Post/Author/DateTime	Post
jagggar 08-16-06, 12:22 AM	The katana is repeatedly refered to as a masterwork bastard sword, not only in the DMG, but also in Oriental Adventures. The only difference between a MW bastard sword and a katana is 65gp. My best guess is "bastard sword (katana)" should translate to "A katana if oriental flavor is acceptable, otherwise a bastard sword" or something similar. Should a character with EWP(bastard sword) also be able to weild a katana one-handed without penalty? Vice versa?
CryoSilver 08-16-06, 12:26 AM	Yes and yes.
pres_man 08-16-06, 12:26 AM	Should a character with EWP(bastards sword) also be able to weild a katana one-handed without penalty? Vice versa? No. They are different weapons. Stat wise they are identical, but they are different weapons.
CryoSilver 08-16-06, 12:33 AM	No. They are different weapons. Stat wise they are identical, but they are different weapons. Respectfully, I disagree. The fourth footnore of table 5-3 in the DMG says "Except as indicated, treat a katana as a masterwork bastard sword." Also, "While functionally a bastard sword..." Functionally means mechanically to me, in this context. Therefore, I would allow the feats and swords to be interchangeable.
Unholy_Sacrament 08-16-06, 12:37 AM	Respectfully, I disagree. The fourth footnore of table 5-3 in the DMG says "Except as indicated, treat a katana as a masterwork bastard sword." Also, "While functionally a bastard sword..." Functionally means mechanically to me, in this context. Therefore, I would allow the feats and swords to be interchangeable. I have to agree with this one. Though a couple books list the katana as something different, the DM's guide and even oriental adventures both list it as simply a bastard sword. Huzzah, +1, that shouldn't really require it to be two handed as no other bonus beyond strength and one-half is thrown in.
Vaalingrade Ashland 08-16-06, 12:48 AM	Even if I used the MW bastardsword thing, they're way too different for feats to overlap IMO. I'd be like having a falchion and a greatsword overlap.
CryoSilver 08-16-06, 12:51 AM	Except that greatswords don't have text reading "This is functionally a falchion."
Salla 08-16-06, 12:52 AM	Mathematically, if A=B and B=C, then A=C. A=Masterwork Bastard Sword. B=Masterwork Bastard Sword (Katana) C=Katana A Masterwork Bastard sword is a Masterwork Bastard Sword (Katana) is a Katana. Same ****, different day. Makes no more difference than calling your Short Sword a Gladius or your Greatsword a Zweihander.
CryoSilver 08-16-06, 12:56 AM	Maybe its the SHA-PING! of the katana that makes all the difference; you need to invest a whole feat to master the subtle and mysterious art of the SHA-PING!
Salla 08-16-06, 12:59 AM	Maybe its the SHA-PING! of the katana that makes all the difference; you need to invest a whole feat to master the subtle and mysterious art of the SHA-PING! Well, if you want to SHA-PING! one-handed (did that sound dirty to anybody else?), then yes, you need the Exotic Weapon Proficiency.
Unholy_Sacrament 08-16-06, 12:59 AM	Maybe its the SHA-PING! of the katana that makes all the difference; you need to invest a whole feat to master the subtle and mysterious art of the SHA-PING! Generally speaking yes, but then the same could be said for the broadblade shortsword. However a broadblade shortsword confers some pretty spiffy bonuses.
Vaalingrade Ashland 08-16-06, 01:03 AM	Maybe its the SHA-PING! of the katana that makes all the difference; you need to invest a whole feat to master the subtle and mysterious art of the SHA-PING! Okay, lets not make this another 'lol u r a fanboi' thread. It really is a very different weapon from a bastard sword. Its just that in DnD, while completely ignoring the curved weapons rules, a hand and a half sword is identical in terms of damage, crit range and crit multiplier.
Salla 08-16-06, 01:03 AM	Generally speaking yes, but then the same could be said for the broadblade shortsword. However a broadblade shortsword confers some pretty spiffy bonuses. Exactly; the stats are different in that case. In the Katana/MW Bastard Sword argument, they are identical and thus, functionally, the same weapon.
CryoSilver 08-16-06, 01:11 AM	Okay, lets not make this another 'lol u r a fanboi' thread. It really is a very different weapon from a bastard sword. Its just that in DnD, while completely ignoring the curved weapons rules, a hand and a half sword is identical in terms of damage, crit range and crit multiplier. No, it's that a katana IS a bastard sword in the given DMG stats. "While this is functionally a bastard sword..." I won't repost the footnotes and such, but see above.
