Japanes Sword Additions and Corrections

[Staffan]

Anyways to move back onto track, here are the proposed stats for the Katana:
Cost Damage Crit Size Type
Katana* 400gp 3d4 18-20/x2 Medium Slashing

Notes:
Counts as a masterwork weapon. *Counts as an exotic weapon(Katana) when used one handed, and counted as a martial weapon when used two handed.

3d4 is a better average damage than both the greatsword and greataxe (3d4 = 7.5, 2d6 = 7, 1d12 = 6.5), which combined with the increased threat range makes it overpowered as a martial two-handed weapon - not to mention as an exotic one-handed weapon.

 

[Xeriar]

Like I said, I'm not gonna argue with a bunch of people who ain't got a lick of sense. You morons say I'm trying to save face, when what happens was I mistook balance weight for actual weight, something a scholar also did, meaning that IT HAPPENS. You fools need to get over it.

Excepting that you have also ignored comments regarding
1: The balance can be on the hilt (which, oddly, seems to fall out of favor with more experienced swordsmen and women, rather than the other way around).
2: That greatswords are often held upright anyway, using a snap-action for the attack.
3: 'What something feels like depends on too many factors to care about. We are talking about mass, plain and simple. I have no trouble holding a 45 pound barbell by the end upright, or even at a 30 degree angle.

I never called anyone a Nazi. I said arguing with you guys is like arguing morality with a Nazi: in other words, it's counterproductive to your time and useless and pointless because no matter how wrong he is, he ain't ever gonna see it.

You still invoked Godwin's law, I actually found it rather funny.

It doesn't really matter, I've been trained in the SCA, and practiced with a variety of weapons rangeing between deadly, painful, and harmless. I've held a sabre weighing no more than a pound which was so perfectly balanced at the hilt that you could actually balance it where your index finger was.

So in closing, you can take your flaming and trolling and insults and stick 'em up your rears. No one ever gave you fools the right to fling insults at me, and I won't put up with it anymore. Got a problem with that? BITE ME!

I don't recall anyone throwing insults at you, either you are in a trolling mood today (and I'm biting), or you aren't aware of your own words.

 

[Planesdragon]

3d4 is a better average damage than both the greatsword and greataxe (3d4 = 7.5, 2d6 = 7, 1d12 = 6.5), which combined with the increased threat range makes it overpowered as a martial two-handed weapon - not to mention as an exotic one-handed weapon.

Plus it's continues the obnoxious "many small dice" variants of weapons.

If the maximum damage is going to be 12, then it should be a 1d12--not 2d6, not 3d4, 1d12! (grr...)


A katana made by the best moral smith, IMO, would be the following:

Masterwork Folded-Steel katana (1d8 18-20/x2, two-handed rules as bastard sword)

Masterwork: +1 attack

Folded Steel: (1,000 gp cost, only on all-steel S weapons.) Made by folding layers of hard an soft steel together dozens of times, creating uncountable layers, this method produces steel that is both hard and flexibile.

Folded steel blades do +1 damage, and have double hardness.


"Folded Steel" would apply to Jappanese or Damascus swords, btw.

 

[Enkhidu]

I like that take on it, Planesdragon, though I'd likely call the material something different (as damascus steel wasn't "folded" in the manner japanese steel was - it was instead "boiled" in large clay pots, allowed to percolate, and then forged into weapons).

 

[Tony Vargas]

However, D&D being a fantasy game, you can give the katana uber-stats and not have a guilty conscience, really .

Well, actually, yes, you can, after a fashion. Giving a piece of steel - any sword regardless of shape, size, or national origin - uber-stats is just silly. But, if there's something /special/ about a given instance of a weapon, it's fine - it can be magical, or masterwork or homebrewed-trans-masterwork or an artifact or relic or whatever.

But, the basic stats of a weapon represent a basic example of that weapon. Keeping such stats consistent with those that already exist helps keep the game balanced and 'believable' (to the minor degree that believability is desireable).

