Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Blazereuben 11-05-05, 11:25 AM	hi Is there such a weapon as a Dai Katana? Also if you are a samurai with ancestral daisho can you start with that aswell as a katana and a wakizashi? thanks Reuben
Silverthumb128 11-05-05, 11:28 AM	Well, there's the Nagamaki from Oriental Adventures, which, honestly, isn't much more than a slightly stunted Falchion(same damage, x3 crit, no 18-20 threat range). I'd say a Large sized Masterwork Bastard Sword will fit. Or Greatsword.
Blazereuben 11-05-05, 11:32 AM	so could i create a dai katana that is almost exactly the same as a masterwork large bastard sword?
Wyrd Bearer 11-05-05, 12:23 PM	so could i create a dai katana that is almost exactly the same as a masterwork large bastard sword?A dai katana is mechanically a masterwork greatsword if you use the same line of logic that puts a katana as a masterwork bastard sword and a wakizashi as a masterwork shortsword (that deals slashing damage). Its very simple, when my players hear me say "No-dachi, dai katana, claymore, or flamberge" they all know that translates to greatsword for proficiencies and weapon focus. This allows for the appearance of numerous and varied weapons while still keeping the game simple.
Jaid 11-05-05, 12:30 PM	hi Is there such a weapon as a Dai Katana? Also if you are a samurai with ancestral daisho can you start with that aswell as a katana and a wakizashi? thanks Reubenmaybe my memory is off, and maybe i'm just crazy, but isn't daisho a wakizashi and katana? therefore, starting with daisho *is* starting with a wakizashi and a katana, and there wouldn't be a need to start off with both? like i said though... maybe i'm just crazy... :crazy:
Wyrd Bearer 11-05-05, 12:39 PM	maybe my memory is off, and maybe i'm just crazy, but isn't daisho a wakizashi and katana? therefore, starting with daisho *is* starting with a wakizashi and a katana, and there wouldn't be a need to start off with both? like i said though... maybe i'm just crazy... :crazy:You're not crazy, IIRC correctly that is. The dai-katana/no-dachi is a weapon that has its seperate use from the dashio and was never a part of the dashio. Dashio refers to the weapon pair of the katana with the wakizashi; specifically to the style in which they were worn, which was tucking the sheaths beneath your belt/sash and loops of fabric in your clothing to hold the weapons on your body.
DarknessEternal 11-05-05, 01:50 PM	Just to add another consenting opinion, it would be a masterwork greatsword.
Silverthumb128 11-05-05, 03:45 PM	EDIT: nevermind
Waterhammer 11-05-05, 04:28 PM	Why must we think all Japanese swords "masterwork";90% of katana you can buy today are anything but. Can you say "cheeze metal";I know you can. Yes,I know that some Japanese swords are folded 5,000 times,and are finest quality. However not all smiths are the same. I would have liked to see the katana done this way: cost-35gp weight:5lbs Dmg:1d8(M) Crit:19-20/x3 type:slashing May be used one or Two-handed with all benefits of a two-handed weapon. The RAW is probably right on this;I have this idea in my mind that bastard swords are heavier than katana,and just can't get it out.
Callahan 11-05-05, 05:04 PM	Why must we think all Japanese swords "masterwork";90% of katana you can buy today are anything but. Can you say "cheeze metal";I know you can. that's because in feudal japan swords weren't made in china.
glennhefley 11-05-05, 05:40 PM	Why must we think all Japanese swords "masterwork";90% of katana you can buy today are anything but. Can you say "cheeze metal";I know you can. As was suggested already, I believe your answer is within your question. Katanas made "today" are hardly worth the name sword, let alone katana. Katana refers to a specific type of curved, single-edged sword traditionally used by the Japanese samurai. The weapon was typically paired with the wakizashi, a similarly made but shorter sword both worn by the members of the buke (bushi) warrior class, it could also be worn with the tanto, an even smaller similarly shaped blade. The two weapons together were called the daisho, and represented the social power and personal honor of the samurai (buke retainers to the daimyo). By the War of Onin (1467-1477) Japanese armour, and weapons hit a plateau of quality considered to be superior to any weapons made by any other culture in the world, and for centuries afterwards. An average katana made during this time was crafted with a skill that far outshined the master craftsman of other cultures. It was during the Muromachi period, when bloody wars were the norm, that the sword makers began to desplay the first of many slides down the hill to what would eventually be called the "Type 98 katana" of World War II (1938). While many good swords were made during the Muromachi period, the vast need for swords caused smiths to switch to production line methods. Furthermore, the ferocity of the fighting caused the highly artistic techniques of the Kamakura period (known as the Golden Age of Swordmaking) to be abandoned in favor of more utilitarian and disposable weapons. The export of katana reached its height during Muromachi period with the total of at least 200,000 katana being shipped to the Ming dynasty in official trades. The (ultimately failed) rationale behind this was to attempt to soak up the production of Japanese weapons and make it harder for pirates in the area to arm. As time progressed, the craft decayed under the needs listed above, and the introduction of guns, as a decisive force on the battlefield. A blade shorter than 1 shaku (30 cm) is considered a tanto (knife). A blade longer than 1 shaku but less than 2 (30–61 cm) is considered a shoto (short sword) and included the wakizashi and kodachi. A blade longer than 2 shaku (61 cm) is considered a daito, or long sword. This is the category 'katana' fall into. However, the term 'katana' is often misapplied: a sword is only a katana if it is worn blade-up through a belt-sash called an obi (these 'katana' averaged 70 cm in blade length). If it is suspended by cords from a belt, it is called 'tachi' (average blade length of 78 cm)the tachi is worn cutting edge down. Abnormally long blades (longer than 3 shaku or 90cm), worn across the back, are called o-dachi or nodachi. 'o-dachi' is also sometimes used as a synonym for katana.
Wyrd Bearer 11-05-05, 07:46 PM	Ah, see, I was afraid to mention that katanas were worn blade-up because I didn't remember if they were up or down. But, apparently I wasn't hallucinating about the difference between a tachi and a katana.
glennhefley 11-05-05, 08:23 PM	Sorry to get all history geek on you, but I do love the subject. :cool:
Wyrd Bearer 11-05-05, 08:41 PM	Sorry to get all history geek on you, but I do love the subject. :cool:Oh, I understand completely. At home (not college) I've a history of weapons book that has diagrams of individual pieces of the swords, including the Japanese ones, all the way up to how they were worn and the idividual names of the sets of weapons depending on how they were worn. Only problem with the book was that it's old enough to still consider the USSR as a current and legit power :D.