Unholy_Sacrament 08-16-06, 01:14 AM	Exactly; the stats are different in that case. In the Katana/MW Bastard Sword argument, they are identical and thus, functionally, the same weapon. But.... that's what I said, I just made it sound complicated. :weep: In reality a bastard sword and katana are pretty much the same thing except that a katana is curved and is swung slightly different as such, and that only one edge of the katana is sharpened. A few techniques thrown in and it may be used very differently however they are virtually the same sword. The whole, a katana has a general junosequa (sp?) to it, is what makes it require the exotic weapons proffieciency simply to weild with one hand...Wait, isn't that the same as the standard bastard sword? Hypothetical question. yes. A DM may throw in a couple cool bonuses for such a weapon, but really, they're the same. Same with the whole wakizashi thingamajig.
CryoSilver 08-16-06, 01:19 AM	junosequa (sp?) It's French, so something more like "je ne sais qua," or "I do know what"
Fiddlypoppin 08-16-06, 02:20 AM	It's French, so something more like "je ne sais qua," or "I do know what" "Je ne sais quoi" is the correct spelling. And you're right (I'm assuming that's a typo :P ); it means "I don't know what."
CryoSilver 08-16-06, 02:22 AM	That's what I get for 2 years of inner-city French class, and yes, you're right
__DnD4Life__ 08-16-06, 02:24 AM	it doesnt matter what you call it, it is the same thing. If you call it a No-dashi, but use the bastard sword stats, EWP(No-Dashi) and EWP(Bastard Sword) would sunction the same. Same prereq's, same effect, different name.
Fiddlypoppin 08-16-06, 02:36 AM	I think the fundamental point here is that the rules specifically state that one functions as the other, which is why the feats would overlap. If you want to make a house rule in your game that a katana is NOT, in fact, just a variation on a bastard sword and requires a separate feat to wield (which raises the question as to why you're including BOTH in your game, anyway--but that's a different matter), then that's fine. You're perfectly free to do so. However, as per the rules written in the DMG, they are functionally the same. As an aside, any attempt to use real-world examples to validate any particular rules set in D&D is all but wasted breath. D&D rules violate enough laws of physics that it would make Steven Hawking weep himself to sleep every night if he knew about it.[/hyperbole]
Eikre 08-16-06, 02:58 AM	In reality a bastard sword and katana are pretty much the same thing except that a katana is curved and is swung slightly different as such, and that only one edge of the katana is sharpened. A few techniques thrown in and it may be used very differently however they are virtually the same sword. Oh, no. I mean, I know I'd sound like an ******* if I just told you you were wrong and moved off, but I don't want to just leave this comment hanging unchallenged. In reality, a so-called bastard sword is to a katana as apples are to oranges, in all aspects of their contruction, cutting ability, footwork, defence, and purpose. ...I don't want to write an essay. I doubt I even have the capacity. Hell, I'll just hand you off to ARMA. Here's a link, I seem to recall some good points: http://www.thearma.org/essays/knightvs.htm
Moon-Lancer 08-16-06, 03:20 AM	hell, the game could say exotic weapon 1d10 slashing 19-20/x2 can be wielded one handed with a feat. This 1d10 weapon could be any number of imagined weapons. It really doesent matter.
LordPendragon 08-16-06, 03:40 AM	I was always under the impression it was "Je ne sais pas", since sais is the verb "to know", and ne is always followed by pas in some way. There certainly is a lot of confusion about this whole katana/bastard sword thing. Personally, I think it should have been that a katana was its own weapon, a 1-handed exotic melee dealing 1D8 18-20/x2 (just like other curved blades); it could be wielded 2-handed as a martial weapon. Evidently, WotC doesn't like my wisdom, though.
AkaKageWarrior 08-16-06, 05:46 AM	:D another katana thread, hooray! idea: don'tlet them be co-existant in your D&D multiverse! :cool: AKW
starfire311 08-16-06, 08:54 AM	I was always under the impression it was "Je ne sais pas", since sais is the verb "to know", and ne is always followed by pas in some way. je ne sais pas = I don't know je ne sais quoi = I don't know what as for the whole EWP katana vs EWP bastard sword thing, I would be upset if I took EWP katana, and all I ever found were master worked bastard swords... if EWP katana didn't work on masterworked bastard swords.
