D&D 5E Katana in 5th edition - finesse?

[TheCosmicKid]

Generally, a particular sword will do either slashing or piercing, but some are designed to do both. This way, the ‘longsword’ can handle multiple kinds of swords: knightly arming sword, long sword, viking sword, spatha, katana, etcetera.

I would not call arming swords, viking swords, or spathas "versatile". Sure, you could grip the pommel with your off-hand, but that's not really what they were designed for.

This ‘greatsword’ represents the monster twohander sword, that is more like a polearm, and can only hit targets at some distance away. The greatsword is unable to hit targets who are adjacent, thus stepping back before a swing or else resorting to the ‘half-swording’ technique, where one hand grabs the blade midway, then with both hands stabs the adjacent opponent. Often a twohander fighter drops the twohander sword and brandishes a second smaller sword once engaged.

I think you're overlooking the fact that a greatsword's main purpose is to allow its wielder to safely get inside the reach of soldiers who have longer weapons (i.e., pikes), that very few soldiers ever have any interest in dropping their weapons while engaged (i.e., in the middle of a pike formation that is trying to kill them), and that to this end it has a number of design features specifically for improving its wieldiness at half-sword (i.e., so they can stab pikemen better than they can stab back, possibly forcing them to drop their weapons).

5E has generally done away with close-in penalties for reach weapons and other such "realistic" rules caveats, but even if you feel the burning need to reintroduce them to a game about saving the world from evil wizards, the greatsword is probably a poor choice of weapon to do it with.

 

[Yaarel]

I would not call arming swords, viking swords, or spathas "versatile". Sure, you could grip the pommel with your off-hand, but that's not really what they were designed for.

Historically, the medieval swords were both ‘agile’ and ‘versatile’. Some were made with only a single-handed grip. Some were made with only two-handed grips or hand-and-half grips. It might be more accurate, to separate these into ‘arming swords’ that are finesse versus ‘long swords’ that are versatile, but D&D tends strongly to conflate these two classifications into a single ‘longsword’ category. And the truth is, the medieval specimens were a crazy mix of experimentalism anyway. Besides, a katana is a D&D ‘longsword’ that is both versatile and finesse. There are medieval European equivalents that are agile weapons with a grip allowing two hands. Most of these were hand-and-half, but some were fully long-hilted for two hands, similar to the katana.

For D&D purposes, a D&D ‘longsword’ that is both versatile and finesse, resolves the issues well enough, for me anyway.

I think you're overlooking the fact that a greatsword's main purpose is to allow its wielder to safely get inside the reach of soldiers who have longer weapons (i.e., pikes), that very few soldiers ever have any interest in dropping their weapons while engaged (i.e., in the middle of a pike formation that is trying to kill them), and that to this end it has a number of design features specifically for improving its wieldiness at half-sword.

5E has generally done away with close-in penalties for reach weapons and other such "realistic" rules caveats, but even if you feel the burning need to reintroduce them to a game about saving the world from evil wizards, the greatsword is probably a poor choice of weapon to do it with.

For D&D, I would like to see greatsword wielders step away so there is at least 5 feet (one empty square) between one and the target. If there is no room to step away, that is when the player might consider dropping the greatsword for an other weapon.

 

[Yaarel]

Maybe it helps to stat the D&D longsword as follows?

Longsword 1d8 slashing/piercing, finesse/versatile.

In other words, most longswords are either slashing or piercing, but not both. Yet is possible to design a ‘masterwork’ that is both. Likewise, most longswords are either finesse or versatile, but it is possible to design a masterwork that is both.

In Japan where metal was rare and precious, virtually all swords were masterworks. The katana is a celebrated example of a ‘masterwork’ that is both finesse and versatile.

 

[TheCosmicKid]

For D&D, I would like to see greatsword wielders step away so there is at least 5 feet (one empty square) between one and the target. If there is no room to step away, that is when the player might consider dropping the greatsword for an other weapon.

I understand your intention. I am saying that it does not align with historical greatsword function. A greatsword wielder wants to be close to the enemy. That's why he's got a greatsword, instead of a pike or musket.

 

[Yaarel]

I understand your intention. I am saying that it does not align with historical greatsword function. A greatsword wielder wants to be close to the enemy. That's why he's got a greatsword, instead of a pike or musket.

It is possible to be adjacent to the enemy, yet it would mean, ‘half-swording’, thus dealing 1d6 piercing.

Stepping away then allows full damage, slashing.

Im uncertain how stepping away should relate to the Disengage action. Perhaps the ‘reach’ property denies Opportunity Attacks?

 

[Yaarel]

I am seeing three kinds of melee range.