BeyondFated 11-05-05, 09:18 PM	I would have liked to see the katana done this way: cost-35gp weight:5lbs Dmg:1d8(M) Crit:19-20/x3 type:slashing May be used one or Two-handed with all benefits of a two-handed weapon. That is mechanically wrong. It should have either a 19-20/x2, or x3 critical, never both. If I remember correctly, this is mathmatically equal to a x5 or x6 critical (I never was a math wiz), which is muy mal. Either change the crit, or lower the damage, because as is, your katana is grossly overpowered for an equally overrated sword.
Vaalingrade Ashland 11-05-05, 09:41 PM	Katana One handed Exotic Weapon 1d8 18-20/x2 slashing 5lb 35gp A katana may be used two handed as a martial weapon. Dai Katana Two-handed Exotic Weapon 1d10 18-20/x2 slashing 10lb 55gp
Big_Fau 11-05-05, 09:47 PM	The thing that has become known as a "dai-katana" is none other than a No-daichi which in DnD terms is a greatsword asa katana is a bastard sword so, masterwork greatsword wouldbe the rules for itin OA it lists a japanese greatsword as such so there you go in a nutshell P.S. If this was already said I apoligize I only looked at the first two posts.
feartheinvinceblehamster 11-05-05, 09:52 PM	maybe a masterwork fullblade? Dai Katana 2-handed exotic slashing weapon 2d8(M)/2d6(S) 18-20/x2
JiobiValen 11-05-05, 09:58 PM	This is how I personally stat the Dai Katana in my campaigns. I don't believe in the whole "katana = mw" thought so it sells standard as well as masterwork quality. Dai Katana Two-handed exotic melee weapon Damage: 2d6 Critical: 18-20x2 slashing weight: 12lbs. 150gp The Dai Katana is six to seven foot long, slightly curving with a non-tapering blade that has a sharp point.
Vaalingrade Ashland 11-05-05, 10:12 PM	maybe a masterwork fullblade? No, these weapons are curved not masterwork. by what's already in equipment, this drops thier damage dice by 1 and extends thier crit range by 1. no weapon should ever be always masterwork.
Terraneaux 11-06-05, 12:15 AM	The whole katana=masterwork thing is bs. While they apparantly follow the shortsword=>bastard sword=>greatsword progression, as given in Oriental Adventures, some have advocated using the scimitar progression with the 18-20 crit. However you hash it, follow some basic rules. If you increase the die type or the crit range from a greatsword by 1, it becomes an exotic weapon. If you do it more than this, it ends up being overpowered as to the weapon design rules in 3.5. The problem with the 19-20/x3 crit is that it is drastically more powerful than anything printed. It results in four extra damage instances over a 20-roll spread, as opposed to the biggest crit weapons printed, which have 3. (18-20 and x4 crits).
Waterhammer 11-06-05, 12:45 AM	Everybody grabbed the wrong quote,it should have been"All smiths are not the same". Thanks for the history lesson though;I'm not incrediblly familiar with Japanese history,but am facinated with any and all history.
Silverthumb128 11-06-05, 12:58 AM	Why must we think all Japanese swords "masterwork";90% of katana you can buy today are anything but. Can you say "cheeze metal";I know you can. Well, its only fitting, because, in case you missed the section in the DMG stating that katanas are the same as Masterwork Bastard Swords... Sooo, it stands to reason that a big katana would be a big masterwork bastard sword, right? Pretty easy why everyone thinks they'd be masterwork... cuz they are. :rolleyes:
Vaalingrade Ashland 11-06-05, 04:08 AM	But a great many of us know that its assinine for a weapon type to be always masterwork.
DarknessEternal 11-06-05, 05:33 AM	But a great many of us know that its assinine for a weapon type to be always masterwork. Fortuantely, it isn't a weapon type. The weapon type is Bastard Sword.
Vrellum 11-06-05, 07:40 AM	As was suggested already, I believe your answer is within your question. Katanas made "today" are hardly worth the name sword, let alone katana. By the War of Onin (1467-1477) Japanese armour, and weapons hit a plateau of quality considered to be superior to any weapons made by any other culture in the world, and for centuries afterwards. An average katana made during this time was crafted with a skill that far outshined the master craftsman of other cultures. Hmm, is this the period when rich Japanese started buying parts of their armor from European traders? Japanese armor (if from all of it is from Japan, especially) uses laminated leather, supplemented with silk and metal for protection. It was not nearly as protective as 15th century European plate armor (the time period you are referencing). Japanese weapons are not all super-duper instruments of destruction. Katana were good at for attacking light armored men and not at all suited for attacking heavily armored targets. Fortunately for the Samurai, there really weren't that many (really none) heavily armored warriors in Japan. The curved blade was good for slashing, but bad for piercing attacks. It was also rather heavy and I believe balanced more towards the tip of the blade, making it somewhat difficult to wield onehanded. The method used by Japanese sword smiths was not unique and the main reason they used it was the poor quality of the metal they worked with.
Vengeblade 11-06-05, 07:49 AM	True, the quality of the metal was bad, but it was still a very nice blade. But to be honest, any weapon with a point that has a little reach (more than your arms and hands, at least.) was good for piercing attacks. But that's just me. I'm also starting to think that the MW things is crappy. The damage doesn't seem right, either. I think Val has it right for the katana. 1d8, 18-20/x2 makes sense to me, while a bastard sword seems to carry an idea of brute force with it, while the katana seemed better for precise vital attacks. I think I'm gonna steal that from you, Vaal.
Vaalingrade Ashland 11-06-05, 02:42 PM	Fortuantely, it isn't a weapon type. The weapon type is Bastard Sword. Follow me on this one here: Have you ever ever heard of a straight bladed, hand and a half sword in feudal Japan? No? Clearly. So here is what you're saying by declaring that the katana is a masterwork Bastard sword: a) The not weaponsmith -- in all of Japan -- has ever made a sword that wasn't masterwork. b) That when they did make a non-masterwork weapon, it was not only fundamantally a different weapon (having a straight blade and all), but it simply ceased to exist. Masterwork is the best of the best of non-magical weaponry. It takes a very long time to make, and cost a lot to own. When you declare a weapon is always masterwork (because you wouldn't say a non-masterwork katana is a bastard sword), you are essentially creating a sociological and economical impossibility. If every katana ever made was masterwork, the swordmaster of Japan would still be working to create the number that existed in Feudal Japan.
Vahenir 11-06-05, 03:03 PM	A really big katana (by whatever name) is functionally a greatsword according to OA. This follows the line of logic of katana = bastard sword. Should katana be masterwork by default? No. For the reasons already aptly put. Should katana be simply bastard swords? No. Being curved swords they should follow the same damage progression as other curved swords. But that aside -- if you want to houserule on the side of the RAW -- no-dachi = greatsword.
warlockco 11-06-05, 03:27 PM	Should katana be simply bastard swords? No. Being curved swords they should follow the same damage progression as other curved swords. But Katanas aren't as curved as scimitars are.