DM_Greatness 08-16-06, 09:04 AM	Hey, ready for some truth? EWP: Bastard sword is kinda of a weak feat. IMO, in 4th edition that should just call the feat "Hand and a half", which will allow you use use all the 1 1/2 weapons in one hand (Bastard Sword, Katana, Dwarvish Axe, A big honking Mace) etc. The weapon you are using isn't exotic in this case, but the way you are able to weild it, is.
jaelis 08-16-06, 09:35 AM	I'm pretty sure the samurai class in Complete Warrior gives EWP (bastard sword) as a bonus feat, and specifically indicates that the feat allows you to wield a katana.
jagggar 08-16-06, 10:14 AM	:D another katana thread, hooray!On the bright side, I'm asking about rules that exist, not presenting a 4d12 12-20/x4 katana. EWP: Bastard sword is kinda of a weak feat. IMO, in 4th edition that should just call the feat "Hand and a half", which will allow you use use all the 1 1/2 weapons in one hand (Bastard Sword, Katana, Dwarvish Axe, A big honking Mace) etc.Hmm, I like that idea. Might houserule it in sometime. The reason I asked. . . I'm planning on playing a warblade focusing on Diamond Mind and Iron Heart disciplines and while I haven't decided if I want to SHA-PING! one-handed yet (you're right, it does sound dirty), but I would like to SHA-PING! if the DM allows it. I do need to check to see if it will make any difference if I SHA-PING! or not in case DM says katana=/=bastard sword Should my SHA-PING!-ing tendencies require a scapegoat, blame Escaflowne.
Vaalingrade Ashland 08-16-06, 11:10 AM	Should my SHA-PING!-ing tendencies require a scapegoat, blame Escaflowne. ^ The irony here being that there were no katana in Escaflowne. Nothing but great/bastard swords and that thin little punk sword Allen uses.
Salty_Boy 08-16-06, 11:24 AM	^ The irony here being that there were no katana in Escaflowne. Nothing but great/bastard swords and that thin little punk sword Allen uses. Seriously? I thought Vaan had a Scimitar or something....
Vaalingrade Ashland 08-16-06, 11:31 AM	Seriously? I thought Vaan had a Scimitar or something.... He had like a pirate cutlass in the movie. But Vision, it was just a long/possibly bastard sword.
jagggar 08-16-06, 12:15 PM	Does a cutlass need a hand guard? Should we try to resurrect the Escaflowne thread down in d20 Anime with our weapon identification discussion? I'm not a weapons expert, but the concept drawings for the movie sure make some of the swords look like katana. I can't find what I'm talking about on google image search. Should see about getting a screen capture and uploading them? Is this how all katana threads get off topic? Well, when it's not the original topic, anyway.
Tony Vargas 08-16-06, 01:02 PM	Yes, if you use a weapon equivalancy, proficiency with any equivalent weapon equals equivalency with all. Thus if Katana = Bastard Sword, then training with a katana lets you use a bastard sword with equal skill, and vice-versa. If broadsword = longsword = arming sword, then training with any one lets you use all three. Not only are there no precidents for weapon equivalents requiring sepparate proficiency, there's even a precedent for allowing very similar weapons to use the same feats: specifically the longbow & long composite bow. (BTW, it's not SHA-PING, it's CHAM-BARRA) ;)
savant_warlord13 08-16-06, 01:23 PM	Should a character with EWP(bastard sword) also be able to weild a katana one-handed without penalty? Vice versa? Yes, but you cannot take EWP (katana) by RAW
bitnine 08-16-06, 01:44 PM	Let's pretend that I just posted a picture of a sword - it's classified in D&D as a 'longsword'. And let's also pretend that I posted a picture of another sword. It looks quite different and is traditionally handled differently, with a different balance, sword accutrements and material composition. And it's also classified in D&D as a 'longsword'. No one is saying that the two are the same (particularly since this is an abstracted example that asserts the opposite), just that the two fall into the same category that D&D uses to group weapons. It's abstracted functional equivelency. Given the current rules, the differences in use wouldn't be represented by differing proficiency requirements. Even if something's a discrete type of weapon in game (like that first abstract 'longsword' example, which I happen to simply adore), it may be nondistict as far as weapon categorization. So I couldn't take Weapon Focus ([abstract longsword instance 1]) even if I really wanted to.
spyderfreek 08-16-06, 02:32 PM	think of it this way... a square is a rectangle, but a rectangle is not a square. all properties that apply to a rectangle apply to a square, but not vice versa. therefore since all properties that apply to a bastard sword apply to a katana... a katana is a bastard sword, but not vice versa. everything can be explained with math....
