Trip? Disarm? Sunder? Gone forever?

[Blackeagle]

I had heard that early asian forms of sword combat didn't make use of parrying because the weapons of the day were made so badly that they would become badly damaged or destroyed.

It wasn't that they were made badly, they were high quality weapons. The problem was they were made very hard. The hard blade makes it possible to make them extremely sharp and meant they would keep that edge well even after extended use, but also made them very brittle. This meant when you used them to parry another blade, rather than slice through nice soft flesh, they could crack or shatter. A sword made out of softer, more flexible material would be a better parrying weapon, but it would never have the cutting ability of a harder blade.

As the art of swordsmithing advanced, smiths started using techniques like pattern welding (using hard steel of the cutting edge and softer, more flexible steel for the sides and back) and differential tempering (cool the cutting edge rapidly to increase hardness and cool the back slowly to maximize strength and flexibility). These allowed the Katana to have both strength and flexibility a very hard, sharp edge (these techniques also give the blade of the katana it's characteristic watery look). This is why the proper way to parry with a katana is to use the side or back rather than the blade. Using the blade probably won't sunder the sword, but it can chip a notch in the cutting surface.

 

[Grabuto138]

Spoiler Warning for those who did not happen to benefit from the mistakes of certain online vendors…

From a cursory look:

Spinning Sweep (F-at will), Serpent Dance Strike (F-Daily), Vorpral Tornado (F-Encounter), Topple Over (R-Encounter) are essentially trip.
Exorcism of Steal (F-Enounter) is disarm

There are also a variety of ways to Daze, Stun, Immobilize, Blind, Slow, Weaken, reduce AC and saves, reduce the ability to hit, and move your opponent all over the place against their will.

Seems a fair trade off to me.

I am not at the point that I can fully intellectualize this, but I think the idea of a house rule to allow trips and sunders with a basic attack won’t work with the fundamental framework, or philosophy, of the game. The basic attack is suboptimal. Players will, at all times, be using an ability unless otherwise prevented. To introduce the ability to sunder, disarm and trip will essentially be creating three at-will powers that all classes have access to. It will also step on the fighter and rogue, at least. (I haven’t read through all the classes yet).

Personally, I would not allow anyone to trip or disarm as a matter of course. In specific circumstances that are cinematic or interesting (the wizard snatches the dagger from the possessed princess or trips the guard before he sounds the alarm) I would make it an opposed ability check with appropriate skill and circumstance modifiers to make it as easy or difficult as it needs to be to make a good story.

 

[Blackeagle]

I would also point out, that at the point in time you are talking about for making Katana, we're pretty close to the 19th century.

Actually the transition from tachi to katana took place roughly around the Azuchi-Momoyama Period (1568 to 1600).

 

[Blackeagle]

Improved iron over time, but it wasn't until the Bessemer Process in the late 19th century that you get true steel.

That's not really true. Steel has been around for about as long as iron, going back to more than 1000BC. Problem is it was just difficult to make and only available in relatively small quantities. It could be used only for relatively small objects, like swords and armor. The Bessemer process was a breakthrough in mass production. Bessemer made steel cheap enough to be used as a structural material in buildings or for building warships.

 

[VannATLC]

What Blackeagle said, with the caveat that getting real steal was a fluke of ritual, and once those rituals were discovered, they were kept. There was little real science to the metalurgy.

 

[boolean]

I have no idea what you're talking about...

Katanae::Katana
Leprechaun::Irish Midget

 

[ryryguy]

I am not at the point that I can fully intellectualize this, but I think the idea of a house rule to allow trips and sunders with a basic attack won’t work with the fundamental framework, or philosophy, of the game. The basic attack is suboptimal. Players will, at all times, be using an ability unless otherwise prevented. To introduce the ability to sunder, disarm and trip will essentially be creating three at-will powers that all classes have access to. It will also step on the fighter and rogue, at least. (I haven’t read through all the classes yet).

Personally, I would not allow anyone to trip or disarm as a matter of course. In specific circumstances that are cinematic or interesting (the wizard snatches the dagger from the possessed princess or trips the guard before he sounds the alarm) I would make it an opposed ability check with appropriate skill and circumstance modifiers to make it as easy or difficult as it needs to be to make a good story.

I'm reminded of the old point about throwing sand in the opponent's eyes. It's a fun dramatic trick at the right point in a story, but if it was always effective, warriors would carry around bags of sand rather than swords.

So I'd probably play trip/disarm as mentioned above: great to try in specific situations but don't even bother in general combat.

(My players are not so obsessed with exploiting inefficiencies that they'd complain "if I could take the dagger from the possessed princess why not the greatclub from the ogre?" If I had such players I guess I'd rule it could only be tried once per encounter or some such.)

 

[Jack Colby]

What are you going to answer to your players if they want to trip, disarm their opponents?

What if they try to sunder an opponent's weapon?

"The rules don't allow this": period?

As the DM I guess I'd make up a mechanic on the spot and let them try it. Novel idea, huh?

 

[saric]

I'm reminded of the old point about throwing sand in the opponent's eyes. It's a fun dramatic trick at the right point in a story, but if it was always effective, warriors would carry around bags of sand rather than swords.

sounds like a a creative way of describing "feinting in combat" to me. I always imagined feinting like kicking sand in an opponents eyes, throwing hot wax down metal armor, spitting, kicking in a vulnerable spot before striking, confusing an opponent with your cloak, etc.

The fact that you can only do this maneuver 1/round also bothers me.

 

[ryryguy]

sounds like a a creative way of describing "feinting in combat" to me. I always imagined feinting like kicking sand in an opponents eyes, throwing hot wax down metal armor, spitting, kicking in a vulnerable spot before striking, confusing an opponent with your cloak, etc.

Sure, you could consider it feinting if you want, though I think most people imagine the stereotypical "sand in the eyes" move would cause the blind condition.

But even if it's feinting the point still holds. Some characters might have feinting as part of their schtick as expressed in powers and maybe feats. But is everybody on the battlefield going to be constantly tossing sand and waving their cloaks in a never ending dance of... feinting? Feinting probably doesn't need to be a standard maneuver and if it is, it should be a relatively weak and limited one.