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

[Iosue]

It's not wrong at all. A katana is balanced for two hands, not one. With only one hand, you can't get the correct cutting arc nor the force needed to cut through anything. Yes, there was a fighting style with dual wielding with a wakizashi much like there was a style with fighting with two rapiers. I regard Nito seiho much as a I regard the Florentine style, largely impractical. Either would really need to be represented by feats to show dedication to such a thing.

Yes, entirely wrong. So much so that I'm waiting for some sort of "gotcha". The katana was originally a cavalry saber, meant to wielded with one hand from horseback. That's why that 16th century one I handled felt so well balanced and easy to use one-handed. The youtubes are lousy with videos of people, with very little actual skill, doing one-handed cuts, but I will only link to this one, because the guy doing the cuts actually knows what he's doing, and we know the era of his sword (19th century, as mentioned above not of the highest quality).

And while Miyamoto Musashi and his nito style are well known, in fact nito training was widespread long before he came along, appearing in the curricula of the oldest schools, formed during the Sengoku period. They weren't given to impracticality in their martial arts at those times, nor did nito style require great dedication to learn.

 

[Mercurius]

I started the thread and to be honest, while I appreciate the humor, I stoppe reading around the second page at some point, but looked at it again and saw [MENTION=6680772]Iosue[/MENTION]'s interesting posts later on. My sense is that, in D&D terms, different qualities of katanas exist--as do, presumably, different qualities of longswords. Maybe this is where masterwork weapons come in? Perhaps a non-mastermwork katana is similar to a non-masterwork longsword, but a masterwork katana is not only versatile like the longsword, but also finesse? And perhaps a masterwork longsword includes piercing?

All of which is to avoid the +1 bonus that only a magical weapon should have.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

I started the thread and to be honest, while I appreciate the humor, I stoppe reading around the second page at some point, but looked at it again and saw @Iosue's interesting posts later on. My sense is that, in D&D terms, different qualities of katanas exist--as do, presumably, different qualities of longswords. Maybe this is where masterwork weapons come in? Perhaps a non-mastermwork katana is similar to a non-masterwork longsword, but a masterwork katana is not only versatile like the longsword, but also finesse? And perhaps a masterwork longsword includes piercing?

All of which is to avoid the +1 bonus that only a magical weapon should have.

It certainly would not be broken to give out a mastercraft katana (in lieu of a +1 weapon) as treasure that has the finesse quality. More interesting, too.

 

[variant]

Yes, entirely wrong. So much so that I'm waiting for some sort of "gotcha". The katana was originally a cavalry saber, meant to wielded with one hand from horseback. That's why that 16th century one I handled felt so well balanced and easy to use one-handed. The youtubes are lousy with videos of people, with very little actual skill, doing one-handed cuts, but I will only link to this one, because the guy doing the cuts actually knows what he's doing, and we know the era of his sword (19th century, as mentioned above not of the highest quality).

And while Miyamoto Musashi and his nito style are well known, in fact nito training was widespread long before he came along, appearing in the curricula of the oldest schools, formed during the Sengoku period. They weren't given to impracticality in their martial arts at those times, nor did nito style require great dedication to learn.

The katana was not a cavalry sword. The tachi was a cavalry sword and it was lighter and more tapered and curved.

The video you pointed to shows off the initial strike which is still a two-handed attack as the off-hand is used to balance (and flip) the sheath so you can get a smooth initial strike. Notice as soon as he makes his attack, his off-hand goes to the lower part of the hilt for his subsequent strikes.

Feel free to link me to these other nito styles.

 

[Lalato]

Uh oh... Nerd fight! Hide your rule books, hide your dice!

 

[Iosue]

The katana was not a cavalry sword. The tachi was a cavalry sword and it was lighter and more tapered and curved.

You are making modern nomenclature distinction that did not exist in those times, as any glance through the material of the period shows. There's no point where you can say, "This is a tachi, and that is a katana." Some blades had very severe curves, others had shallower curves. All could be fitted for either a hanging sheath, with blade down for horseback, or for a sheath that fit into the obi, with blade up, for walking around unarmored. All were thus made, or intended to be made, so they could be wielded one-handed or two-handed.

