Steely_Dan
First Post
That's what the thin-blade is to the rapier.
To be honest, I can do without extreme versions of weapons (that basically make existing ones obsolete).
The Katana > No-Daichi > Buick.
D&D 5E Oh Hai Katana!
That's what the thin-blade is to the rapier.
To be honest, I can do without extreme versions of weapons (that basically make existing ones obsolete).
The Katana > No-Daichi > Buick.
The difference would be that the Katana is not considered an exotic weapon but the Courtblade is. In older versions of the game a 1 Feat weapon proficiency tax got you a size bump to your damage die.
You know, the really sad thing here is that Elves get a damage die bonus to Longswords due to the days before D&D had a Rapier, and don't get a bonus to using the Rapier even though all their racial exotic swords to date are variations on the rapier.
If I had my druthers D&D Next would give Elves a racial damage die bump on Longbows, Shortbows, and Rapiers - not Longswords.
- Marty Lund
..
it occurs to me they really need to add a one-handed and two-handed usage damage for these weapons. You should be able to single-wield a katana, and do d8 damage with it like it was a longsword, but finessable.
Similarly, I just noticed Bastard Swords are now d10 but strictly two-handed weapons. I own one, and am not really strong enough to wield it one handed, but that's because it's not historically accurate. There are plenty of bastard swords that are very light and agile enough to be wielded one handed but still do extra damage with both. It's halfway between an arming sword (a D&D "longsword" which is a misnoemer) and a two-hander, with a foot in each design space but not really belonging to either, hence bastard sword.
They need to fix that. Bastard swords and katanas should be wieldable one-handed, doing less damage that way.
it occurs to me they really need to add a one-handed and two-handed usage damage for these weapons. You should be able to single-wield a katana, and do d8 damage with it like it was a longsword, but finessable.
Similarly, I just noticed Bastard Swords are now d10 but strictly two-handed weapons. I own one, and am not really strong enough to wield it one handed, but that's because it's not historically accurate. There are plenty of bastard swords that are very light and agile enough to be wielded one handed but still do extra damage with both. It's halfway between an arming sword (a D&D "longsword" which is a misnoemer) and a two-hander, with a foot in each design space but not really belonging to either, hence bastard sword.
They need to fix that. Bastard swords and katanas should be wieldable one-handed, doing less damage that way.
Olgar Shiverstone
Legend
No, that's not a katana. Everyone knows that a katana:
- Can be wielded one handed with more damage than a longsword, and can be finessed;
- Can be wielded two handed with more damage than a greatsword, and can be finessed;
- Can be dual wielded without penalty by a ninja;
- Has a crit range of 2 - infinity;
- Pierces all armor, except plain cloth, more effectively than other weapons;
- Is made from adamantium fairy farts
- Has a +5 kewl wepun bonus
The only thing more dangerous than Chuck Norris is Chuck Norris with a katana.
- Can be wielded one handed with more damage than a longsword, and can be finessed;
- Can be wielded two handed with more damage than a greatsword, and can be finessed;
- Can be dual wielded without penalty by a ninja;
- Has a crit range of 2 - infinity;
- Pierces all armor, except plain cloth, more effectively than other weapons;
- Is made from adamantium fairy farts
- Has a +5 kewl wepun bonus
The only thing more dangerous than Chuck Norris is Chuck Norris with a katana.
Izumi
First Post
Everybody knows the katana descends from the short, and slightly curved, thrusting sword of the Japanese pikemen called the uchigatana. Mounted Japanese warriors used their traditional sword, a more radically curved one, called a jindachi. Those higher ranking warriors leading these groups of pikemen found the tachi not as suitable in the ranks of halberd and pike, and thus commissioned smaller versions of the tachi (now called kodachi), or shortened the tangs (nakago) of their tachi, which adjusted the swords curvature to the form we know as the katana. The new design became so popular that versions began to be produced in the shape of shortened tachi in some cases, and slightly longer versions of the uchigatana in others (These two different curvatures are still the most popular variations). This Japanese longsword we now call the katana was therefore never an optimized design for combat, but merely an adjustment to be adequate to the changes in warfare. When worn together with the katana the smaller sword came to be known as the kogatana. Much of the assumed finesse in its use comes from 'kata', and is merely the result of the Japanese aesthetic to stylize/beautify. The surviving Japanese martial traditions themselves are descendents of more practical battlefield tactics. After the Period of the Country at War the Japanese began to increasingly katafy (for lack of a better term) their whole existence to an amazing level, and form came to be considered more important than substance in a lot of cases. The sword and the methods of its use were not immune to the trend. The design of the katana continued to be adequate for the ambush tactics of the largely unarmored/underarmored Edo period. The finesse needs to be removed from the katana or given to all swords. Furthermore, the hand-and-a-half bastard sword should be reduced in damage to equal the katana and arming sword. There is no significant advantage between the use and capabilities of these three swords except the skill of the wielder.