While grappling = Finesse or Light?
Normal melee for adjacent targets
Reach for nonadjacent targets

 

[TheCosmicKid]

It is possible to be adjacent to the enemy, yet it would mean, ‘half-swording’, thus dealing 1d6 piercing.

Stepping away then allows full damage, slashing.

I'm going to say this one more time: Half-swording was how greatswords were designed to be used. It was not a sub-optimal situation for them. What you're proposing here is like writing rules for shotguns that make them sniper weapons.

I am seeing three kinds of melee range.

While grappling = Finesse or Light?
Normal melee for adjacent targets
Reach for nonadjacent targets

That's how it works in some games with finer resolution on the combat map. For D&D and its 5-foot squares, it doesn't really track well.

 

[GreenTengu]

I am just going to jump in here and point out....

Historically, on the actual battlefield... swords SUCKED. Using a sword of any sort was an undesirable situation. So what is with this drive to make all swords into GOD weapons?!!

The fact that they are even functional in D&D is due to the clumsy hit point system. In proper combat, a single arrow is pretty certain to maim, if not kill, anyone it hits and remove them from combat. So obviously the ideal way to deal with your opponent would be a bow or a crossbow. And the invention of firearms just made it so that much less skilled people could fire them and they would get through armor better. Especially if you could fire it from behind some spiked barricades or from horseback, you would easily defeat any person with any sort of sword. Granted, ranged weapons take some time before you can make your attack, but if they need to run at you to use their weapon, you likely have time to load up and shoot them dead. The issue is when you are facing waves of enemies-- you can only shoot down the front line.

And if they got closer, then the next weapon you would want to use is a polearm. One good stab to their chest or slash across their belly or to their legs and your swordsman is just finished. The polearm just guarantees you at least the first attack, if not every subsequent attack until the last if you are generally skilled enough to keep them at bay with the pole. Its not something they can "get by". There is a reason 300 spearmen could kill 10,000 swordsman in a mountain pass, it wasn't just the warriors were so good-- having a polearm and shield is just that much better than relying on a sword.

The only good things about swords is that they don't take up much room, so you can carry them around on your person with ease. There is no good, easy, comfortable way to transport a halberd while going about your normal daily business. But a sword at your side doesn't impede you much. This means you can have them handy if you run into a fight on the city street or inside a castle or such.

But no successful military tradition has ever relied primarily on spears as their sole weapon of choice. They are not some all powerful weapon that is so vastly superior to all others in every imaginable situation that it is unthinkable that anyone would ever choose to use anything else like the lot of you want to stat them up to be. They are a bottom tier weapon-- even axes and maces/hammers are more effective if you are facing armored opponents as swords. The only situation I can think of where a sword would be the ideal weapon is if you were running around cutting down unarmored people who weren't fighting back and instead were running away from you so you would have to run to catch up and attack quickly in order to cut down as many as possible.

In any situation where you are facing a reasonably skilled person with a sword, it is because you have both made a gentlemanly agreement to use the worst of all weapons in your battle to somewhat minimize the impact of luck and chance and make it more about skill.

But unless you are a marauder slicing up a village of fleeing peasants, the sword just isn't the weapon of choice or you are specifically dueling someone in some sort of organized contest with rules, swords are the worst of all weapons.

As such-- I suggest all swords should have their die size reduced 1 size from their current stats to more accurately reflect their general worthlessness as proper weapons of war and proper status as easily transported weapons of last resort.

 

[Guest 6801328]

As such-- I suggest all swords should have their die size reduced 1 size from their current stats to more accurately reflect their general worthlessness as proper weapons of war and proper status as easily transported weapons of last resort.

No offense, but that may be the worst idea for D&D I've ever seen.

Swords are functionally equivalent to hammers and axes in D&D, and yet the vast majority of players choose them. Why? Because they think swords are cool. Because centuries of stories...myths, literature, children's stories, pulp fiction, comic books...have established the sword as The Weapon of choice for heroes. People play RPGs to have fun, and they think swords are fun, so they have their characters use swords.

And you want to punish them for this? To effectively force them to choose a "better" weapon because...it pleases your sense of historical realism? (And yet you are apparently enjoy a game where you heal to full health over night while sleeping in your armor?)

Crazy.

While we're at it, let's make players roll for tooth decay because, you know, medieval realism and all.

 

[Yaarel]

Swords are functionally equivalent to hammers and axes in D&D, and yet the vast majority of players choose them. Why? Because they think swords are cool. Because centuries of stories...myths, literature, children's stories, pulp fiction, comic books...have established the sword as The Weapon of choice for heroes.

Yup. In other words, plot protection. The sword fits the criteria for the rule of cool.

That is why I feel it is ok to stat the longsword specifically as 1d8 finesse versatile. It is ok it this sword gets an edge, and in some cases, deserves it.