-20/x2, Medium weapon
Kukri: 2d2 damage, 19-20/x2, Small weapon

With the EWP Feat, you get two benefits:
1> The weapon can be used as if it were one size smaller than listed as a Martial weapon.
2> You receive a +2 competence bonus to all critical hit threat confirmation rolls with the weapon.

So take the Katana for example. It does slightly more damage than a longsword (and much more CONSISTENT damage), and slightly less than a Bastard Sword.
Powerwise, it's comparable to the Bastard Sword. In exchange for a little damage, it does better on critical hits.

Oh, and one comment on your post:
"This particular weapon would count as a greatsword at least if not larger, but there is no sword larger then a greatsword."
See Fullblade, from Sword & Fist.

Shadowrun Man said:

I find that D&D has not done to well with some of the Japanes weapons more specifically the swords like the Katana. I more of want to clear things up then change things, but the Katana definitaly needs to be reworked.

Click to expand...

What time period are you trying to emulate?


Aaron

Shadowrun Man, just out of curiosity, where are you getting your information?

According to everything I've read, most Japanese swords except very early ones were curved, and there is no distinction between "katana" and "battle sword". Swords varied in curvature and length, depending on the scale of warfare at the time. During periods of heavy warfare, I believe the swords were longer and had more pronounced curvature.

In any case most japanese swords were simply called "sword" (or "daito", long-sword, as opposed to a short shord, "wakizashi"). Nothing special about the word "katana" except as a designation of how the sword was worn (blade up, in the obi, as opposed to blade down, which was "tachi"). *Some* smiths took extreme care in crafting the blades, yes, but swords of such quality could be found in Europe too. And a large part of the Japanese forging practices were to compensate for the poor quality steel. With modern metallurgical techniques, or with superior quality steel, such forge-folding is largely unnecessary.

IMO bastard sword is perfectly fine for emulating the Japanese-style sword. Wielding technique is I think slightly different but as far as D&D weapons are broken down it's a pretty good approximation. Heck, there are a *lot* of different weapons we could call "long sword," some with very different fighting styles, but for the purposes of the game I think any further breakdowns are unnecessary.

Of course, YMMV.

Well I have my own veiw on how the Katana should be, like how you have your own. I dont under stand why just about every body think Katanas are battle field swords. They are a dueling and show weapon, not a battle field weapon like I said in the beginning of this thread. Actual the Battle Sword has a sleight
curve to it but is still concidered a straight blade in my book. The No-Doshi is the same as it too has as sleight curve.

I like your suggestion Spatzimaus, I would just make the critical range better, maybe 18-20 with the same crit modifier. I figure I'll make a No-Doshi with its own damage dice, maybe 2d8 and is an exotic weapon, if any body has a suggestion on the No-Doshi they are welcome. If anbody here knows of a good site with a list of japanese swords and other related sites please post those too.

Shadowrun Man, I understand you can have your own house rule, but if you wanna take a "realism" approach, you should at least get your facts straight.

In feudal Japan, katanas were not just for duels or show, they were often the primary weapon of most all samurai and ronin. In addition, katanas were also a matter of honor and family and represented so much more than just simply battling. This does not change the fact, however, that katanas were designed with battling in mind.

The battle sword you speak of is the OTHER weapon used by the remaining warriors of the time, and is called a no-datchi. D&D-wise, that is basically the katana version of the greatsword. These weapons were wielded more by power fighters, however.

As to the proposed katana variant, I am reluctant to nerf the katana down to a 2d4 weapon. 1d10 is just fine, if not 2d6 (with proficiency of course). It is true, however, that the bastard sword (claymore, etc.) is basically the equivilant of the katana for western Europe. What made the katana "better" was that it was lighter and did just as much damage, although direct blocking with one is foolish; the katana is built for parrying and deflecting, but buckles under a direct strike, which is whatmade such advanced weapons training necessary for proper katana use.