DarknessEternal 11-06-05, 04:18 PM	If every katana ever made was masterwork, the swordmaster of Japan would still be working to create the number that existed in Feudal Japan. I wasn't aware that Feudal Japan was an empire or kingdom in D&D. Admittedly, I'm not well versed in every setting, but I'm pretty sure it isn't in any of them. There are a lot of D&D weapons which don't correspond to the same-named weapons in the real world. That doesn't matter a lick though, as long as the game makes its own internally consistent rules. D&D is not the real world, it has no obligation to be so. It's only obligation is to its own paradigm. Feel free to have your Great Scimitar look like a katana (since that's the D&D name for the weapon you've already described). If you're going to wield a weapon called katana in D&D though, it's a masterwork bastard sword.
Vengeblade 11-06-05, 05:21 PM	I wasn't aware that Feudal Japan was an empire or kingdom in D&D. Admittedly, I'm not well versed in every setting, but I'm pretty sure it isn't in any of them. There are a lot of D&D weapons which don't correspond to the same-named weapons in the real world. That doesn't matter a lick though, as long as the game makes its own internally consistent rules. D&D is not the real world, it has no obligation to be so. It's only obligation is to its own paradigm. Feel free to have your Great Scimitar look like a katana (since that's the D&D name for the weapon you've already described). If you're going to wield a weapon called katana in D&D though, it's a masterwork bastard sword. Okay, we know that by the RAW a Katana is a MW bastard sword, but we're not going straight from the RAW here. Calling it a MW bastard sword just doesn't truly represent the weapon properly, that and forcing it to be MW is just plain silly. Why aren't all the other weapons in OA or similar setting all MW, why just that one. Did all the weapon smiths just decide to make everything else crap. I think that there is a better representation for there weapons elsewhere, even if we have to make one up. We don't need the book to tell use everything on the game, we can change it as we please. Rule 0 is a wonderful tool at most times, this would be one of those for me as a DM.
DarknessEternal 11-06-05, 07:52 PM	D&D does such a poor job or representing EVERYTHING realistically. Why start complaining about this part?
Vaalingrade Ashland 11-06-05, 07:56 PM	Because this is one we can fix with a quick and balanced means instead of wallowing in our slavish devotion to the Letter of the books.
Waterhammer 11-06-05, 10:02 PM	I wasn't aware that Feudal Japan was an empire or kingdom in D&D. Admittedly, I'm not well versed in every setting, but I'm pretty sure it isn't in any of them. There are a lot of D&D weapons which don't correspond to the same-named weapons in the real world. That doesn't matter a lick though, as long as the game makes its own internally consistent rules. D&D is not the real world, it has no obligation to be so. It's only obligation is to its own paradigm. Feel free to have your Great Scimitar look like a katana (since that's the D&D name for the weapon you've already described). If you're going to wield a weapon called katana in D&D though, it's a masterwork bastard sword. D&D does allow for "Home Brew"campaign Worlds;so if a DM wants to have Feudal Japan in D&D they bloody well can.
Vengeblade 11-06-05, 10:11 PM	D&D does allow for "Home Brew"campaign Worlds;so if a DM wants to have Feudal Japan in D&D they bloody well can. Exactly, so if I'm some huge katana fanboy (I really love them, but not that much.), I can say in my campaigns that it does 3d6, 18-20/X3 because I feel it' that awsome, I can. Or if I don't like it, I could say it does 1d6/x2 because it's not a viable weapon compared to others. I agree, some rules should be followed. I only think the rules should be strict when it comes to spells and combat. But since a weapons damage and threat range don't change how combat works, it's okay to play around with it. But hey, that's just my world. :D
roetroc 11-06-05, 10:18 PM	Follow me on this one here: Have you ever ever heard of a straight bladed, hand and a half sword in feudal Japan? No? Clearly. Apart from the Imperial type katana which most of us would identify as a ninja-to by its shape.
Waterhammer 11-06-05, 10:20 PM	Yes,houserules rock!!! If I had the time and mony I'd personaly field test all the rules that can be tested in this way. It would be fun.
guru7892 11-06-05, 10:31 PM	D&D does such a poor job or representing EVERYTHING realistically. Why start complaining about this part? because some people really like katanas and others know japanese history very well and even more (for better or worse) like anime. simply, i like the masterwork bastard-sword approach, mostly because everything falls in place around it, the no-danchi is above, waikasashi is below and nobody gives a flying **** about longswords, least those that can be weilded in the way a katana probably could be. twohanded? yes onehanded? yes so why do people want to change it because of some stories about katanas being so cool in some sense or another? hell, there are stories of japanese archers (ok it was only one) who sank a ship with a singe arrow! OMFG!!!! PWN'D! XD> u R teh suX0rS!!111 L.bows should be 1d10x4 and have a cirt range of 5-20 against ships !!!112-3693 people, lets say that some people have allot of skill, so they can cut through stuff with swords... but most of us suck and spend out time arguing about usless and pointless info on forums. if you look hard enough you can find stories about people who are killed by just about anything with just about any type of protection. like if im in a haz-mat suit how the hell is something going to jump, latch on my head, and turn me into another namless, mindless zombie running around ravenholm? oh and if you answer that question your an egotisical A-hole that wants to prove me wrong or someone who hasnt read this! so lets just lead the katana the way it was first presented and quit whining about it. D&D made feats for a reason...
Vaalingrade Ashland 11-06-05, 10:36 PM	Apart from the Imperial type katana which most of us would identify as a ninja-to by its shape. I saved it by saying 'hand an a half' sword. ;)
Vaalingrade Ashland 11-06-05, 10:41 PM	so why do people want to change it because of some stories about katanas being so cool in some sense or another? hell, there are stories of japanese archers (ok it was only one) who sank a ship with a singe arrow! OMFG!!!! PWN'D! XD> u R teh suX0rS!!111 L.bows should be 1d10x4 and have a cirt range of 5-20 against ships !!!112-3693 Some people don't pay any damn attention. 1d8 18-20/2x Exotic (hand and a half) is balanced with the existing bastardsword AND with the existing concept of curved blades in DnD. It in no way powers up the katana. Always masterwork, however does imply that the katana is somehow better than all other swords and does wreak of fanboyism. So maybe you want to holster your leetspeak hose, sparky.
