Why bastard sword considered an exotic weapon?

[Theo R Cwithin]

Well, it comes down to this. A katana is about three feet long and does not require special training to use one-handed. You can call it an acorn squash for all I care.

I'm pretty sure acorn squash is a bludgeoning weapon.

 

[gamerprinter]

Well the 3e Scimitar is pretty pathetic due to the 1d6 damage base. During the Mongol Invasion, the Samurai weapons (katana et al) were demonstrated to be vastly superior to the Mongol scimitars in close combat - the Mongols ony really liked using them to hack down fleeing foes, whereas the katana is a duellist weapon.

So personally I'd suggest Mongol or Arab scimitar get d6/18-20x2, Katana d8/18-20x2 (1h) or d10/18-20x2 (2h).

This looks acceptable too.

I know its better to be 'simple' in weapon design for Pathfinder, the Core has the equipment list, as OA did, list weapons as glaive (naginata), instead of trying to create a whole new weapon list. I agree with that mentality, but katana does have some very unique properties unlike any other sword.

Would it be such a pain to add katana (as the only new weapon) and separate from a bastard sword, granting it as S'mon suggests d8/18-20 x2 when used one handed (nito ichi) and not give it the 'exotic weapon' status?

I want the most acceptable solution, if I must leave it as bastard sword, I will, but somehow with katana I'm still conflicted.

GP

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

Simplicity is best. You wouldn't want to go the d20 Modern route and have 15 weapons that are basically .30 caliber rifles with virtually identical damage, range, ammo capacity, price and everything else that counts.

 

[S'mon]

Would it be such a pain to add katana (as the only new weapon) and separate from a bastard sword, granting it as S'mon suggests d8/18-20 x2 when used one handed (nito ichi) and not give it the 'exotic weapon' status?

I want the most acceptable solution, if I must leave it as bastard sword, I will, but somehow with katana I'm still conflicted.

Of course IRL when the Portuguese arrived the Japanese regarded their weapons with awe, due to the much higher quality of the steel, such as Toledo steel! So in a Japan-centric game you'd probably want the d8, 18-20/x2 katanas to be martial weapons, but have 17th century Portuguese swords be Exotic weapons, doing maybe 1d10 18-20/x2.

Or you could just use regular longsword stats for the katana and have Portuguese swords be masterwork longswords.

 

[pawsplay]

My point is that D&D weapons cannot be considered historically accurate, therefore arguing that they got the katana "wrong" seems strange to me. A D&D-world katana could just have slightly different characteristics than a real-world one. I understand the term katana to refer to a Japanese curved backsword of a certain minimum blade length (2 feet) - so it seems unlikely that all katana would have the same game stats anyway. If you assume all D&D katana are a fair bit longer than 2 feet, you get into bastard sword territory.

My point is that if I need to stat a squad of Japanese warriors, I shouldn't find myself going, "Well, I guess I know what they're spending one of their feats on." Whatever characteristics a "D&D katana" might have, I'm going to say that it should be something Japanese warriors are going to be proficient in.

Katana would pretty much have mostly have the same game stats. A smaller weapon is probably a wakizashi. A larger, curved weapon (a bastard sword o "bastard scimitar", if you will) is a tachi and is associated with much earlier periods of Japanese history. A two-hander (daikatana, in modern terminology, what Musashi called a "very long sword") is indistinguishable in general characteristics from other anti-cavalry greatswords.

The idea of a katana as a "superior weapon" is just odd. To the Japanese, it held the same position and functionality as a sword or sabre did to an Englishman. It's not in any way extraordinary to wield as a sword. They are not especially heavy; on the contrary, they tend to be well under three feet long and almost universally under three pounds in weight. Apart from being a little bottom heavy, there's little about them that is challenging as a weapon. I don't consider it a historical issue; anyone could walk into a knife shop and examine something resembling a katana to get the feel for it. It's one thing for a D&D writer to know less about swords than a reenactivist; it's another to know less than any person who has ever held a katana of any quality for even a few moments.

 

[BryonD]

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?

I agree. It certainly seems reasonable from a fluff point of view that things like "kamas" are the monks special thing.

But even then, it makes more sense to have "superior" weapons and maybe also "exotic" weapons for those that are purely for flavor justification. The blurring of balance vs. flavor is problematic. And in the particular case of a kama (aka monk's sickle) a simple note that monks can use them in a flurry is more than adequate.


Regarding Bastard Swords, keep in mind it is a game term as much as anything. There is nothing wrong with a character referring to his longsword as a "bastard sword" or the reverse.

Further, with specific regard to katanas, in a quasi-western setting that also has connections to long held geekdom love affair with the TOTAL AWESOME of katanas, they can't be "just longswords", so they are bigger (which, of course is read as "better"....... )

 

[pawsplay]

Further, with specific regard to katanas, in a quasi-western setting that also has connections to long held geekdom love affair with the TOTAL AWESOME of katanas, they can't be "just longswords", so they are bigger (which, of course is read as "better"....... )

I just don't think that holds up in an era where you can easily Google or Youtube videos of guys doing katana forms. Hey, look, it's a guy deftly doing a one-handed move with a weapon that is obviously not huge in an ungainly way.

 

[pawsplay]

Bastard sword:
Oakeshott Type XVIII Sword Bastard Sword - MuseumReplicas.com

Hand-a-half sword (historical longsword):
15th Century Longsword– MuseumReplicas.com

Katana:
Bushido Katana - MuseumReplicas.com

Medieval sword:
Classic Medieval Sword – MuseumReplicas.com

Viking sword:
Stiklestad Viking Sword – MuseumReplicas.com

Note that the katana is the lightest of these five blades. Going back to the OP, the "bastard swords" tend to be ounces or a pound heavier and several inches longer than a more typical blade, with a wider hilt. That is why they are "exotic."

 

[InVinoVeritas]

Awesome, thanks for all the background, pawsplay.

I've decided for my campaign, then. The katana is a martial weapon doing 1d8, 19-20/x2 slashing damage. It will be a "longsword."

(I'm not the OP, though...)

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

My point is that if I need to stat a squad of Japanese warriors, I shouldn't find myself going, "Well, I guess I know what they're spending one of their feats on." Whatever characteristics a "D&D katana" might have, I'm going to say that it should be something Japanese warriors are going to be proficient in.

Why worry? Within the game rules using a katana with one hand effectively is quite difficult. You shouldn't assume that all samurai are proficient with using a (DnD) katana in one hand. Many samurai (in real life), while carrying katana, preferred to use spears.

Otherwise change the rules.