Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Cannyjiggit" data-source="post: 6448253" data-attributes="member: 6780231">The Katana (at least in the form I recognise, I'm far better with European weapon styles) in my mind was never really a finesse weapon. It has far more in common with a longsword than a rapier and I would class it as a longsword personally. It was the wielders that put their emphasis on dexterity rather than the weapon.That being said, this is a game where suitable compromise can make a character for a player. Having read others thoughts and considered it more, I no longer think the reskinned quarterstaff is the best option. I would talk to your player and offer him one of the following options (all mentioned above) that fits how he/she wants to play the character. I don't believe any of them will particularly unbalance your game.1. Reskinned rapier - 1 hand only, 1d8 slashing damage2. Versatile option - 1d6/1d8 or 1d6/2d4 slashing are both good options, different from above in that it allows 2 hand feats etc as well as shield options3. 2 hand only - 1d10 slashing damage.I suspect 1 or 3 will be the most favoured and will probably make your life easier but then I don't know your player or the intentions. As far as the future goes, I would probably try to steer away from a magical version ever appearing in the campaign but would allow the player to start with his own weapon for free. Over time, with standard magical options available the character may start to conform to the core system or he may stick with using his family sword in preference, either option works well for you.A note on parrying: Firstly, parrying a weapon takes a lot more force than you would initially imagine, there is a lot of energy in a fast moving weapon that needs to be resisted and dissipated to simply parry it, this generally causes some damage to the area of the sword used to parry. Asian swords were generally made of inferior steel compared to European swords which made them more susceptible to damage, much more expensive to make and therefore much rarer than their European counterparts. This is why far more emphasis is put on evasion in asian martial arts and damage was made by cuts rather than strikes (Europeans would tend to make the strike and then cut once the contact was made, Asian arts teach methods that mean the sword is already moving in a cutting action before contact is made). After all, when you could arm and armour 100 men for the price of a single sword, you really wouldn't want to be using it as a bar for the opponent to hit. All of this adds up to why swords were such a big deal for medieval orientals compared to European knights who put much more emphasis on the armour craftmanship.</blockquote>

Verification