Why bastard sword considered an exotic weapon?

[Fifth Element]

Also, the katana should be a longsword (in D&D terms), not a bastard sword. D&D is simply wrong in that regard.

Since D&D uses the term 'longsword' so wrongly, I don't see how we can complain that they use katana wrongly as well. The game terms are not historically accurate; just pretend a D&D katana is like a bastard sword, and you're good to go.

 

[pawsplay]

Since D&D uses the term 'longsword' so wrongly, I don't see how we can complain that they use katana wrongly as well. The game terms are not historically accurate; just pretend a D&D katana is like a bastard sword, and you're good to go.

Well, it comes down to this. A katana is about three feet long and does not require special training to use one-handed. You can call it an acorn squash for all I care.

What I am trying to say is, "A katana should function mechanically as a one-handed weapon with an improved critical range that may also be used two-handed. Having it function as an exotic weapon when used one-handed makes no sense. It makes it too difficult to wield, and creates very strange situations when you start equipping NPCs in Japanese-inspired settings."

EDIT: And it's not necessarily that D&D used longsword "wrongly" except from the standpoint of late medieval fencing scholars. It's more that it's hard to come up with a term for a normal sword (which is exactly what Basic D&D called it). "Arming sword, not especially large" doesn't exactly trip off the tongue.

 

[Saeviomagy]

Well, it comes down to this. A katana is about three feet long and does not require special training to use one-handed. You can call it an acorn squash for all I care.

What I am trying to say is, "A katana should function mechanically as a one-handed weapon with an improved critical range that may also be used two-handed. Having it function as an exotic weapon when used one-handed makes no sense. It makes it too difficult to wield, and creates very strange situations when you start equipping NPCs in Japanese-inspired settings."

EDIT: And it's not necessarily that D&D used longsword "wrongly" except from the standpoint of late medieval fencing scholars. It's more that it's hard to come up with a term for a normal sword (which is exactly what Basic D&D called it). "Arming sword, not especially large" doesn't exactly trip off the tongue.

Sounds like you want to use the rules for a scimitar for it then. High crit, one handed, can be used 2 handed. Done.

 

[Orius]

Bluntly, the game isn't served by having dozens upon dozens of minor variations of common weapons. It's a lot of extra detail (and time spent poring over mostly-the-same options) for minimal return on practical differences when the dice hit the table. I believe that a 3E supplement actually phrased things this way in a discussion about a weapons equivalency table... Maybe the Arms and Equipment Guide? I'll check on that some time.

I agree. There were a ton of needless weapons in 2e which just clogged up equipment tables, polearms were the worst (how many players really care about the minor distinctions of these things?) but there were tons and tons of swords that were essentially the same, or similar enlough not to matter. Sword and Fist and Oriental Adventure both went a long way with the 3e approach -- list basic D&D equivalents of non-European weapons, and simply use the weapon names as flavor.

As for the bastard sword itself, my guess was game balance. I don't know how common this was, but in many of the 2e game I played, every other sword seemed to be a bastard sword, for the flexibility. If enough people were doing it, I suppose that's why bastard sword got moved up to exotic. I chuckled to myself when I first noticed it.

In any case, regardless as to whether of not bastard sword is appropriate for the katana, the katana should be an exotic weapon except for the setting's equivalent of the samurai.

 

[gamerprinter]

Sword and Fist and Oriental Adventure both went a long way with the 3e approach -- list basic D&D equivalents of non-European weapons, and simply use the weapon names as flavor.

This is how I describe my settings weapons - bastard sword (katana), long composite bow (daikyu), etc.

In any case, regardless as to whether of not bastard sword is appropriate for the katana, the katana should be an exotic weapon except for the setting's equivalent of the samurai.

I can agree to this.

 

[S'mon]

Also, the katana should be a longsword (in D&D terms), not a bastard sword. D&D is simply wrong in that regard.

Agreed, although the katana is a slashing weapon, the longsword is primarily a stabbing weapon. In 1e a katana should use the generic scimitar/sabre/cutlass stats (d8/d8), although the 1e bastard sword stats are workable (2d4/2d8 2-handed, 1d8/1d12 1-handed) .

But for 3e the longsword (1d8/19-20x2) is closest. Let it do 1d10 2-handed if you like.

Re the OP, "Exotic" just means "Superior", ie in 3e bastard sword is superior to a longsword (which in 3e can also be used 2-handed), so it goes in the Exotic category.

 

[S'mon]

Well, it comes down to this. A katana is about three feet long and does not require special training to use one-handed. You can call it an acorn squash for all I care.

Well, medieval Europeans and Japanese were both much shorter than modern Europeans or euro-Americans, so the weapons seemed a lot bigger to them.

 

[S'mon]

EDIT: And it's not necessarily that D&D used longsword "wrongly" except from the standpoint of late medieval fencing scholars. It's more that it's hard to come up with a term for a normal sword (which is exactly what Basic D&D called it). "Arming sword, not especially large" doesn't exactly trip off the tongue.

AD&D should have stuck with "Sword".

 

[S'mon]

Sounds like you want to use the rules for a scimitar for it then. High crit, one handed, can be used 2 handed. Done.

Well the 3e Scimitar is pretty pathetic due to the 1d6 damage base. During the Mongol Invasion, the Samurai weapons (katana et al) were demonstrated to be vastly superior to the Mongol scimitars in close combat - the Mongols ony really liked using them to hack down fleeing foes, whereas the katana is a duellist weapon.

So personally I'd suggest Mongol or Arab scimitar get d6/18-20x2, Katana d8/18-20x2 (1h) or d10/18-20x2 (2h).

 

[Fifth Element]

Well, it comes down to this. A katana is about three feet long and does not require special training to use one-handed. You can call it an acorn squash for all I care.

My point is that D&D weapons cannot be considered historically accurate, therefore arguing that they got the katana "wrong" seems strange to me. A D&D-world katana could just have slightly different characteristics than a real-world one. I understand the term katana to refer to a Japanese curved backsword of a certain minimum blade length (2 feet) - so it seems unlikely that all katana would have the same game stats anyway. If you assume all D&D katana are a fair bit longer than 2 feet, you get into bastard sword territory.