LordPendragon 08-16-06, 03:11 PM	think of it this way... a square is a rectangle, but a rectangle is not a square. all properties that apply to a rectangle apply to a square, but not vice versa. therefore since all properties that apply to a bastard sword apply to a katana... a katana is a bastard sword, but not vice versa. everything can be explained with math....But by that logic, EWP (Katana) wouldn't apply to the bastard sword. Which is a non-issue, really, since there is no EWP (Katana) feat. I just thought I should point out that your math is [very slightly] faulty; not faulty in and of itself, but in its application to the current situation. What you probably should have said was... 1 The set BS contains all swords that in D&D are considered bastard swords. 2 The classical bastard sword (C) is an element of BS (C E BS) 3 The katana (K) is also an element of BS (K E BS) 4 A katana is not a classical bastard sword (K /= C) 5 It follows that, even though K /= C, both K and C are elements of BS, and therefore both "bastard swords" 6 In conclusion, a feat such as Weapon Focus (Classical Bastard Sword) would not apply to katana; but Weapon Focus (Bastard Sword) will apply to both katana and classical bastard swords.
spyderfreek 08-16-06, 05:09 PM	But by that logic, EWP (Katana) wouldn't apply to the bastard sword. Which is a non-issue, really, since there is no EWP (Katana) feat. I just thought I should point out that your math is [very slightly] faulty; not faulty in and of itself, but in its application to the current situation. What you probably should have said was... 1 The set BS contains all swords that in D&D are considered bastard swords. 2 The classical bastard sword (C) is an element of BS (C E BS) 3 The katana (K) is also an element of BS (K E BS) 4 A katana is not a classical bastard sword (K /= C) 5 It follows that, even though K /= C, both K and C are elements of BS, and therefore both "bastard swords" 6 In conclusion, a feat such as Weapon Focus (Classical Bastard Sword) would not apply to katana; but Weapon Focus (Bastard Sword) will apply to both katana and classical bastard swords. Thank you for correcting my miscalculation. :) and thanx for the chuckle
pres_man 08-16-06, 05:35 PM	Yes, but you cannot take EWP (katana) by RAW Huh? Where is this stated?
bitnine 08-16-06, 05:55 PM	Huh? Where is this stated?Weapon Focus requires you to select a weapon type. I could not, for example, take Weapon Focus ([Hypothetical longsword subtype]). Given the direct equivelency stated, I also couldn't take Weapon Focus(Masterwork Longsword), since 'Masterwork Longsword' isn't a weapon type.
Subedei 08-16-06, 06:24 PM	The katana (K) is also an element of BS Good point, Pen.
jagggar 08-16-06, 06:32 PM	Well, unless they changed the wording in 3.5, the DMG refers to EWP (katana) as well as the earlier stated Orienatal Adventures. OA also refers to "Weapon Focus (katana)."
Shadowmind64 08-16-06, 06:43 PM	IMO, since a bastard sword and a katana have EXACTLY the same statistics ('cept the masterwork thing) the only reason someone would want the EWP (bastard sword) feat to apply to both is for flavor. pure and simple, so if a DM were to say "no you have to take another feat to use that weapon that has the same stats, because it has a different name." they are an ass.
InsanePsychoRabbit 08-16-06, 07:05 PM	This is slightly off topic but it relates to a similar subject. A while back in my school campaign, I convinced my DM that since the claymore (from some book solely about weapons, I don't know the title) he had given me was physically and functionally identical to a greatsword, that I could apply my Weapon Focus, Weapon Specialization, and Improved Critical feats to it. That was very important to me, since I was playing Cloud Strife at the time.
StevenO 08-16-06, 08:38 PM	By the rules anything (Bastard Sword) is interchangable with (Katana). If anyone has actually read this entire thread to this point I hope they see why the WizOs had put a ban on katana threads.