The video you pointed to shows off the initial strike which is still a two-handed attack as the off-hand is used to balance (and flip) the sheath so you can get a smooth initial strike. Notice as soon as he makes his attack, his off-hand goes to the lower part of the hilt for his subsequent strikes.

There's nothing for me to notice, since I know exactly what he's doing, and do it myself. I'm not theorizing or armchair quarterbacking here. The katana can be used one-handed or two-handed, as needed. We practice both one-handed and two-handed cuts. Your statement that "With only one hand, you can't get the correct cutting arc nor the force needed to cut through anything" is historically, practically, and factually incorrect, and proven incorrect on a weekly basis. Any search for "tameshigiri" on youtube will turn up video after video of people cutting through makiwara with one handed cuts, from above and below. And I find your statement that the obvious one-handed cuts in the above video being "two-handed attacks" as bizarre in the extreme.

Feel free to link me to these other nito styles.

Feel free to do the research yourself. Including joining a legitimate classical school of Japanese swordsmanship, and get hands-on experience cutting and practicing with historical weapons and methods. That's what I did.

 

[variant]

You are making modern nomenclature distinction that did not exist in those times, as any glance through the material of the period shows. There's no point where you can say, "This is a tachi, and that is a katana." Some blades had very severe curves, others had shallower curves. All could be fitted for either a hanging sheath, with blade down for horseback, or for a sheath that fit into the obi, with blade up, for walking around unarmored. All were thus made, or intended to be made, so they could be wielded one-handed or two-handed.

Tachi and katana are not modern nomenclature, they are precisely what the Japanese called the swords and the styles for using the swords. They have a different balance, weight, and center of gravity. They were used differently and for different purposes. When we are discussing rules for a katana, we are talking about a katana, not a tachi nor a uchigatana.

There's nothing for me to notice, since I know exactly what he's doing, and do it myself. I'm not theorizing or armchair quarterbacking here. The katana can be used one-handed or two-handed, as needed. We practice both one-handed and two-handed cuts. Your statement that "With only one hand, you can't get the correct cutting arc nor the force needed to cut through anything" is historically, practically, and factually incorrect, and proven incorrect on a weekly basis. Any search for "tameshigiri" on youtube will turn up video after video of people cutting through makiwara with one handed cuts, from above and below. And I find your statement that the obvious one-handed cuts in the above video being "two-handed attacks" as bizarre in the extreme.

Obviously 'cut through anything' is an exaggeration. When you use a katana one-handed, the balance is off, which means you set yourself up for weak cuts that need to be over compensated. That also means you leave yourself open for an attack or to even have your sword knocked out of your hand by a skilled opponent. Not that there isn't some type of exception to the rule out there. Hell, a person can go around using a zweihander one-handed. That doesn't mean the sword wasn't meant to be used two-handed and is off balance if used one-handed.

Feel free to do the research yourself. Including joining a legitimate classical school of Japanese swordsmanship, and get hands-on experience cutting and practicing with historical weapons and methods. That's what I did.

Reading about the swords and their traditional use is much more informative than spending time joining some school of Japanese swordsmanship. I have an interesting in various types of swords, not just Japanese.

 

[Leowen]

Tachi and katana are not modern nomenclature, they are precisely what the Japanese called the swords and the styles for using the swords. They have a different balance, weight, and center of gravity. They were used differently and for different purposes. When we are discussing rules for a katana, we are talking about a katana, not a tachi nor a uchigatana.

Im inclined to believe he is totally right on this

http://www.homejapan.com/japanese-words-1

From what I've gathered, what we know as a katana, and what they know as a katana, is a different thing. When we hear "katana", we think of a sword with a particular set of common attributes/physical qualities. For them? Not so much. I can find more if you like, but that link also has its own external references that support its assertion which can easily be viewed/referenced/verified.

Obviously 'cut through anything' is an exaggeration. When you use a katana one-handed, the balance is off, which means you set yourself up for weak cuts that need to be over compensated. That also means you leave yourself open for an attack or to even have your sword knocked out of your hand by a skilled opponent. Not that there isn't some type of exception to the rule out there. Hell, a person can go around using a zweihander one-handed. That doesn't mean the sword wasn't meant to be used two-handed and is off balance if used one-handed.