 

[Tony Vargas]

Shadowrun Man: I'm not going to argue your impression of the RL or mythical katana, but, I will say that you probably need to familiarize yourself with the d20 mechanics a bit more thoroughly before you start messing with them. Modifying rules, and even something as simple stating out a new weapon using existing rules, can be tricky.

Take 3d4, for instance, with a max damage of 12 you might think it not excessively more potent than 2d6 or 1d12, but the average is actually higher. Or, look at the differences between martial and exotic weapons - you just don't see jumps from 3.5 average damage to 7.5 average damage for otherwise similar weapons (and that's the jump from a scimitar to your katana).

Think it over.

Now, Planesdragon's take was more consistent with the extant rules. The basic stats are comparable in power to other exotic weapons. And, the 'folded steel' idea at least follows the same general sort of mechanics as adamantine and mithril (the damage bonus really should get a name, though - preferably 'Enhancement,' otherwise it might be too desireable for the 1000gp price). I don't think something like that is really called for, but at least it's workable.

 

[genshou]

First of all, let me put this in. mmu1 placed this text exactly into his/her post as a quote from Anubis.

You morons! I mistook balance for tumble, I mean weight, just like a scholar, I don't know his name, but if you're a scholar on the internet, you can't be wrong, and I didn't call you a Nazi, you bunch of freakin' Nazi morons! I will bite your rears, but I'm not trying to save face!

Now show me where Anubis posted those exact words. If you're going to quote Anubis, then quote him/her, don't just make up your own stuff to try to deface him!

Second, I have a few comments about what planesdragon said here.

Have you ever trained professionally with swords? Where? (a LARP or SCAdian combat doesn't count.) Have you ever been in a real deadly battle where you've used a sword? Against someone else who knew what they were doing with a sword?

Well, who here has been in that situation? Anyone? Such a sad way to attempt to discredit him, when no one else here is any more qualified according to those rules.

Now this I agree with:

However, you've invoked Godwin's Law, which is an observation of internet discussions. This thread has reached the point (rather quickly, actually) where no further reasonable discussion can happen.

This thread has definitely reached that point. And I personally favor elves and rangers because they are compatible with my own personality and not for any power gaming reasons. It's more than just a game about aquiring power. If you want that, play video games and cheat. I'm in it for the experience, and elven rangers help me to have a better one.

I like the giant scimitar (with an extra die of damage) idea myself, but I'm not sure what everyone else thinks. I think I'll just trust the research of Bill Slavicsek for now. He just might know a lot that no one here does - who knows?

 

[Xeriar]

Well, who here has been in that situation? Anyone? Such a sad way to attempt to discredit him, when no one else here is any more qualified according to those rules.

I think his point was that many on these forums have had training in the SCA and perhaps other means (I've had sword training, but very basic stuff. How to wield sharp things with nasty edges of varying lengths, yada yada yada).

Yet Anubis is the one discounting these people (at least myself). So, in order to take his word on it, I would have to believe that he trained with the actual weapons. It happens, my friends and I have them, for example.

Deadly combat was probably a bit over the top though, ew.

 

[Staffan]

Staffan: I'm not going to argue your impression of the RL or mythical katana, but, I will say that you probably need to familiarize yourself with the d20 mechanics a bit more thoroughly before you start messing with them. Modifying rules, and even something as simple stating out a new weapon using existing rules, can be tricky.

Take 3d4, for instance, with a max damage of 12 you might think it not excessively more potent than 2d6 or 1d12, but the average is actually higher. Or, look at the differences between martial and exotic weapons - you just don't see jumps from 3.5 average damage to 7.5 average damage for otherwise similar weapons (and that's the jump from a scimitar to your katana).

Er... that's what I said too. You might be confusing me with Shadowrun Man, who suggested the 3d4 damage.

 

[mmu1]

Now show me where Anubis posted those exact words. If you're going to quote Anubis, then quote him/her, don't just make up your own stuff to try to deface him!

Did you read some of his stuff? I was practically doing him a favor. I suppose it's not what his post said, exactly, but it's what it felt like... I was trying to express the balance of his argument, as it were. I'm sure I can find a scholar to support the approach somewhere...