Vahenir 08-16-06, 09:25 PM	I have to respectfully disagree with Vaal. While I agree with him in principle, I don't agree with him insofar as the actual mechanics, as written, function. There is no 'EWP: Katana." Period. The katana consistently is said to function as a bastard sword -- it requires proficiency in the bastard sword. And once you have proficiency in the bastard sword -- you have it. You don't need to take MWP Longsword for every -kind- of longsword you want to use, and this applies equally to the katana. The katana just happens to be listed individually in the DMG for those who would otherwise say "hey, what about the katana?!" Simple as that, in my opinion. But one should handle it in their games however they best see fit. Since I don't use the bastard sword = katana rule, it's a non-issue in my games.
Balseraph 08-16-06, 09:50 PM	If I recall correctly, historically the katana started off as many mounted soldiers' weapons did; curved and one-handed.* It wasn't until the advent of heavier armor and a focus on infantry warfare that it became a longer, heavier, slightly straighter blade with an elongated hilt to fit another hand. Basically I agree that katanas should be treated exactly as a bastard sword in all respects, including weapon feats. While they are different to bastard swords, the balance and style is not dissimilar. (Grr... I hate that. My own darned double negative too. The balance and style are similar.) In fact, I would probably say that for an earlier version of the weapon, a katana could be treated as a masterwork saber for all practical and functional purposes. *I read a book about swords and the history of weaponsmithing once, though I admit freely it was a while ago. I'm fairly sure I'm remembering accurately.
Vahenir 08-17-06, 12:15 AM	You're treading dangerously close to inciting yet another real-world katana debate. I don't think we need another one so soon. So let's not worry about what the katana was or was not. In the game it's a masterwork bastard sword, and all that's being discussed here is how that affects EWP: Bastard sword and characters with said feat. But just to clarify something: a katana could be treated as a masterwork saber I think you meant scimitar. Core D&D has no 'saber.'
Vaalingrade Ashland 08-17-06, 12:27 AM	I think you meant scimitar. Core D&D has no 'saber.' So if you have a saber do you apply your scimitar feats to it? Actually, those two would be pretty justifiable actually. Problem is, there's no line in DnD between 'is used just like' and 'has the same stats as'. I personally would still not allow feat equivalancy unless the weapon was 'used just like' because the feats are supposed to represent technique. You don't use a katana like a bastard sword just like you don't use a stilletto like a normal dagger. Oy... daggers are a hell of a can of worms. They supposedly represent probably thirty unique weapons.
Vahenir 08-17-06, 02:18 AM	So if you have a saber do you apply your scimitar feats to it? Actually, those two would be pretty justifiable actually. Yes, I do. (Just answering for the sake of it - as you already said it justifiable, I imagine it was more rhetorical at that point.) Problem is, there's no line in DnD between 'is used just like' and 'has the same stats as'. I agree that it's a problem. Truly. I personally would still not allow feat equivalancy unless the weapon was 'used just like' because the feats are supposed to represent technique. You don't use a katana like a bastard sword just like you don't use a stilletto like a normal dagger. And I wouldn't allow feat equivalency either. But I'm still under the belief that those are house-rules. The RAW doesn't seem to support the katana and bastard sword as requiring different feats to use. I'm not saying I agree, just that that seems to be how the rules are written and intended. But this is from people who believe a flail with two sides is a good idea. Not saying they're smart, or defending their rules - just saying that appears to be the rule. Oy... daggers are a hell of a can of worms. They supposedly represent probably thirty unique weapons. Or more. Same for many of the items listed. Without even thinking about it I could name at least 70 or 80 variations of single-hand cutting or cut-and-thrust sword. Many of them aren't used in the same exact way (you would not utilize any kind of thrusting technique with a Type X, but you certainly would with an XVI, for instance). But when it comes down to it - it's probably -better- that you don't need separate proficiencies. Because that opens an entirely new can of worms; What qualifies as enough of a difference to warrant that? Will saber-wielders need something other than MWP-Scimitar? Do I need a different proficiency for every kind of longsword? Also, there's the consideration that stats are just stats. Proficiency, first and foremost, allows you to use a particular set of stats a certain way. I could use a longsword in D&D, but describe it as a two-hander that my character is just so awesome he can use one-handed. All that matters is that I use the stats and associated rules exactly as written -- if so, I'm not doing any harm. But do I need MWP longsword, or greatsword? You see? It's a jumbled mess, and sometimes the best way to deal with it is to just ignore it and move on. (This coming from the guy with a list of houserules and changes almost as long as the PH.)