MistWolf 11-06-05, 11:03 PM	This is how I personally stat the Dai Katana in my campaigns. I don't believe in the whole "katana = mw" thought so it sells standard as well as masterwork quality. Dai Katana Two-handed exotic melee weapon Damage: 2d6 Critical: 18-20x2 slashing weight: 12lbs. 150gp The Dai Katana is six to seven foot long, slightly curving with a non-tapering blade that has a sharp point. 12 POUNDS?!? I don't think so. Even a Euro-style two handed sword doesn't weight that much
Vaalingrade Ashland 11-06-05, 11:20 PM	Near on. Those superlong hilts aren't just for show. You swing one of those swords more like a scythe than a normal swrd.
MistWolf 11-06-05, 11:26 PM	like if im in a haz-mat suit how the hell is something going to jump, latch on my head, and turn me into another namless, mindless zombie running around ravenholm? It was an egotistical fanboy armed with a Master Work bastard sword forged in Fuedal Japan. Of course reading this post helped by numbing your mind until you were in a drooling stupor and bought a pirated collection of Dragon Ball Z episodes on VHS off ebay. Yes, I'll take Pay-Pal :D
MistWolf 11-06-05, 11:38 PM	Near on. Those superlong hilts aren't just for show. You swing one of those swords more like a scythe than a normal swrd. In real life, fighting two handed swords weighed 7-8 pounds. They didn't swing them like scythes either. Too much work. I played in the SCA for year while stationed in England. Didn't become a certified fighter, but I did get some training with a guy who fought with two handed swords. SCA fights at full speed. Two handed sword handling involves a flick of the wrists and leverage for speed and striking power- not wide wild swings. Remember, when it's your muscle doing the work, you'll fight with as much economy as possible- maximum effect for minimal effort
Vaalingrade Ashland 11-06-05, 11:43 PM	In real life, fighting two handed swords weighed 7-8 pounds. They didn't swing them like scythes either. Too much work. I played in the SCA for year while stationed in England. Didn't become a certified fighter, but I did get some training with a guy who fought with two handed swords. SCA fights at full speed. Two handed sword handling involves a flick of the wrists and leverage for speed and striking power- not wide wild swings. Remember, when it's your muscle doing the work, you'll fight with as much economy as possible- maximum effect for minimal effort I'm talking about the weapons we're casually calling Dai katana.
guru7892 11-06-05, 11:53 PM	Some people don't pay any damn attention. 1d8 18-20/2x Exotic (hand and a half) is balanced with the existing bastardsword AND with the existing concept of curved blades in DnD. It in no way powers up the katana. Always masterwork, however does imply that the katana is somehow better than all other swords and does wreak of fanboyism. the masterwork thing i thought implied the quality of the blade. i.e. samurai don't buy mass produced swords. they are commissioned and custom. second, thats more powerful than a flachion, its twice as likly to deal full damage (but less forgiving too), and you can weild it one handed (with the right feat). It also allows for some VERY powerful builds esp. w/ the fighter class (and some OA prestige classes). This weapons make the flachion unimportant. AYB! So maybe you want to holster your leetspeak hose, sparky. hey, PWN is a good word. LAUNCH EVERY ZIG PEOPLE!!! It was an egotistical fanboy armed with a Master Work bastard sword forged in Fuedal Japan. Of course reading this post helped by numbing your mind until you were in a drooling stupor and bought a pirated collection of Dragon Ball Z episodes on VHS off ebay. Yes, I'll take Pay-Pal :D umm... that was a HL2 refeance....
Vaalingrade Ashland 11-07-05, 12:25 AM	the masterwork thing i thought implied the quality of the blade. i.e. samurai don't buy mass produced swords. they are commissioned and custom. You have an overly romantic view of samurai. They weren't stinking rich. thats more powerful than a flachion, its twice as likly to deal full damage (but less forgiving too), and you can weild it one handed (with the right feat). 1d8 is slightly worse than 2d4. Also, you can only 1-hand it with an exotic weapon proficency. 1d10 on the other hand is clearly better than 2d4. It also allows for some VERY powerful builds esp. w/ the fighter class (and some OA prestige classes). This weapons make the flachion unimportant. Monkey Grip and a Scythe does worse with the same number of feats. AYB! USE WORDS. hey, PWN is a good word. LAUNCH EVERY ZIG PEOPLE!!! Again. WORDS.
MistWolf 11-07-05, 12:30 AM	I'm talking about the weapons we're casually calling Dai katana. Izzat right? 12 pounds is still heavy, mang. Just an observation- it's only a game
Vaalingrade Ashland 11-07-05, 12:33 AM	Izzat right? 12 pounds is still heavy, mang. Consider: a bag of sugar at the grocery store is 5 pounds. About half that. Its not really as heavy as you think.
guru7892 11-07-05, 12:37 AM	You have an overly romantic view of samurai. They weren't stinking rich.what time era of samuria are we talking about? 1d8 is slightly worse than 2d4. Also, you can only 1-hand it with an exotic weapon proficency.first of all, you can one hand it (an inevitable plus) second, the what is beter 1d8 or 2d4 is very subjective. 1d8 says ill deal between 1-8 damage equally, while 2d4says ill deal 4,5,6 damage allot more than 2,3,7,8. also its threat range is very impressive and with keen, dual wielding and improved crit, you can deal som serious damage, very many times. 1d10 on the other hand is clearly better than 2d4. but it has a crit range of 19-20 a good deal less than 18-20 when magic is involved Monkey Grip and a Scythe does worse with the same number of feats. i generally think everyone uses common sense, monkey grip is a product of stupid people in large groups, who are lacking of common sense. USE WORDS. Again. WORDS. All Your Base... the biggest inside joke in the world.(sorry most people in know have herd of that, its ok that you (and others) don't)
Vrellum 11-07-05, 02:03 AM	Apart from the Imperial type katana which most of us would identify as a ninja-to by its shape. I don't know what an "Imperial type katana" is, but ninja-to were only straight bladed weapons in recent times (20th century). Historically ninja used katana just like all the other samurai. Think about it, undercover ninja carrying a special weapon that only ninja carry? :confused: Japanese warriors did use straight bladed swords, but these weapons predate the katana.
JiobiValen 11-07-05, 03:47 AM	About the Dai Katana's stats I posted earlier, its 12 pounds of encumberance in D&D because of its length just like the greatsword is 8 pounds (i've owned stuff like claymores and such and there's no way they weigh that much) So, the weapon isn't 12 pounds its 12 encumberance. Is this more understandable?
roetroc 11-07-05, 06:02 AM	I don't know what an "Imperial type katana" is, but ninja-to were only straight bladed weapons in recent times (20th century). Historically ninja used katana just like all the other samurai. Think about it, undercover ninja carrying a special weapon that only ninja carry? :confused: Japanese warriors did use straight bladed swords, but these weapons predate the katana. The Imperialist or Royalist Sword (Kinnoto) was a late Edo period sword and it is said "that supporters of the Emperor wore this type of blade as the Edo period drew to a close" (Kokan Nagayama).
