Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Sergikins 01-28-07, 09:23 PM	ok intresting. accepted stats for a katana in D&D are 1d10 19-20/x2 exotic weapon used two handed as a martial d20 modern katanas are 2d6 19/20 martial that can be wielded with one hand with the prof, and even without the prof, wielding it two handed grants a -4 nopn proficient penalty intresting little conflict...
Warlord_Draco 01-28-07, 09:25 PM	umm its d20 modern so i don't see how its a conflict...
Sergikins 01-28-07, 09:27 PM	ok ok, its not a D&D conflict its a WOTC source book conflict. just an intresting thing i saw.
Neutronium_Dragon 01-28-07, 09:35 PM	I don't know that it's really a conflict. They're both D20 games, but D20 modern isn't the same game as D&D, and stats up a lot of things differently than D&D does.
Warlord_Draco 01-28-07, 09:40 PM	maybe they wanted a beefy melee weapon to counter the fact that people have modern guns in d20 modern (ok i dunno crap about d20 modern but im assuming u can get a shotgun or uzi..) also Katanas are used in action movies and such.. but greatswords and greataxes are just out of place in modern time... so it could be to help fill that gap... and help give melee some chance against a machine gun.....
Aryxbez 01-28-07, 10:20 PM	In modern settings, like movies. Katanas are always overrated. In more medieval like setting, there were really no katanas so thus they are usually not overrated. Thats my thoughts
spectralphoenix 01-28-07, 10:29 PM	I'd have to agree it's balance reasons to make hand-to-hand a reasonable alternative to guns. After all, a lot of starting occupations give you free proficiency with firearms, but you don't get exotic weaponry free. Most of the pistols do 2d6, and some (as well as all the rifles) do more, and can Burst Fire/Double Tap.
Jo_Pistachio 01-28-07, 10:54 PM	More oportunities for a modern katana wielder to hit up unarmoured opponents, which is what it is good for. Instead of introducing some complex mechanism for how armour interacts with certain weapons, katanas simply don't work as well in an armour heavy setting, yet in modern, where metal armour is just gone, it causes deadly slashy goodness. Just the way I would personally write it off as an OK thing.
Warlord_Draco 01-28-07, 10:57 PM	More oportunities for a modern katana wielder to hit up unarmoured opponents, which is what it is good for. Instead of introducing some complex mechanism for how armour interacts with certain weapons, katanas simply don't work as well in an armour heavy setting, yet in modern, where metal armour is just gone, it causes deadly slashy goodness. Just the way I would personally write it off as an OK thing. if you wanna be realistic Katanas or any other melee weapon don't work well in a setting with guns.... really if i had a choice to use a katana and fight a medieval knight or the average thug with a pistol... I'm takin the knight.
Waterhammer 01-29-07, 12:32 AM	I too noticed the differing stats. With a shrug. Whatever... It should also be noted that the D20 Modern katana is also not always masterwork.
Jo_Pistachio 01-29-07, 12:46 AM	if you wanna be realistic Katanas or any other melee weapon don't work well in a setting with guns.... really if i had a choice to use a katana and fight a medieval knight or the average thug with a pistol... I'm takin the knight. Getting hit by the swords actually should hurt more. The bullets are compact and tend to hit a lot less vital areas, whereas slashing weapons and even a good stabbing knife is wide enough to hit at least one thing you need to live. The problem is that in reality, guns are a lot easier to hit a person with when compared to damage. It's not the damage that is problematic, but rather several other factors that make gunshots too weak, or melee weapons too good.
Waterhammer 01-29-07, 01:00 AM	Getting hit by the swords actually should hurt more. The bullets are compact and tend to hit a lot less vital areas, whereas slashing weapons and even a good stabbing knife is wide enough to hit at least one thing you need to live. The problem is that in reality, guns are a lot easier to hit a person with when compared to damage. It's not the damage that is problematic, but rather several other factors that make gunshots too weak, or melee weapons too good. I have to disagree on this. Firearm projectiles deliver hydrostatic shock to human targets. It is most devastating. Swords can potentially do as much, perhaps more damage to a similar target, of course. However when you swing hard enough to do this sort of damage with a sword; if you miss you will be unbalanced, and at the disadvantage. (The thrusting attack is a possible exception to this.) From my limited experience with sword play, I would tend to just work on wounding an opponent that I had to face. Rather than trying to chop off limbs. Maintaining balance, and control. At any rate history shows that firearms are supreme over swords. Even the Japanese eventually came to this conclusion.