AkaKageWarrior 08-17-06, 02:33 AM	EWP: Bastard sword is kinda of a weak feat. IMO, in 4th edition that should just call the feat "Hand and a half", which will allow you use use all the 1 1/2 weapons in one hand (Bastard Sword, Katana, Dwarvish Axe, A big honking Mace) etc. The weapon you are using isn't exotic in this case, but the way you are able to weild it, is. You proove your name to be true. a very good idea. AKW
Balseraph 08-17-06, 08:01 AM	You're treading dangerously close to inciting yet another real-world katana debate. I don't think we need another one so soon. So let's not worry about what the katana was or was not. In the game it's a masterwork bastard sword, and all that's being discussed here is how that affects EWP: Bastard sword and characters with said feat. But just to clarify something: I think you meant scimitar. Core D&D has no 'saber.' I wasn't aware there was ever any real-world katana debate and it certainly wasn't my intention to start one (again?). I was supporting the rules with an example of why I feel they make sense. The rules say it's a masterwork bastard sword. I agree with the rules. As for saber... I should know that D&D doesn't have one, but apparently I forgot. Actually, in that case, I think a masterwork longsword is more appropriate than a scimitar. Since a bastard sword is an exotic longsword, then it makes sense that a one-handed only katana should be a masterwork longsword in terms of game mechanics. With regards to dagger/stilletto? As far as the rules are concerned; you do use them exactly the same way. The pointy end goes in the other man. (Sorry, I couldn't help myself with that quote) Anything else is flavor text only as far as I'm concerned. Any small stabbing implement that is remotely dagger-like that doesn't have any special rules associated with it gets treated as a dagger. If it's better/worse enough to be considered to have a mechanical difference make it masterwork or improvised perhaps. As far as basic technique is concerned, once again, you do use a katana and a bastard sword in the same way. You hold the sword in one or both hands and use cut-and-thrust swordplay in a fashion that is natural. The differences in how they are traditionally used are cultural, but functionally the blades serve identical purposes. (Steering away from real-world stuff here, now that I know there has been trouble with this in past)
Eikre 08-18-06, 07:35 PM	As for saber... I should know that D&D doesn't have one, but apparently I forgot. Actually, in that case, I think a masterwork longsword is more appropriate than a scimitar. Since a bastard sword is an exotic longsword, then it makes sense that a one-handed only katana should be a masterwork longsword in terms of game mechanics. The aspect of game mechanics has already screwed itself. The Player's Handbook outlines a very obvious trend for basic weapons and how they function: There are curved swords, straight swords, axes, and picks. Each has a different critical range assigned to it (18-20/x2, 19-20/x2, x3 and x4, respectively), and they lay the basis for any weapons to come after them. The problem with assigning the Katana as a weapon that can be used one-handed with a feat is that if you put it in its niche, the one of the Curved Sword, it becomes a mechanically weak specimen. Following the trend, it would be a 18-20/x2 weapon that deals 1d8. Compare this to the longsword: If you spend your feat on Improved Critical instead of the proficiency, you have a weapon that has a better critical range (17-20/x2) and deals the same damage. As a bonus, they're much, <i>much</i> more common. So what did Wizards do? Well, two things. First, the 18-20/x2 critical category also encompasses the Rapier. So, filling the niche of one-handed-with-feat, we get a really big rapier. As well as doing the same damage and critical as our aforementioned theoretical Katana, it also has Weapon Finesse compatibility, and feats you spent trying to get better with a rapier/longsword carry over. The second thing they did was to cop-out with the Katana. Instead of assigning it to a critical category that makes sense when taking both the curved-weapon trend and reality into account, they simply gave it to another (already tested) category. That of the Bastard Sword. Actually, this cop-out is what starts 99.9% of Katana debates on this forum. The vernacular is "Karma". Now, to bring this back to actually being a point: A Sabre cannot be categorized based on what appears to be a larger version of itself, when the larger version has been categorized in such a way that breaks reality so as to be mechanically sound. That said, a sabre isn't a one handed katana. <i>At all.