Ustauk 11-07-05, 11:51 AM	About the whole katana being masterwork thing: I think this is a result of exotic meaning both difficult to wield because of an advantage and being from a far off land. Most D&D campaigns take place in a medievil european type setting, where a katana would be coming from a long way off. In most cases, nobody, be they a trader, or a fighter coming back from an adventure in a far off land, would bother bringing back a non-masterworked katana. I suppose you could house-rule the occasional non-materwork katana, with stats closer to a normal long sword, say, would make its way to a market. But who would buy a weapon that would act as a normal long sword, but which you needed to gain a proficiency in? In an oriental campaign setting, profiency with a katana would probably part of a warriors training, so you could see more ordinary soldiers using a non-masterwork katana, while the masterwork katana would be reserved for the samurai, or equivalent warrior caste. Just my two cents.
Vahenir 11-07-05, 12:03 PM	But Katanas aren't as curved as scimitars are. Subjective. Some scimitars only have a slight curve. Some katana have a very deep curve. Regardless, both are curved swords. Apart from the Imperial type katana which most of us would identify as a ninja-to by its shape. The ninja-to is an invention of Hollywood and no evidence of its existance in Japanese history has ever been found. so why do people want to change it because of some stories about katanas being so cool in some sense or another? I imagine people want to change it to put it more in line with other curved swords. It's, essentially, a hand-and-a-half scimitar and it's quite easy to make the game rules reflect this. So what if a katana can be used in two hands? That doesn't make it a bastard sword. Any one-hand weapon can be wielded in two hands. so lets just lead the katana the way it was first presented and quit whining about it Or.. any DM that so chooses can modify the stats according to their whim, and no one should gainsay their decision to do so unless the proposed stat change is unbalanced. fighting two handed swords weighed 7-8 pounds. Often less. I'm talking about the weapons we're casually calling Dai katana. And you are correct. When using such a weapon your hands, as you implied, would be spaced widely apart, similar to polearm style weapons like the nagamaki. i.e. samurai don't buy mass produced swords. they are commissioned and custom. Whether they are commissioned or not is not only up for debate, but it's irrelevant. Just because your sword was made to order does not mean it is head and shoulders above any other sword. It just means it was made at your bidding. Europeans didn't 'mass-produce' swords either. No one did. The medieval world was quite lacking in factories and assembly lines. thats more powerful than a falchion, its twice as likly to deal full damage (but less forgiving too), and you can weild it one handed (with the right feat). It also has 1 for minimum damage instead of 2. 1d8 and 2d4 are statistically identical. So you are effectively wielding a falchion where, if you take EWP, you can use it one-handed. How exactly is that unbalanced? It's precisely how exotic weapons work. By your logic, the bastard sword is overpowered because if you take EWP you are wielding 1d10 damage in one hand. In any event, if you think the proposed stats are unbalanced, you'd better do your complaining to WotC -- since they used those exact stats for the Great Scimitar in Sandstorm. So, the weapon isn't 12 pounds its 12 encumberance. Is this more understandable? Unfortunately, that's not how it is. The weight listings are quite clearly in 'POUNDS' not in some abstract 'Encumberance.' And there is nowhere in any WotC product that I have ever seen where the designers claim that the weight of an object actually represents its encumberance. That's weak logic that some members here use to excuse the absurd weight listings in the PH which are quite obviously simply a byproduct of no one at WotC R&D doing any research. Do I fault them for that? Not really. It's not their job to impress us with their knowledge of history -- just to give us balanced game rules (I do fault them for their failure at that, however). That said, there's nothing wrong with using your own knowledge to inject the more historical 'rightness' of things that WotC couldn't or didn't put into the game themselves, so long as you're not doing it to overpower anything. Changing the weight of a sword is, effectively, totally meaningless as far as the game is concerned. If it makes someone happy to do it -- more power to them. Edit to include a recent post that wasn't there when I was typing. Most D&D campaigns take place in a medievil european type setting Really? Where in the DMG does it say that the katana stats represent a weapon from a 'distant land?' Last I checked D&D was a generic ruleset for use in any campaign world you might want to play in. There is no 'basic assumption' of a Eurocentric world. In most cases, nobody, be they a trader, or a fighter coming back from an adventure in a far off land, would bother bringing back a non-masterworked katana. But they'd bother bringing back non-masterwork versions of every other kind of exotic weapon, including those from 'Japan' and 'China?' That theory doesn't hold water. There is no logical explanation for katana being masterwork by default except for the fact that WotC were catering to the slavering masses that believe such ridiculous myths about katana being uber-weapons that are the pinnacle of the sword-maker's art. It's stupid.. but it's easy to fix by saying "you can have non-masterwork katana in my game."
Vaalingrade Ashland 11-07-05, 02:37 PM	I suppose you could house-rule the occasional non-materwork katana, with stats closer to a normal long sword, say, would make its way to a market. ... de-masterworking a weapon fundamentally changes its stats?
LaoKhanWei 11-07-05, 03:29 PM	I think the D&D equivalent is obviously the greatsword. About as close to historically correct as we're going to get is Odachi/Ootachi. As far as I know the word Dai-Katana only shows up in American games. Tachi = Japanese cavalry Sword, a type of sabre, using sabre as a general term to mean any kind of curved, slender bladed sword. Katana = Japanese infantry sword. Identical to the Tachi but warn upside down to optimize the number of angles it can effective be drawn from on foot. Technically a Katana is only a Katana when warn with a Wakizashi as well. This comes from Tokugawa era feudal system in which the Katana/Wakizashi were used as a sort of badge identifying you as a Samurai. Odachi would then roughly mean great/large tachi as that is essentially what Oo means in this context.
Vahenir 11-07-05, 03:49 PM	I disagree that the no-dachi is a greatsword, unless one is speaking of 'according to WotC.' Logistically, a no-dachi is a 'falchion' -- a two-handed curved sword. People seem to forget that the greatsword is not the only really big sword in D&D.
LaoKhanWei 11-07-05, 04:21 PM	Of course I'm speaking "according to WotC"! Why wouldn't I be? We're all playing D&D here aren't we? I understand that several decisions they've made have been ones you disagree with from a historical standpoint and I can definitally see where you're coming from, but I don't think it applies. Sharing historical knowledge is great but most people who play fantasty games are far more interested in movies than history.
