Why bastard sword considered an exotic weapon?

[BryonD]

I just don't think that holds up in an era where you can easily Google or Youtube videos of guys doing katana forms. Hey, look, it's a guy deftly doing a one-handed move with a weapon that is obviously not huge in an ungainly way.

Your thinking flies in the face of reality.

Katanas remain worshiped amongst throngs of geek; your videos be damned.

And, honestly, D&D isn't about the real, it is about the larger than life stories.

I really don't disagree with your points, I just don't have a problem with legends trumping truth in a game with fire breathing dragons.

 

[BryonD]

My point is that if I need to stat a squad of Japanese warriors, I shouldn't find myself going, "Well, I guess I know what they're spending one of their feats on." Whatever characteristics a "D&D katana" might have, I'm going to say that it should be something Japanese warriors are going to be proficient in.

Like I said, if you move from the presumption of a quasi-western setting to a quasi-eastern setting, then having "longswords" called "katanas" alongside "bastard swords" called katanas should be no problem whatsoever.

Also, you improving your game to better reflect katanas will not offend the throngs of geeks not in your game, and the default system reflecting the delusions of throngs of geek not in your game should not offend you.

 

[scruffygrognard]

If you want an easy houserule that doesn't make katanas/bastard swords overpowered while keeping them as martial weapons, have them deal 1d8 + (STR mod) damage when wielded 1-handed or 1d10 +(1.5 x STR mod) when wielded 2-handed.

Sure it's not how 3.X does things normally but that's what houserules are for.

 

[pawsplay]

Why worry? Within the game rules using a katana with one hand effectively is quite difficult. You shouldn't assume that all samurai are proficient with using a (DnD) katana in one hand. Many samurai (in real life), while carrying katana, preferred to use spears.

Otherwise change the rules.

I'm not worried, nor am I complaining. I am critiquing, hopefully for the benefit of anyone who plans on using katanas widely in their games. The reason this came up in the first place is because the oddity of the katana as a bastard sword in D&D contributes to confusion as to why bastard swords are exotic in the first place.

The OP did not ask, "What is the rule for bastard swords?" Hence, telling me I can change the rules is not a very helpful suggestion. Since it was clarified already that a bastard sword can be used as a martial weapon in two hands, that clears up basically all the rules questions in this thread. "Why is a katana a bastard sword?" is a slightly different topic than the OP, but is a natural progression of the discussion.

 

[S'mon]

Awesome, thanks for all the background, pawsplay.

I've decided for my campaign, then. The katana is a martial weapon doing 1d8, 19-20/x2 slashing damage. It will be a "longsword."

(I'm not the OP, though...)

Sounds good. Presumably the wakizashi would be a standard shortsword then - 1d6 19-20/x2.

Following that thinking, if you have Mongol types in your game I'd suggest then maybe statting their very basic light scimitars as 1d6 19-20/x2, same as wakizashi/shortsword, and keep the 1d6 18-20/x2 for superior scimitars, which probably won't appear in your campaign area.

 

[Silverblade The Ench]

aye game mechanics

but on katana vs bastardsword
both are "hand and a half swords"
the katana is NOT some damn "uber weapon" jeesh!!

katana was never meant for heavy, dirty work, or cleaving armour etc,
katanas could and often did get shattered in battle hence you HAD to carry a back up weapon, the wakizashi
it's awesome versus unarmed folk, especially ones who often didn't fight back...try it versus an amroured knight, or skilled sai-wielding martial artist and it's not so uber.

katana is a weapon of precision and speed versus flesh, it's almost useless up very close in tight quarters (like in a dungeon or tavern perhaps), hence they had to develop a full martial art form for such situations and another reaosn for a shorter sword
katana isn't so unbalanced as the scimitar, both's curves give great slashing cuts, but katana's chisel tip allows better thrusting stabs.

bastardsword had enough mass to drive chanmail or even some plate INTO the body causing damage.
Western swords were rarely "sharp" since opponents wore armour, there was no need of having an axe or sword razor edged. In fact such edges are bad vs that kind of armour (shatter)
precision weapons like daggers, some rapiers etc were razor sharp though
Some maces had sharp "flanges" but "sharp" like a knights sword to help cleave into armour, not slice though, when you hit flesh they'd do terrible damage.

likewise, European combat was much more complex than is often thought, especially up close and dirty as real fights were
So large swords used the heavy pommels as clubs, swords gripped on blade AND handle to use liek a sort of staff,
carrying a shorter weapon like a handaxe gripped up near the axehead
or "scrimsax" (shortsword used by Saxons),
or heavy dagger (misericord of "Knightly" period)
and "dirty" unarmed combat (which was actually a major feature of REAL knightly combat not only for practicality of fighting heavy armoured opponent but also because capturing one for ransom was vastly perferrable for wealth and to hope for same fate yourself rather than death)

 

[Pseudonym]

I just don't have a problem with legends trumping truth in a game with fire breathing dragons.

I have a similar feeling whenever the subject of guns in D&D comes up. People who accept all manner of unreality suddenly get all hung up on realism.

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

I just don't have a problem with legends trumping truth in a game with fire breathing dragons.

Swords are real. So are guns. Dragons aren't.

People who accept all manner of unreality suddenly get all hung up on realism.

To the detriment of the game, IMO.

 

[BryonD]

Swords are real. So are guns. Dragons aren't.

But, bad ass super awesome katanas aren't really real. At least not the ones the geeks go on and on about.

To the detriment of the game, IMO.

What detriment?

I absolutely respect the idea that a campaign may call for more true to reality katanas. I have acknowledged that at least twice now.

But (A) it is trivially easy to use both longsword and bastard mechanics side by side and have characters refer to the weapons as katanas, and (B) there are tons of things in D&D that are "real" but are legendary beyond all plausibility within the game.

I am all for versimilitude, etc, etc.. Anyone who has read any posts by me should be very aware of that. But when the myths and legends disagree with reality, I prefer the myths and legends to win. That is kinda the point.

 

[pawsplay]

I am all for versimilitude, etc, etc.. Anyone who has read any posts by me should be very aware of that. But when the myths and legends disagree with reality, I prefer the myths and legends to win. That is kinda the point.

I think in this case the "myth" in question isn't so much a myth as a lack of knowledge. Certainly, in Oriental Adventures (AD&D), the katana didn't require any great ability to wield one-handed. I don't see any real mythic or legendary value in making characters burn feats to wield a katana one-handed. There isn't any real harm in a samurai from the Complete Warrior wandering into a more Western-inspired game with his gigantic "katana," but there isn't any real value in it, either. I don't see any way it is going to damage the myth or legend to say, "A large samurai sword is called a tachi."