Eh, I'd be just as happy if they didn't overly complicate things with weapons. If we try to get too "realistic" to deal with niche scenarios we run right into the ugly bugbear of the fact that almost all slashing and piercing weapons in D&D short of the longbow, crossbow, and mounted lance can't penetrate riveted chain mail or better armor. We run into Weapon Speed Factor tables and all sorts of other messes.
Two handed is the best general use of the katana on foot. Kendo and Kenjustu both favor this. One-handed is for use as a mounted cavalry saber (the primary use of the katana it was designed for) and to a more niche extent iaijutsu duels between unarmored opponents and rare two-sword paired fighting styles (again designed to fight opponents with light or no armor). At that point you might as well use the Scimitar profile.
- Marty Lund
.
Thanks for the info, you guys obviously know your stuff. I just know that for arming swords vs a bastard sword, using two hands vs one will definitely give a damage boost, and when wielding a bastard sword one-handed, would probably be more ideal if swung from horseback while controlling the mount with the other hand. Thus it's more versatile and has greater reach (like 5-6 inches longer. I know, I own both types of swords).
I'd say for sure Katanas are probably "masterwork" versions of bastard swords, with an asian flavour twist. But as it stands right now, you cannot even take a swing with a bastard sword OR a katana with one hand in 5e, since it has "two-handed" as a property, presumably being an absolute requirement.
Definitely concur that the skill of the wielder matters far more than the weapon, but those three swords are clearly different in terms of real-life damage to both armored and unarmored opponents. The exact proportions are not germane to the discussion of D&D, except insomuch as the granularity of damage die need to account for their relative merits. And right now, they don't. Which is a problem.
Bastard swords can be wielded one-handed, maybe not optimally but it is part of their basic design and intended versatile usage.
Thanks for the info, you guys obviously know your stuff. I just know that for arming swords vs a bastard sword, using two hands vs one will definitely give a damage boost, and when wielding a bastard sword one-handed, would probably be more ideal if swung from horseback while controlling the mount with the other hand. Thus it's more versatile and has greater reach (like 5-6 inches longer. I know, I own both types of swords).
I'd say for sure Katanas are probably "masterwork" versions of bastard swords, with an asian flavour twist. But as it stands right now, you cannot even take a swing with a bastard sword OR a katana with one hand in 5e, since it has "two-handed" as a property, presumably being an absolute requirement.
Definitely concur that the skill of the wielder matters far more than the weapon, but those three swords are clearly different in terms of real-life damage to both armored and unarmored opponents. The exact proportions are not germane to the discussion of D&D, except insomuch as the granularity of damage die need to account for their relative merits. And right now, they don't. Which is a problem.
Bastard swords can be wielded one-handed, maybe not optimally but it is part of their basic design and intended versatile usage.
Tony Vargas
Legend
While the de-mystification of the katana is appreciated, it'd be even cooler if we could get some re-mystification of the longsword, lance, 'shining armor' and so forth going. This is a Fantasy RPG we're talking about...
No, not really - they lack the raw mass to do the job of a Bastard Sword. A bastard sword can kill a man in plate by caving in his chest (it won't cut through his armor). It can also parry heavier weapons in a pinch. The Katana will probably break.
Again, not really. Swinging one-handed greatly reduces the effectiveness of those weapons against armor, shields, and other weapons. The bastard sword will still carry a lot of momentum, but it's much slower. The katana loses a huge amount of its strength one-handed, needing to rely on the keenness of its edge vs. a lack of armor on the enemy.
If you want to handle such a two-handed weapon in one hand ask your DM if you can use the next weapon profile down - the scimitar or the long sword. The drop in power (katana) or speed (bastard sword) can generously be worked out as a single demotion of the damage die.
Seriously, you using a bastard sword one-handed if you REALLY need to lunge, hold onto a shield (sub-optimal), hold onto reigns (there are better weapons when mounted by far) or your off-hand is injured and you can't find a lighter weapon.
Likewise you use a katana one-handed only if you have an off-hand weapon (mostly a defensive tactic), you have to strike from a drawing stance (iaido), you are mounted, or your off-hand is injured and you need the superior reach over the wakizashi.
And yes, D&D doesn't differentiate the reach and threat-zone differences between longer and shorter swords either, except imprecisely by the damage die. There's a very good reason why large swords, axes, and hammers fell out of use once heavy armor went obsolete - faster and lighter piercing and cutting weapons (rapier, epee, saber) are much, much more deadly when armor is out of the picture.
- Marty Lund
Last edited:
Steely_Dan
First Post
I would prefer not, the rapier thing for elves is a relatively new thing, they are traditionally kick-ass with longswords and bows.
I'm glad that in the Drow entry in the Bestiary they are back to wielding longswords (and drow ones at that), not rapiers (3rd Ed started that).
I do agree the katana (and bastard sword) should be able to be wielded one-handed, but I of course don't want the aforementioned 1d12, high crit, versatile, dancing, etc, we all know about the myth that has grown up around our poor little katana. *pronounced Cat-Anna*
Similar Threads