Vahenir 11-07-05, 04:40 PM	Of course I'm speaking "according to WotC"! Why wouldn't I be? I can think of plenty of reasons why you wouldn't be. We're all playing D&D here aren't we? Playing D&D is different from being a slave to WotC's every word. Just because WotC says it does not mean that everyone, or anyone, cares for it. So yeah, you could be giving rules advice or discussion without giving two piles of crap what WotC has to say on the subject. I understand that several decisions they've made have been ones you disagree with from a historical standpoint and I can definitally see where you're coming from, but I don't think it applies. You mean.. the ideas and houserule suggestions of a 10+ year gamer don't "apply" to D&D because those ideas are contrary to WotC's 'official' ruling? You're kidding.. right? Sharing historical knowledge is great but most people who play fantasty games are far more interested in movies than history. Maybe that's true. But there are MORE than enough gamers that do care about history, as evidenced by the participants of threads like this (and the many gamers who are also SCAers, ARMA-students, etc). There's no wrong in offering not only the official WotC ruling on a subject, but also the perspective of a history-minded houseruler. I'm pretty sure there's enough room for both in one thread. You'll also note that my first post in this thread was the 'official' WotC response. Scroll back and check. I then went on to suggest alternatives. Actually. .the alternative has nothing to do with history anyway. Curved swords in D&D have less damage and a better threat range. The Katana breaks this unspoken rule. The proposed change to the katana would put it back in line with all the other curved swords. Likewise, making a no-dachi a 'falchion' instead of a 'greatsword' continues the 'flow' of curved swords in the game. WotC dropped the ball on their katana ruling. It's definitely within the scope of this community to offer suggestions that fix their mistakes -- historically-motivated or not.
LaoKhanWei 11-07-05, 05:02 PM	I agree with everything you've said above. I was merely justifying why I gave the answer I gave. In fact, I did exactly what you did, responding from a more RAW standpoint and then a more historically minded one. Based on the Katana being 1d10 19-20x2, identical to the bastard sword I would think the Dai-Katana should be 2d6 19-20x2, identical to the greatsword. Really I think curved swords should probably have smaller threat ranges and higher damage.
Vahenir 11-07-05, 05:37 PM	Really I think curved swords should probably have smaller threat ranges and higher damage. Any particular reason? (For the record, I'm not totally sure that I'm convinced straight and curve-bladed swords should have different stats at all..)
LaoKhanWei 11-07-05, 05:53 PM	Giving them different stats is a nice way to add more variety, which is usually a good thing, so I'm all for it. When I'm playing I usually like to describe a successful hit based on the damage done and whether or not a critical was scored or threatened. If it was an attack that did relatively little damage I'll say it was a shall cut to some cinematically appropriate area of their body, a strong attack might be described as cutting a deep gash across their chest etc. Usually I'll describe critical hits as skewering the oponent in some way. A thrust through their chest, throat kidney etc. So if running someone through equals a critical hit, then weapons which are better at running someone through would be better at scoring critical hits. Obviously this only pertains to how I like to flavor my descriptions.
Vahenir 11-07-05, 06:51 PM	I tend to describe 'hits' to a character with high HP as not actually hitting at all. Helps to remove the 'death by 1000 cuts' idiocy that happens in D&D when you describe every successful hit as an actual hit. But I fail to see how that answers the question of why you think curved blades should do more damage with a lower threat range.
LaoKhanWei 11-07-05, 07:10 PM	Without getting into the vast complexity of the issue they generally do more damage with cuts. If we assume the vast majority of your attacks are cuts then it makes sense. You can die from 1,000 minor cuts, you'd bleed to death :) I also like the idea of saying minor hits aren't really hits. I've done that in some battles, can be very cinematic. It's more like fatigue then. They're being slowly worn down over time.
Vahenir 11-08-05, 08:06 AM	Without getting into the vast complexity of the issue they generally do more damage with cuts. I would have to disagree. In my opinion what you're describing here is reflected in the threat range of the weapon. In a passing blow it'll do less damage, but it 'generally does more damage' by having a higher rate of critical hits. So while the longsword does more damage with a passing blow, it will deal large amounts of damage significantly less than the scimitar. Sounds exactly like what you're saying. It's all about perspective.
Quijenoth 11-10-05, 08:38 AM	Just gonna add my 2cp Have you ever ever heard of a straight bladed, hand and a half sword in feudal Japan? No? Clearly.. Japanese and Chinese history is irrelivant where the mechanics of a katana is concerned. The curving of a blade doesnt warrent any change in the mechanics. A straight dagger is the same as a dagger with a wavey blade. People who love katanas want them to be better that western weapons - this just isnt the case. The katana (as stated earlier) is a symbol of a samurai's dedication to his lord/emperor. To craft a sword of such quality takes time - they fold the metal 50+ times! This clearly indicates a masterwork weapon. Since the weapon is a hand and a half weapon (aka bastard sword) then it must be a masterwork bastard sword. The reason you dont hear of katanas of lower quality is because they just didnt exist - if you wherent a samurai you where not allowed to own a Katana. Most commoners used farming weapons or the ninja-to. If you saw a pesant using a sword it was generally made of wood!!! You have an overly romantic view of samurai. They weren't stinking rich. Should they be cheaper? no Will they be cheaper? yes because 90% of samurai had to craft their own katana (effectively reducing the price) or recieved one as an heirloome (sp?) or ancestral relic. The masterwork quality of a weapon is ideal for describing the benefits of a katana. The problem players have with the katana is it loses its edge when you consider the effect of magic on the weapon. Then its just as good as a western bastard sword. If you want to give the Katana an additional edge i would suggest the following alteration to MAGIC KATANAS... All magic Katanas are considered Lawful. The katana is an honorable weapon - so a magical katana should have the ability to defeat those who are without honor. Just to reiterate my defense in the katana being a masterwork bastard sword. If the katana was so superior to western swords then bastard swords (and possibly even longswords) would have become obsolite. The wakizashi would have replaced all shortswords, etc. (It wouldnt have happened though since the secrets to the folding technique used in katanas was kept secret.) No weapon in the PHB makes another obsolite without giving it some sort of exotic quality that makes it unique. Remember a Club is still a Club, wether it be made of wood, bone, metal, or if it had studs, spikes, barbed wire, wether it was straight, thin at one end and wide at the other, square, curved or just a simple table leg.
Vrellum 11-10-05, 09:06 AM	Actually the problem that I have is people try to give the katana an advantage/make it better than other swords. Katana were not all that great. Sure an excellent katana was an excellent sword and katana were good for use against lightly armored targets, but they weren't better than their western equilavents. For example they broke relatively often and they were really fairly heavy (not that heavy is necessarily a disadvantage, but lots of people seem to think they were much lighter than their western equivalents). The folding technique used by Japanese sword smiths was developed because their steel was very low quality. Folding the metal removed impurities and made a functional blade despite the drawbacks of the material they had to work with.