There is the Pole Sword (in Arms and Armor by Bastion press) which sort of fits the description you gave of the No Dashi. Not exactly but interesting enough for me to post it here.

It's called the Pu Dau also.

Here is the description

Size Large Exotic Melee Weapon DMG 1d8 19/20 X2 5lb slashing with 5' reach.

This is a short hafted pole arm with a long wide blade at one end and a steel ring at the other. Ofteh used as a sword because it is easily used in one hand it's ring and wooden haft makes it easy to perform martial manuvers that would be difficult using a regular sword or full length pole arm. Sometimes colorfull cloth is tied into the ring at the end allowing the wielder to extend the reach by swinging it or throwing it a short distance (5'). when used in this way it can be used to add =2 to a trip attack .

Warriors and monks like to use this pole sword when on horseback becasue it affords more flexability than standard melee weapons (this BTW is where I draw the similarity to the No Dachi). Of course it is still no match for the lance or spear in terms of reach or impact but in one on one batles or when takingon a poorly armed mob it works just fine.

I really like this weapon and used it once IMC for a blackguard. I ruled that he could use it as a short spear from horseback either throwing it or charging with it ala a small lance type weapon. I see the beauty of it as that one could use it that way then dismount and use it like a sword either one or two handed without the need to carry a lance a throwing waepon and a sword. Once thrown BTW he can real it back in via a silk rope tied to the same ring as the cloth (about 10' worth) tied to his arm via a lanyard.

I am DM now but if I ever get a chance to play again I want to make a character who uses this weapon. Oh...I also bumped up the damage to 2d4.


EDITED FOR the description from the book: It looks basically like a long or bastard sword with a 3.5-4.5' blade and a 3 or 4' wooden handle. I guess it's have to be made specifically for the user for balance .

Oh its on page 19-20 if you have the book. Once again I love this weapon.

Shadowrun Man:

Well I have my own veiw on how the Katana should be

Click to expand...

Well, that's fine, but perhaps you should clarify that these are your house rules and not really based on any historical references.

Shadowrun Man:

like how you have your own

Click to expand...

What I said was not exactly my view on "how the katana should be", but based on some research. It's really not my business how you want to run Japanese-style swords in your campaign, but you seemed to be implying that your rules are based on some historical facts and perhaps you should state that they are just your own interpretation.

These links should be somewhat informative, if you dig around a bit for the information. There are plenty of books on Japanese swords and Japanese warfare in general as well.

http://www.swordforum.com/
http://home.earthlink.net/~steinrl/nihonto.htm

By the way, Anubis is right on with his info. Few warriors used the no-dachi, though, I suppose because the disadvantages of using that type of sword did not compensate for its strengths in most cases.

-A

Originally posted by cptg1481
EDITED FOR the description from the book: It looks basically like a long or bastard sword with a 3.5-4.5' blade and a 3 or 4' wooden handle. I guess it's have to be made specifically for the user for balance.

Click to expand...

Hmm, never heard of Pa Dau, but this looks like the description of a Naginata. A Naginata has a 5 feet long handle with an 26-32 inches long blade. It is also a weapon used by Samurai.

A No-Dashi is a big katana. Peroid.

A Daisho is the common name given to the Samurai's swords set (Katana, Wakizashi and sometimes Tanto); I also heard it meant Big small ( 大小 ).

Note: You will need the Japanese Text font in order to see the symbols for Daisho.


Frankto

Right. The list in the PHB is sufficient to cover the bewildering array of Western weapons far exceeding anything the Japanese ever produced, but katanas are "special" and need different rules - and they always, strangely enough, turn out to be better than any other blade of comparable size.

If you took into account the fact that most of them were certainly not masterwork, that they were made from inferior steel, had an edge designed for slicing through flesh and as a result tended to chip on armor and break easily, I think MW Bastard Sword is actually an extremely generous representation.

But of course, there's no way those silly European smiths capable of turning out insanely intricate suits of full plate, many of which qualify as works of art, could ever match that...