Jo_Pistachio 01-29-07, 01:34 AM	I have to disagree on this. Firearm projectiles deliver hydrostatic shock to human targets. It is most devastating. Swords can potentially do as much, perhaps more damage to a similar target, of course. However when you swing hard enough to do this sort of damage with a sword; if you miss you will be unbalanced, and at the disadvantage. (The thrusting attack is a possible exception to this.) From my limited experience with sword play, I would tend to just work on wounding an opponent that I had to face. Rather than trying to chop off limbs. Maintaining balance, and control. At any rate history shows that firearms are supreme over swords. Even the Japanese eventually came to this conclusion. Hydrostatic shock is not a proven theory actually, and some studies claim that it does not exist. I do however agree that the pressure creating an exit wound is devastating to the individual. They are difficult to use with any power, that is true. The power of the swing thing and not having balance and accuracy due to it however could be called non-proficiency penalties, except the person choses to take the big swing and cause normal damage. Proficient users can make those bigger swings and not go off balance. Proficient users can make really big, out of control swings and we call that power attack, which is even more of a tradeoff. However, a good stab to the cut almost always causes more internal damage than a single bullet. The problem is, the bullet is a lot easier to use. That is why they are more popular. Especially since the world is populated by lv 1 NPCs that die either way anyway. Or go unconcious and bleed out/get saved or whatever. I do agree the gun is better. I disagree that it hurts more.
Salla 01-29-07, 01:42 AM	The d20 Modern katana is made with modern techniques, purer metals, and the improved craftsmanship that comes with the use of technology. The D&D Katana is still made by some doof with a hammer, an anvil, and a furnace. Thus the differences.
Warlord_Draco 01-29-07, 01:47 AM	I have to disagree on this. Firearm projectiles deliver hydrostatic shock to human targets. It is most devastating. Swords can potentially do as much, perhaps more damage to a similar target, of course. However when you swing hard enough to do this sort of damage with a sword; if you miss you will be unbalanced, and at the disadvantage. (The thrusting attack is a possible exception to this.) From my limited experience with sword play, I would tend to just work on wounding an opponent that I had to face. Rather than trying to chop off limbs. Maintaining balance, and control. At any rate history shows that firearms are supreme over swords. Even the Japanese eventually came to this conclusion. the Japanese and their katana's got owned by crappy old guns..... swords are in no way a match for today's guns.... otherwise the US military would use em... and not just as ceremony for the marine corps...
Ranger REG 01-29-07, 02:22 AM	ok intresting. accepted stats for a katana in D&D are 1d10 19-20/x2 exotic weapon used two handed as a martial d20 modern katanas are 2d6 19/20 martial that can be wielded with one hand with the prof, and even without the prof, wielding it two handed grants a -4 nopn proficient penalty intresting little conflict... Yeah, I try not to let that get to me. D&D and d20 Modern are two entirely different games despite having the same core rulesystems at their foundations. Perhaps in the future, they will be in-synch, but for now, the two fan communities have no problem with it.
Cold Napalm 01-29-07, 02:55 AM	Modern guns OWN swords for 2 reasons. 1) ease of use. 2) deadly range that is much MUCH greater then 3 feet. Hydrostatic shock is pretty well documented and even still, that bullet does deliver quite a huge amoung of energy which may or may not induce shock even if it does not hit anything vital...but all in all, your probably more likely to survive a single bullet wound (especially if the bullet goes all the way through) over a sword slash (assume body hit since head shot with either means death, and limb shots with either ususally means you live) as the one sword hit just hits more tissue of things you NEED to live. If I had to fight a swordman or a gun fighter at 3 feet with a sword, I'm gonna pick the gunman. At 10 feet or more...swordman please, since in the 3 feet encounter we are gonna each get one shot off basically but at any length greater then that and I'm looking a few bullets to even get my one shot in.
Warlord_Draco 01-29-07, 03:12 AM	yea if i have a gun and want to kill a swordsman... unless he sneaks up on me ninja style.... the shootin will start at alot further away than 10 ft... and as far as katana vs gun goes... looks at the Sengoku era in japan.... Nobunaga's rifleman obliterated what was known as the best calvary unit in all of japan.... they were using crappy old flintlocks.... not even rifles from the that time... some old crap they got from the dutch or someone...
spectralphoenix 01-29-07, 12:45 PM	The d20 modern firearms all have a lot more range than a katana, and are somewhat easier to use (they are more or less martial weapons, while katanas are exotic.) So while guns are easier to use and have the advantage of range, the game is already accounting for that. The main difference is that a d20 character can survive a couple gunshots and still close to dismemberment range, while historically that's been a pretty low-percentage move for people. While the katana does the same base damage as most pistols, it does get strength bonuses, AoOs, and the ability to Power Attack, so a good melee combatant will probably do better damage per attack than a gunman. The flip side is the swordsman can't take advantage of cover and has to close the distance, so he'll probably take a lot more damage.
fatal error 01-29-07, 01:46 PM	I believe one of the designers of D20 Modern said the katana was better than the other melee weapons because of its action movie mystique, thus if it is better in most modern action films it should be better in a roleplaying game seeking to emulate modern action films. Although I can't recall where I saw this. However, the katana is indeed better than other D20 Modern melee weapons, which use D&D stats.
Ryu Katsuragi 01-29-07, 02:37 PM	I believe one of the designers of D20 Modern said the katana was better than the other melee weapons because of its action movie mystique, thus if it is better in most modern action films it should be better in a roleplaying game seeking to emulate modern action films. Although I can't recall where I saw this. However, the katana is indeed better than other D20 Modern melee weapons, which use D&D stats. You win. d20 Modern is supposed to be a re-creation of modern action films; katana's flailing, dual-pistol slingin', martial arts and all that.