Vahenir 11-10-05, 10:59 AM	The curving of a blade doesnt warrent any change in the mechanics. Yes, it does. In D&D curved swords have lower damage and higher crit. Period. Look at the Player's Handbook weapons table. It's all right there for you. People who love katanas want them to be better that western weapons - this just isnt the case. I fail to see how making the weapon balanced against other weapons of its type (essentially making the katana a hand-and-a-half scimitar like it should be) is "making it better than western weapons." If anything, it's putting it in its rightful place. - - equal to western weapons. The katana (as stated earlier) is a symbol of a samurai's dedication to his lord/emperor. No. The katana was a weapon. Symbolism of this type wasn't added until the modern era. It was just a weapon. It may have been a weapon that warriors felt special attachment to.. but then most warriors feel attached to the objects that help them survive. To craft a sword of such quality takes time - they fold the metal 50+ times! Taking time and 'masterwork' are entirely different concepts. Just because it takes a long time to do something does not mean that the finished product is any better than something that took 1/10 as long to complete. Katana took a long time to create because they needed to be folded (and the average is actually about 20 times). They needed to be folded to reduce the impurities in the absolutely horrible Japanese iron ore. There's nothing mystical or mastercrafty about it... it was a simple neccessity that happened to take a bit of time to complete. The end result was a weapon which was only -ON PAR- with Western weapons. Since the weapon is a hand and a half weapon (aka bastard sword) then it must be a masterwork bastard sword. Since the weapon is a hand-and-a-half style weapon.. it is a larger scimitar. That's all a katana is - a stylized Japanese scimitar with a longer grip. There is no reason whatsoever to think that it should not follow the same mechanics conventions as other swords of its style. The reason you dont hear of katanas of lower quality is because they just didnt exist Actually, they did. A katana is no MORE likely to be of exceptional quality than any other weapon in the world. if you wherent a samurai you where not allowed to own a Katana. You also weren't allowed to wear certain kinds of clothing. Does that mean such clothing is also 'masterwork?' Most commoners used farming weapons or the ninja-to. The ninja-to never existed. Sorry kiddo -- not only is that Hollywood, but even the Hollywood definition of ninja-to is a weapon used by ninja -- naughty Samurai. If you're going to bandy about myths.. try actually getting the myths correct first. But to bottom line it: The ninja-to is an invention of Hollywood and never existed in Feudal Japan. If you saw a pesant using a sword it was generally made of wood!!! Uhm.. no. The bokken (wooden training sword) was a training weapon used by Samurai. Commoners would have absolutely no reason to bother having a training tool in a weapon they probably could not afford to own. To put a finer point on it: During the Anglo-Norman Conquest in Europe only the warrior-caste, what we think of as 'Knights,' could afford the expense of owning a sword and mail hauberk. Most other non-warriors of the time would carry cruder weapons and lighter body protection. By YOUR line of logic... a Norman longsword is inherently a masterwork weapon because it took a bit of time to complete (pattern-welding) and only a particular 'group' would own them. It's ridiculous and faulty logic that depends on the most underdeveloped understanding of weapons and history. because 90% of samurai had to craft their own katana Ludicrous. Most Samurai wouldn't know the first thing about crafting a sword. They were diplomats, warriors, poets, and artists. They had PLENTY to do without learning the intricacies of swordsmithing. There is no historical evidence to support the idea that any large amount of Samurai even knew how to bladesmith, let alone actually ever did it. or recieved one as an heirloome (sp?) or ancestral relic. Myth. Katana were not 'ancestral relics' in Feudal Japan. Due to a katana's relatively weak structural integrity it was almost assured that the first person to own the weapon would also be the last person to own it. Katana would get ruined fairly frequently. Either this could be due to the blade breaking outright, or to multiple smaller dents and damage the sword takes over time (most people don't realize that damage to a sword on any scale can result in microscopic fractures in the blade which make it very dangerous to continue using). The facts all point to one thing: Painfully few katana would ever survive long enough to be passed down to even a son.. let alone a grandson or great grandson. The masterwork quality of a weapon is ideal for describing the benefits of a katana. Incorrect, because the katana has no innate benefits over any other sword. If the katana was so superior to western swords then bastard swords (and possibly even longswords) would have become obsolite. First of all.. the katana was not only NOT superior to Western swords.. its structural integrity made it, in period, inferior to them. But regardless.. even if the katana had been clearly the superior weapon, I have no idea how you could come to the conclusion that the bastard sword and longsword would have become 'obsolete.' Do you think katana walk from Japan to Europe all on their own? Are you unaware that Medieval Europeans and the Japanese virtually never encountered one another throughout the entire 'Medieval' period? (It wouldnt have happened though since the secrets to the folding technique used in katanas was kept secret.) Uhm.. no. There was no secret to 'folding steel.' Everyone from the Indians (you know, the ones in India) to the Vikings had their own version of folding or pattern-welding steel, and there is no evidence to support the idea that the Japanese tried to keep their techniques 'secret' even if others didn't already have their own versions of such techniques). In short: Next time you might want to do your homework before attempting to speak as an authority on subjects as involved as this one. You may also want to buy a spellcheck program, since it adds a lot of weight to your arguments if you actually spell things correctly and use proper grammar and punctuation. Just a suggestion.
Watchman 11-10-05, 04:53 PM	Heck, the Romans and Celts were already making pattern-welded steel blades at the time the Japanese were still wondering if moving on from bronze was a good career move... :P
nonsi 11-10-05, 05:29 PM	A dai katana is mechanically a masterwork greatsword if you use the same line of logic that puts a katana as a masterwork bastard sword and a wakizashi as a masterwork shortsword (that deals slashing damage). Its very simple, when my players hear me say "No-dachi, dai katana, claymore, or flamberge" they all know that translates to greatsword for proficiencies and weapon focus. This allows for the appearance of numerous and varied weapons while still keeping the game simple. why go the hard way ? I would even say the dai katana does more damage than a great sword and is light and ballanced enough to be treated as a bastard sword (hold one in your hands and swing it for 5 minutes - you'll need no more convincing on my side). just tell your player not to hold his breath on ever finding one that is magical. if he still wishes - let him. when the time comes, he'll switch to other weapons, after wasting focus and specialization on it. if he wants to get frustrated - let him.
Vaalingrade Ashland 11-10-05, 06:39 PM	Sorry, my mind is still reeling over how my (and many other people's) katana stats, which drop a damage dice from batards sword in exchange for a higher crit range (which is in line with other curved weapons), is making the katana 'better' than the other weapons while making the katana 'always masterwork' does not.
