A different approach to katanas

[Exen Trik]

Yeah yeah, I know katana threads are a dime a dozen and don't usually end well, but I've had an idea about this bouncing around in my head for a while, and I want to know what you all think.

First off, I recognise that katanas and other asian blades of folded steel are fine weapons, but fall far short of the anything cutting uber weapons they are often portrayed as. The main advantage I can see to them is their sharpness, but they don't have the same kind of weight to them a western blade would have. So, a katana may be better in trained hands against a humanoid opponent, but not fare as well as a long sword against a animated statue, undead, or treant. Heres the stats I'm seeing for them:

Katana
One-Handed Exotic Weapon
1d6 damage, critical range 19-20, critical multiplier x3
A Katana is difficult to use correctly without special training, thus it is an exotic weapon. A character can weild a katana as a long sword, but with only a x2 critical multiplier instead of x3

The wakizashi and nodachi would be similar, the first as a light melee weapon that deals 1d4 damage and doubles as a short sword, the other as a two-handed weapon with 1d8 damage that doubles as a greatsword.

I know using increased critical range and multiplier is usually considered a no-no, but in this one instance it seems appropriate, and the lower damage die along with making it an exotic weapon would seem to balance it. But I'm not sure about that, that's why I'm here.

 

[kirstar]

just treat it as a masterwork basterd sword as per the rules.

 

[Aaron L]

Katana do not have special properties over and above European swords. They need no special rules. They are swords of a certain length, and that length is covered under bastard swrd. They are well made, but no more well made than the best European style swords. Thus, masterwork.

The reason Japanese swords were made of folded steel is because Japanese iron is junk, and they had to be folded and hammered to get the impurities out.

It didn't do anything for the sword other than that.

The lamination techniques, multiple layers of differently hardened iron and steel, gave a Katana its strength, but this technique was used in Europe as well. The Vikings a variation of it before it was done in Japan.

Since Japan had such bad iron, when they made swords they made them as well as they possibly could, and then they started a fetish about them because they were so hard to make right. In Europe, where there was more good iron and there weren't a class of people considering their souls and honor to be bound up in their swords, they weren't so obsessive about getting it right, so they made good swords, crappy swords, and average swords.


Katana have just had a better PR department.


A very well made 3.5 foot sword is a very well made 3.5 foot sword, no matter where it comes from. There is no need for a higher crit range or higher crit multiplier.


Just as an aside, if you look at any European swordfighting manuals you'd be amazed at how they used almost the exact same stances for longsword as the Japanese used for katana. Look some manuals up. It's fascinating.

(medieval longswords were what are called bastard swords in D&D, and used two hands just like most users of katana. D&D longswords are actually arming swords.)

 

[ValhallaGH]

Preface, I completely agree with everything Aaron L said. I only include the following to help the OP if he still disagrees.

First off, I recognise that katanas and other asian blades of folded steel are fine weapons, but fall far short of the anything cutting uber weapons they are often portrayed as. The main advantage I can see to them is their sharpness, but they don't have the same kind of weight to them a western blade would have. So, a katana may be better in trained hands against a humanoid opponent, but not fare as well as a long sword against a animated statue, undead, or treant.

Given that analysis, a katana should do middling damage but have a very wide crit range and a low multiplier. Sharpness is how often you crit (threat range), while weight of weapon is how high a multiplier you get (or focusing of weight in the case of war picks).
So, if you feel the need to change their stats, go with One-handed Exotic / Two-handed Martial; 1d6; 17-20; x2; Slashing.

 

[Nifft]

So, if you feel the need to change their stats, go with One-handed Exotic / Two-handed Martial; 1d6; 17-20; x2; Slashing.

How about just making it a slashing Rapier with a higher damage die?

Two-Handed Martial, One-Handed Exotic, Finessable
1d8 Slashing, 18/x2 crit

Two-Handed + Finessable = brutal in the right hands.
Having +1 hp average damage is typically worth the Exotic Weapon feat.

Cheers, -- N

 

[Nifft]

Katana do not have special properties over and above European swords.

No way like a katana like totally cut thru a tank once I saw it on a ninja site!!!1!

-- N(inja!)

 

[Aaron L]

No way like a katana like totally cut thru a tank once I saw it on a ninja site!!!1!

-- N(inja!)

REAL ULTIMATE POWER!

 

[Nifft]

REAL ULTIMATE POWER!

It's an easy choice, if you ask me.

-- N

 

[Griffith Dragonlake]

Use scimitar & falchion

Actually D&D already has the scimitar and the “falchion” which are one-handed and two-handed curved swords respectively. Just treat the katana as a masterwork scimitar or falchion depending on how it is wielded. No need for making it exotic since neither the scimitar nor the “falchion” are exotic.

On a side note, the reason I put falchion in quotes is that the weapon Mediæval writers called a falchion was not a two-handed curved sword. It was actually a one-handed single edged heavy sword. Imagine a cross between a meat cleaver and a sword. You can read more about it here.

 

[Griffith Dragonlake]

Sharpness is how often you crit (threat range), while weight of weapon is how high a multiplier you get (or focusing of weight in the case of war picks).

FWIW I don't agree with this definition.

My thinking is that critical threat range is determined by how easy or how difficult it is to maneouvre the weapon past your opponent's defence and strike at the vulnerable areas. A rapier is better than a mace at doing this sort of thing. Two-handed weapons are generally better than one-handed weapons.

The ability to pierce is a better definition of critical multiplier. A glancing blow from a pick won't do much damage because of the very small surface area of the point. When that point does hit perfectly than all the force will be concentrated in that small area and do massive damage.

The weight (mass) of the weapon is perhaps the best indicator of how much potential damage it can do.

Under this interpretation, mauls and two-handed flails will have a high base damage die but a low critical threat range and small multiplier. Whereas a rapier will have small base damage but high crit threat range and a large multiplier.

I don't think that a weapon's sharpness has much to do with overcoming plate armor. IIRC historical greatsword blades were not sharp at all.