</i> I would personally make it a weapon that functions either identically to the scimitar or to a rapier that deals slashing damage. With regards to dagger/stilletto? As far as the rules are concerned; you do use them exactly the same way. The pointy end goes in the other man. (Sorry, I couldn't help myself with that quote) Anything else is flavor text only as far as I'm concerned. Any small stabbing implement that is remotely dagger-like that doesn't have any special rules associated with it gets treated as a dagger. If it's better/worse enough to be considered to have a mechanical difference make it masterwork or improvised perhaps. As I, and Wizards, would agree. Everything comes back around to being mechanically sound. The point is that we're following Reality into a dark ally, knocking it over the back of the head with numbers, and running off after stealing a bunch of shiny things that look cool when you swing them around. This is something that everyone likes to keep to a minimum. As far as basic technique is concerned, once again, you do use a katana and a bastard sword in the same way. You hold the sword in one or both hands and use cut-and-thrust swordplay in a fashion that is natural. The differences in how they are traditionally used are cultural, but functionally the blades serve identical purposes. (Steering away from real-world stuff here, now that I know there has been trouble with this in past) There are three things wrong here: First, by bring up the topic of reality, you have only caused the topic to be steered back towards it. Second, your assertion is false. The way a weapon is used is not a matter of culture. It is a matter of adopting a weapon, using it for centuries, honing it, making it better, branching off into different designs, having wars, having peace, making legendary versions, birthing legendary soldiers, and otherwise figuring out: What is the best way to kill people with this thing?. It's what nearly every culture on earth has been doing since they discovered how to kill each other, and if you think for a moment that the reason those cultures have forged so many different implements to kill each other is just for show, then you are mistaken. A weapon is a tool, and the differences among them make their uses and techniques dissimilar, as well. If you attempt to use a so-called Zweihander with nothing but experience in using a Longsword (Which was, in reality, a two-handed weapon), you would fail. And die. Thirdly, you presume that Wizards doesn't make distinction between weapons when it can. They do, and that's evidenced by about a third of the weapons in the PHB. Hell, they made a distinction between Morning Stars and Maces.
Tony Vargas 08-18-06, 07:54 PM	The problem with assigning the Katana as a weapon that can be used one-handed with a feat is that if you put it in its niche, the one of the Curved Sword, it becomes a mechanically weak specimen. Following the trend, it would be a 18-20/x2 weapon that deals 1d8. Compare this to the longsword: If you spend your feat on Improved Critical instead of the proficiency, you have a weapon that has a better critical range (17-20/x2) and deals the same damage. As a bonus, they're much, <i>much</i> more common.Uh-huh. Of course, throw Keen (spell or oil or enchantment or scabbard) on both weapons and now the katana guy has a 15-20/x2 weapon, while the Improved Crit Longsword guy is still 17-20/x2. Or, you could just take Improved Crit, /as well/ as the EWP. This is like saying "Why take EWP: Bastard Sword? It's average damage is 5.5 at the cost of a feat. If I spend a feat (Weapon Specialization) on my Longsword, it does 6.5 average damage!" 1-H exotic/2-H martial d8 18-20/x2 isn't mechanically weak, it's mechanically balanced, and it's a good place to put the katana, if you don't like the B.Sword equivalency. As for how 'common' they are as found weapons, well, so what, exotics are supposed to be a little unusual. Everybody and his knighted uncle uses longswords, if you choose an exotic weapon, it's because you want to be a little different, and, yes, part of the price you pay for that (over and above the cost/benefit of the feat) is that you've committed to using one weapon, and you're probably going to have to pay the cost of getting one custom-crafted and enchanted. Anyone who takes weapons-specific feats is probably going to have to do so at some point, too.
Moon-Lancer 08-18-06, 07:59 PM	Yup, katanas ARE BS. Bashudo and Shinto. Real B&S. I bs all my opponents. a d10 is a d10 is a d10 is a d10 is a d10 is a d10 is a d10 is a d10 is a d10 is a d10 really can it be that clear, or do we have to look between the lines. Its a d10. is it really that hard? :embarrass
LordPendragon 08-18-06, 08:24 PM	Following the trend, it would be a 18-20/x2 weapon that deals 1d8.For the record, I'd like to point out that this is the 2nd time this exact idea has been put forth in this thread. The first time was by me, on page 1. And I agree with Mr Vargas... it wouldn't be weak, it would be balanced. It's less efficient per feat, true; but then again, so is the bastard sword. It's the benefits you get after applying multiple feats to the weapon that make the difference. Just as the bastard sword wielder has to take Weapon Specialization to make it any more effective than a specialized longsword, the katana wielder must take Improved Critical to make it any better than a longsword with the same feat. NOTE - What I just said has nothing to do with the actual katana as printed by WotC. It has to do with the one-handed exotic 1D8 18-20/x2 katana proposed by Eikre.
