Ashtagon
Adventurer
Wikipedia says that a katana is defined by a blade at least 24" long. Add another 8" (generous) for a grip, and at 32", it's barely long enough to be classed as a longsword.
The longest modern "replica" katana I have found has a blade of 33". With grip, it comes up to 41" (estimated).
By compariosn, wikipedia identifies bastard swords as having a blade length of 39-48", plus an additional 8-11" grip, for a total length of 47-51". Wikipedia identifies longswords (in an older version of the article, before it got merged with bastard swords) as 35-36" blade length and total length 41-47"
The bastard sword is a good foot longer than the katana, which barely makes the length category for longswords.
Given that D&D rules do allow for longswords to be used two-handed, is there action any reason beyond "ethnic cool" for the weapon to be given bastard sword stats?
(please, no thread crapping with *that* post)
The longest modern "replica" katana I have found has a blade of 33". With grip, it comes up to 41" (estimated).
By compariosn, wikipedia identifies bastard swords as having a blade length of 39-48", plus an additional 8-11" grip, for a total length of 47-51". Wikipedia identifies longswords (in an older version of the article, before it got merged with bastard swords) as 35-36" blade length and total length 41-47"
The bastard sword is a good foot longer than the katana, which barely makes the length category for longswords.
Given that D&D rules do allow for longswords to be used two-handed, is there action any reason beyond "ethnic cool" for the weapon to be given bastard sword stats?
(please, no thread crapping with *that* post)