Why bastard sword considered an exotic weapon?

[gamerprinter]

Actually I've never understood why a bastard sword is considered an exotic weapon, especially since katana is considered a bastard sword (I've never understood that either.)

OK, sure bastard sword kind of sits between long sword and greatsword, but neither of those are exotic weapons either - why bastard? So you can use it one handed or two, what's exotic about that?

Sure not everyone is playing an oriental setting, but if you were and considering that katana is the most prevalent sword in a Japan-like setting. It doesn't make sense that every samurai has to take exotic weapon feat, when its unlikely they'd have access to any other kind of large sword (wakizashi being equivalent to a short sword.)

And why is wakizashi considered a short sword (a non exotic weapon), yet katana, which larger, but practically identical to a wakizashi, just longer is an exotic weapon?? While its blade is shorter than a katana, both sword's hilts are the same, you can even wield a wakizashi with two hands (who'd want to, but you could...)

In my samurai build, for Kaidan setting for PF, I gave 'exotic weapon' feat for katana as a bonus 1st level feat to accomodate this strange ruling. They shouldn't need to take that feat - just don't understand why.

GP

 

[Lhorgrim]

I always assumed it was a game mechanics decision.

For example,if you wanted the katana to do D8 then it wouldn't be an exotic weapon, but if you want it to do D10 then it would be.

Did that make sense? It seemed clearer in my mind than on the screen.

 

[gamerprinter]

Well I guess I should have read the description for bastard sword... I don't have a 3x PH in front of me, but I do have Pathfinder Core, its says, "A bastard sword is about 4 feet long making it too large to wield one-handed without special training."

Not trying to go into reality too much, but I have a 'family' katana at home (my Mom is Japanese), I'm only 5' 5" tall and wielding that katana one handed is no big deal. I've picked up authentic European long swords and found them heavier and more unwieldy.

Oh well, just a design decision I have to live I guess.

I'm a 3pp working on a feudal Japan setting, and this is a critical issue with me.


GP

 

[Stoat]

It's a design decision. In 3.X "exotic" can mean one of two things w/r/t weapons.

The first group of Exotic weapons are mechanically superior to equivalent martial weapons. The Bastard Sword falls into this category. You wield it one-handed like a longsword, but it does more damage than a longsword.

The second group of Exotic weapons are not mechanically superior, but are "exotic" under the common meaning of the word. Mostly, these are the monk weapons.

 

[Theo R Cwithin]

Just a little note: in 3.5e at least, the bastard sword is only considered an exotic weapon if used one-handed. With two hands, it's considered a martial weapon, more like a under-weight greatsword:

Sword, Bastard - A bastard sword is too large to use in one hand without special training; thus, it is an exotic weapon. A character can use a bastard sword two-handed as a martial weapon.

It does 1d10 damage as a two-handed weapon; however, with the feat it becomes a one-handed weapon that does 1d10 (and also becomes usable with TWF).

So I suppose the designers made it exotic to account for it's higher-than-typical one-handed weapon damage (which is usually d6 or d8, or maybe d4 with good crits).

But again: it's only considered an exotic weapon when it's used one-handed. As a two-handed weapon, it's just a run-of-the-mill sword that any combatant with martial weapon proficiency can use.

 

[pawsplay]

Also, the katana should be a longsword (in D&D terms), not a bastard sword. D&D is simply wrong in that regard.

 

[Dykstrav]

There are two parts to this.

Keep in mind, for starters, that weapon nomenclature is a hotly debated topic among historians and military buffs, not to mention LARPers, wargamers, and tabletop RPG enthusiasts. What one person might call a "bastard sword" would be a longsword to some folks, a broadsword to others, and yet still any variety of historical foreign appellations to those who feel that such distinctions are important. There simply is no consensus on the "true" designations for many weapons.

In 3E/3.5, "exotic weapon" doesn't mean "originating in a foreign culture." In the requires-feats-to-use sense, it's a weapon that you have to train extensively with to use properly. Bluntly, the game isn't served by having dozens upon dozens of minor variations of common weapons. It's a lot of extra detail (and time spent poring over mostly-the-same options) for minimal return on practical differences when the dice hit the table. I believe that a 3E supplement actually phrased things this way in a discussion about a weapons equivalency table... Maybe the Arms and Equipment Guide? I'll check on that some time.

In this sense, it's a nod towards game balance. As others have noted... It's essentially a longsword that deals more damage, sitting between the longsword and the greatsword on the weapons chart. You could use a bastard sword with one hand to do sword-and-board, but at a -2 to attacks, or you could use a two-handed sword and go up to 2d6 damage, or do sword-and-board with a longsword. It affords you more opportunities for interesting tactical options for your character.

If you check out historical depictions of bastard swords in use, a great many illustrations depict them wielded with both hands. If you check out historical depictions of the katana, many of them also are wielded with both hands. That seems like a close enough match for me to consider them equivalent for game terms.

To take it a step further... Look at a kendo/kenjutsu match some time. Those contestants keep both hands on the weapon most of the time. Sure, you don't have to use both hands to win a fight with it (although some judges may penalize you for technique), but most wielders are going to prefer to keep both hands on the weapon for maximum control and precision, at least when striking with it. In this sense, equating the katana with the bastard sword in D&D makes perfect sense to me. Sure, I can imagine that some warriors can effectively wield it one-handed, but not necessarily every member of the town militia you might encounter on the streets.

If you think that requiring a specialized feat to wield it one-handed is "unrealistic" or "penalizes" a character, also consider that the samurai wielded the katana as a mark of social status and prestige, not because of its effectiveness in battle (although it was certainly effective). Also consider that samurai didn't fight with shields, and until Miyamoto Musashi, rarely fought with two weapons. Even to this day, most traditional schools of kenjutsu/kendo teach the use of a single weapon with both hands. What else are they going to use their other hand for? In game terms, you might as well get 1.5 times your Strength bonus to damage as long as you have the hand free anyway, right?

 

[Umbran]

Actually I've never understood why a bastard sword is considered an exotic weapon, especially since katana is considered a bastard sword (I've never understood that either.)

"Exotic" in game terms is "mechanically better, so that it requires another feat to use".

 

[gamerprinter]

I got it. Thanks.

GP

 

[Barastrondo]

"Exotic" in game terms is "mechanically better, so that it requires another feat to use".

I imagine this very argument is why the next edition of the game instead used the wording of "simple, martial and superior" instead of "simple, modern and exotic."

It's a decision I agree with, if for no other reason that it really looked freakish on paper that a sickle was a "simple" weapon that most anyone could use and a kama was "exotic" and required training. Really?