The "balance is off"? May I ask in your opinion what kind of balance is ideal for one handed use? Though I must admit I cant help but find this notion just a little funny, as I can readily cite you numerous historical one handed swords, which have a point of balance as far or even further away from the guard than what was typical for a "katana". Good swords. Scimitars, kilijs, shamshirs, talwars (just to name a few), etc. Many of these weapons typically have points of balance anywhere from 6, up to 10 inches out away from the hand guard on average (With historical katanas averaging around 6, give or take an inch or 2). Which begs the question, were these one handed swords (Most of which are well known to be very good weapons) ill fit to be one handed swords (Maybe you know something the users and smiths of these weapons did not?)? I can also cite hema practitioners/teachers who contradict what your stating here (Ie this fellow has quite a few interesting things to say in regards to balance specifically: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YPnxBIMZ31I), So I must ask, what exactly are you basing this assertion on? Can you cite anything? Id love to see. And the concept of a "weak" blow is also a bit befuddling to me. Can I ask you to elaborate? Again, I can provide references demonstrating that the difference is quite questionable (ie this chap here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bqrvqKhIcL0 most of his channel is devoted to swords and how they were used historically, many of his other videos are worth a look. he also generally provides sources to support his claims and demonstrates where he obtained his information. hes also quick/glad to provide specifics if he glossed over something and you ask him personally), so again I must ask what youre basing this on? Though I guess it depends on your definition of weak.

Dont get the wrong idea, I readily admit/agree that a katana was primarily intended for 2 handed use. But asserting its "off balanced" for one handed use, or thatd itd be weak when used so, and etc? Apologies on my skepticism, but Id *love* to see what drew you to make these conclusions. Can you cite some sources to support your claims? I can not stress enough, Id genuinely love to be proven wrong. I care little about being right, and more about knowing the truth. Maybe the sources Ive provided are false, I hope you dont mind but Id love to see yours,


Thank you

As for the topic at hand; Personally, like others have stated, I'd just give it longsword stats. I feel giving it any clear advantage in such a way with 0 cost to the player kind of diminishes the value of the other weapons, for no real reason that I can see- Other than because someone might feel that it "should" be better (regardless of whether or not the logic used to support such a feeling is or isnt sounded in reality). I find the names in the weapon index to be arbitrary, using them merely as place holders of weapons "like" that, and quite often use the weapons stats, but describe them as something else entirely. It seems players Ive encountered like imagining/having the visual in their head more than they care about the stats.

 

[aramis erak]

As for the topic at hand; Personally, like others have stated, I'd just give it longsword stats. I feel giving it any clear advantage in such a way with 0 cost to the player kind of diminishes the value of the other weapons, for no real reason that I can see- Other than because someone might feel that it "should" be better (regardless of whether or not the logic used to support such a feeling is or isnt sounded in reality). I find the names in the weapon index to be arbitrary, using them merely as place holders of weapons "like" that, and quite often use the weapons stats, but describe them as something else entirely. It seems players Ive encountered like imagining/having the visual in their head more than they care about the stats.

It is, in technical terms, a "one-and-a-half" handed weapon. The grip is long enough for two, the balance and weight adequate for 1 handed use. The cutting power increase two-handed comes from the back-hand preventing a shallow slice.

Musashi's writings includes both 1-hand and two-handed use of the Katana (and the Bokken, the wooden sword, literally bō=staff ken=sword).

Katana 1-hand techniques work just fine with the shamsheer or scimitar; the two handed techniques work fine with the large, two-handed shamsheers, as well.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

D&D, and therefore D&D players, has a strange and limited view of what is standard practice with weapons. For example, it has always required specialty training to hit someone with your shield. Or to swing a spear or polearm around and hit with the other end.

In reality, these things weren't specialty training, they were standard basic training - in other words, if you couldn't do it, you didn't know how to use the tool in its most basic form. (Or fight in general, really.)

Which isn't to say that they were the most effective use of the tool. The standard use was certainly the most basic use. But if you were to rely on only the most basic use of a tool of war, you were likely dead.

Katanas were used mostly two-handed, but I would expect that every single person in history who knew how to use a katana properly trained to do cuts both two-handed and one-handed. (If only just-in-case).