Worldwide Europe - Are People Doing This?

[Mad Mac]

Uh, because animated mummies, sphinxes, genies and golems are fictional, and samurai are (or were) real?

Ah, so that's the loophole. Samurai Golems, here I come!

I agree that there isn't going to be a great deal of difference between a historical knight and a historical samurai. They're both just human, after all. But D&D has never been a historical recreation game. The classes are based more on folklore and mythology, in my mind. Really warped folklore perhaps (Hello, Druid!) but the kernal is there.

All the same, even legendary samurai just tend to be people who kick arse with swords. Ninja's and Monks get supernatural powers attributed to them, but Samurai are typically just really skilled fighters. This is why creating a good, unique, Samurai class is difficult. Better options for light fighter types would go a long way, too. Swashbuckling samurai heroes tend to be more of the unarmored, speedy, iajutsu types. (Heh, if you want to use anime in a reference, the Samurai mounted on a horse in full armor are just stupid grunts who are destined to die a quick, gruesome death)

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

Ah, so that's the loophole. Samurai Golems, here I come!

Ahhhhh!!!! Scary!

I agree that there isn't going to be a great deal of difference between a historical knight and a historical samurai. They're both just human, after all. But D&D has never been a historical recreation game.

On the other hand, it has rarely distinguished between different ethnic groups, except perhaps Native Americans and Oriental peoples. I don't see any need for this distinction. (And, speaking of historical accurary, if an Aristrocratic Warrior class gets literacy for free, it won't be all that accurate.)

Better options for light fighter types would go a long way, too. Swashbuckling samurai heroes tend to be more of the unarmored, speedy, iajutsu types.

That would all be needed. Do we need to wait until 4e? Considering TSR/WotC's track record in this area, I don't think even 4e would help

 

[genshou]

But it isn't better than a longsword.

The blade alone of the katana used by a samurai in the feudal era is around 65 cm, a little under a foot shorter than the entire length of a D&D longsword (real-world name: arming sword). The katana was intended for two-handed use, but some sword arts of Japan involve one-handed techniques. Its handle is like that of the bastard sword, with enough room to place both hands completely on the handle with enough space between them to generate extra cutting power. Thus, it is equivalent to a bastard sword; larger than a D&D longsword, smaller than a greatsword (or oh-dachi) and only usable one-handed with special training.

While the typical katana blade of feudal Japan measures at just over 2 shaku, it was also being used by shorter people than Europeans. A katana made for a typical D&D hero would need to be almost 3 shaku in blade length to be appropriately sized. That would make the mere blade of the weapon nearly as long as an entire D&D longsword. Also, the mass of a typical katana matches with that of a bastard sword rather than an arming sword.

Whether a bastard sword is "better" than a D&D longsword or not is dependent on what the character needs it for, but generally it's better to have the weapon that deals more damage. In that light, a katana is a better weapon than a D&D longsword.
[/threadjack, I hope ]

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

If it shatters more easily than a longsword, maybe it isn't actually better.

But never mind that. I have a (small) objection to katanas being treated as masterwork bastard swords. It's only a +1 bonus that gets subsumed by 4th-level, but it still wasn't necessary to make it any different. Weapons used by other ethnic groups just get treated as weapons of the "appropriate" type, reflavored to have different names.

 

[Twiggly the Gnome]

I do not use the (character class of) monk (with the Eastern fighting style) in a medieval European-based campaign setting since they do not fit, IMO.

If I run an analogically medieval european campaign I don't either, but then the default idea of polytheism as the dominant theological framework is also excised for being out of flavor. People that eschew the former, but readily embrace the latter, yet claim to be defenders of the verisimilitudinous purity of D&D's "medieval european" flavor amuse be to no end.

 

[FireLance]

I've never had problems with the idea of monks in my D&D, but that is most likely because I grew up in Singapore and was exposed to both European-style fantasy and Chinese martial arts literature in my formative years.

The idea of monks setting up martial arts schools in other lands also doesn't seem strange to me. In martial arts literature, skilled exponents retire and set up schools to teach martial arts in about the same way that retired adventurers in D&D set up taverns . In a (fairly standard?) D&D world where long-distance travel and the intermingling of cultures takes place to a greater extent than historical Europe, I can see at least a few such schools being set up in "European" lands.

Finally, the monk might not be European, but it certainly is D&D. From Balto to the Scarlet Brotherhood, monks have historically been part of the game. I believe it is in the PH for that reason.

 

[genshou]

I've never had problems with the idea of monks in my D&D, but that is most likely because I grew up in Singapore and was exposed to both European-style fantasy and Chinese martial arts literature in my formative years.

The idea of monks setting up martial arts schools in other lands also doesn't seem strange to me. In martial arts literature, skilled exponents retire and set up schools to teach martial arts in about the same way that retired adventurers in D&D set up taverns . In a (fairly standard?) D&D world where long-distance travel and the intermingling of cultures takes place to a greater extent than historical Europe, I can see at least a few such schools being set up in "European" lands.

Finally, the monk might not be European, but it certainly is D&D. From Balto to the Scarlet Brotherhood, monks have historically been part of the game. I believe it is in the PH for that reason.

Thanks for that post. I've been waiting for someone to say something like this.

 

[genshou]

If it shatters more easily than a longsword, maybe it isn't actually better.

But never mind that. I have a (small) objection to katanas being treated as masterwork bastard swords. It's only a +1 bonus that gets subsumed by 4th-level, but it still wasn't necessary to make it any different. Weapons used by other ethnic groups just get treated as weapons of the "appropriate" type, reflavored to have different names.

The automatic masterwork is due to the fact that when a sword was made in Japan, it was a big deal, and swordsmiths worked very hard to make sure everything about the weapon was perfect. They didn't have as good of metal to work with nor as many swords to make, so that just sort of caused the higher-quality smithing process to evolve out of necessity. The important thing to remember is that a katana is no better than a masterwork bastard sword, which is the kind the nobility would actually be using.

As to the katana shattering easily...
It was barely dented by a direct, head-on impact by a Colt .45 fired at a distance of 5 meters.
Better yet, want to see a katana succesfully withstand six direct hits from an M2 machine gun with .50 BMG AP rounds? Too bad the seventh bullet broke it; that was a good sword.

How well do you think a European sword would fare in those tests?

 

[Rodrigo Istalindir]

This is exactly why I stopped allowing katanas, etc. years ago. It wasn't a culture thing, or really even a game-world thing. Ir was a player thing.

 

[genshou]

All right, I'm starting to understand that with monks, a big part of it is that it's the only class in the PH with overtly non-Euro-centric flavour. Sort of the black sheep of the core classes, I guess.

I still don't get why you can't just allow a katana as a more-expensive masterwork bastard sword.