Eikre 08-19-06, 01:34 AM	Uh-huh. Of course, throw Keen (spell or oil or enchantment or scabbard) on both weapons and now the katana guy has a 15-20/x2 weapon, while the Improved Crit Longsword guy is still 17-20/x2. Or, you could just take Improved Crit, /as well/ as the EWP. But then the Longsword guy has either a weapon enchantment or a feat that you took but he didn't. And with that, he can close the gap. Again. This is like saying "Why take EWP: Bastard Sword? It's average damage is 5.5 at the cost of a feat. If I spend a feat (Weapon Specialization) on my Longsword, it does 6.5 average damage!" Weapon specialization requires both Weapon Proficiency and four levels of fighter. Bastard Sword proficiency can be taken at level 1- and it's given automatically to the Samurai from CW. Either way, Bastard Sword proficiency is a weak feat. Read on. 1-H exotic/2-H martial d8 18-20/x2 isn't mechanically weak, it's mechanically balanced, and it's a good place to put the katana, if you don't like the B.Sword equivalency. What’s the definition for balanced? Is it “comparible with everything else, makinging it worth your while to invest in it”? Or is it “Not so powerful that it’ll ruin a game”? Because the Bastard Sword proficiency feat is weak, as is the theoretical Katana feat. The DM who came up with the 'hand and a half' feat a few posts ago has the right idea. But, for purposes of comparison, I once more point you to the weapon that took the 18-20/x2 Exotic slot: The Elven Thinblade. As well as Having the same crit range and damage as the theoretical katana, you can also apply Rapier and Longsword feats to it (something our Longsword guy will like, since he has that ). And it is weapons finesse compatible. The only functional difference, besides having extra stuff, is that instead of wielding it two-handed without proficiency, you have to use it as either a Rapier or a Longsword. This is a weapon from two books, one of which is Complete Warrior, which also contains the Samurai. As for how 'common' they are as found weapons, well, so what, exotics are supposed to be a little unusual. Everybody and his knighted uncle uses longswords, if you choose an exotic weapon, it's because you want to be a little different, and, yes, part of the price you pay for that (over and above the cost/benefit of the feat) is that you've committed to using one weapon, and you're probably going to have to pay the cost of getting one custom-crafted and enchanted. Anyone who takes weapons-specific feats is probably going to have to do so at some point, too. I wasn't asserting that the rarity of an exotic weapon was an incredible pitfall. It's still a disadvantage, though. And I agree with Mr Vargas... it wouldn't be weak, it would be balanced. No, it is weak. You're choosing to use the term "Balance" because it's a sub-par weapon and isn't something that will destroy a game.
IbanezNinja 08-19-06, 02:27 PM	No, it is weak. You're choosing to use the term "Balance" because it's a sub-par weapon and isn't something that will destroy a game. I agree, a weapon that does a d8 with a 18-20 crit range would be ignored unless a character concept specifically called for a katana, or someone wanted a katana to be cool. Otherwise, there is zero reason to waste a feat on it. Improved Critical isn't worth taking, and EWP(Katana, 1d8 style) is worse than that.
striderII 08-24-06, 10:22 AM	I agree, a weapon that does a d8 with a 18-20 crit range would be ignored unless a character concept specifically called for a katana, or someone wanted a katana to be cool. Otherwise, there is zero reason to waste a feat on it. Improved Critical isn't worth taking, and EWP(Katana, 1d8 style) is worse than that. This isn't against you, Ibanez - just your post happened to be here. However, posts like this one make me wonder - do people actually select weapons based on character concept anymore, or is it only for the mechanical benefits? It makes me think... strider
LordPendragon 08-24-06, 04:40 PM	However, posts like this one make me wonder - do people actually select weapons based on character concept anymore, or is it only for the mechanical benefits? It makes me think...Just the other day I started a Fighter who specializes in guisarme. If that's not a weak choice for flavour, I don't know what it is.
Bulletproof_Condom 08-24-06, 04:46 PM	You're all fired.