Quijenoth 11-10-05, 07:26 PM	Thats your view based on what you know (or think you know) about Katanas and Japanese History. History is not always correct - If it was there would be only 1 version of the Bible. ;) In short: Next time you might want to do your homework before attempting to speak as an authority on subjects as involved as this one. Yes some of my comments are based on assumptions i have pieced together on my own be it from literature or movies or whatever. But in the interest of keeping this conversation alive i would recommend you take a look at the design of a Bastard Sword, Katana and a Scimitar. If you compare the 3 the curved blade of the katana is more on the scale of the Bastard sword - not the scimitar. In Fact if im not mistaken the scimitar cant acutally be drawn from a normal scabbard, the scabbard actually opens at the side because the top of the sword is wider and more curved than the rest of the blade. You may also want to buy a spellcheck program, since it adds a lot of weight to your arguments if you actually spell things correctly and use proper grammar and punctuation. Just a suggestion. If I really cared enough that a Roleplaying Game deserved more than 10 minutes of typing I may have bothered to proof read what i wrote. I am well aware that this forum has a spell checker so i would have little need to BUY any form of spell checking software. Perhaps you should consider taking a reality check since its partially evident what is fiction to most is real life for you. And the next time you feel like belittling another persons oppinions with crude remarks about their typing skills and knowledge of grammar (given the language diversity of this forum)perhaps you may want to consider using private messaging instead of humiliating yourself in public. ;) Just a suggestion. Duely noted and ignored /bow
Kyuketsukiouji 11-10-05, 07:33 PM	It's rather funny reading all the misconceptions that people have on katanas when you've actually studied japanese history and culture. It's also funny to see how people accidentally slight what they're so in awe over. What does making all katanas de facto masterwork really do? It makes "katana makers" (those japanese superswordsmith some of you are apperently sure are of divine descent) -worse- than normal smiths. Why is that? It's simple. If all katanas are masterwork, it means absolutely everyone who can make a katana is just as good as anyone else. There's no master katana makers. All those names for ancient japan, the muramasas and the masamunes, and the 10 famous swordmakers of muromachi, and all the others, they were just as good as Bob, the mangy pig-iron beater down the street, since they never, ever managed to make a katana better than Bob's (who was a shipwrecked sailor from portugal). After all, if everyone's weapon is a masterwork, and there's no non-masterwork weapons around...well...it's not a "master's work" anymore, is it? Bastard sword stats work fine for a regular katana. Don't cheat your swordsmith out of a chance to make masterwork katanas, it's just not fair to them.
SilentOne 11-10-05, 08:20 PM	Hey, I've got a super idea... STOP JAPANIFYING THE EUROPEAN D&D!!! If you want to play in Japan, go to the OA boards and have your little discussions there. Just look at the FR and Eberron people. They need to go to their own world board. So go. Leave. And have fun tearing each other apart there as no one is going to back down.
Vaalingrade Ashland 11-10-05, 08:29 PM	STOP JAPANIFYING THE EUROPEAN D&D!!! :rofl: There is no such thing, sparky! :rofl:
Vahenir 11-10-05, 08:36 PM	Thats your view based on what you know (or think you know) about Katanas and Japanese History. History is not always correct - If it was there would be only 1 version of the Bible The Bible is not history. It's not based on archaeological evidence and well-kept period records, nor is it based on modern tests using any kind of period-appropriate items. Don't make the mistake of likening the study of military history to theology. They're entirely different concepts.. and if one knows how to study history.. one can see the truth of it. The -facts- I have presented about the katana are exactly that.. facts. Pick up a book once in awhile and that would become quite apparent. The fact that you didn't even bother to respond to any of my points (which I'm sure you'll attribute to apathy to save face) proves beyond a doubt that you have not the slightest clue what you're talking about and, thus, no way to prove you are in the right. If you had facts to support any of your ridiculous notions, you surely would have presented them (and now you will respond by saying that you have plenty of facts but I wouldn't believe them anyway, so why bother.. you know the truth, after all). Yes some of my comments are based on assumptions i have pieced together on my own be it from literature or movies or whatever. It's always good to make a study of Japanese culture and military history by watching movies and reading Dragonlance. Good luck with that. But in the interest of keeping this conversation alive i would recommend you take a look at the design of a Bastard Sword, Katana and a Scimitar. If you compare the 3 the curved blade of the katana is more on the scale of the Bastard sword - not the scimitar. Okay.. let's.. Bastard Sword -- elongated handle. Double-edged, straight blade roughly equal in size to that of a standard arming (long-) sword. Katana -- extremely elongated handle (culturally distinct). single-edged. curved. Roughly equal in size, or slightly larger than, the Indo-Persian Shamshir, or .. scimitar. Scimitar -- handspan-handle (often culturally distinct), single-edged. curved. Roughly equal in size, or slightly smaller than, the Japanese katana. You're right.. .what on earth was I thinking. No way a katana is a slightly larger scimitar. If you compare the 3 the curved blade of the katana is more on the scale of the Bastard sword - not the scimitar. A katana is, by and large, extremely similar to a scimitar. In fact, the only major difference is in shape of the hilt (a shape that it does not share with EITHER the scimitar or the hand-and-a-half sword) and overall length - which is fairly often a bit longer than your larger-end scimitars. That makes the katana a hand-and-a-half scimitar in the same way that a bastard sword is a hand-and-a-half longsword. How is this difficult to comprehend? (Not even to speak of the mode of use -- being that curved swords are used in a similar way to one another which is quite different from how you'd use a straight-blade). In Fact if im not mistaken the scimitar cant acutally be drawn from a normal scabbard, the scabbard actually opens at the side because the top of the sword is wider and more curved than the rest of the blade. Ah! Herein is the contention. You're thinking of a very specific Arabian weapon sometimes called a scimitar (scimitar is actually a blanket term, in real life, for curved swords). Your position, then, falls apart. Because your average scimitar (what most people know as 'scimitar' and what most fantasy media seemed geared toward) is a weapon of this sort. Scimitar (http://www.museumreplicas.com/webstore/eCat/Weapons/Historical/Swords/Scimitar.aspx) The weapon you're attempting to ascribe to the 'scimitar' is an extreme cultural variation of the curve-bladed sword. That's like saying that all longswords should only deal piercing damage because of this one French arming sword you saw in a museum that had an extreme taper and virtually no functional edge geometry. Clearly, now, you can see your error. If I really cared enough that a Roleplaying Game deserved more than 10 minutes of typing I may have bothered to proof read what i wrote. So in other words.. your attribute your lack of grammatical skills to laziness and apathy? Perhaps you should consider taking a reality check since its partially evident what is fiction to most is real life for you. What fiction would that be, exactly? The 'fiction' of historical facts or the 'fiction' of grammar skills? And the next time you feel like belittling another persons oppinions with crude remarks about their typing skills and knowledge of grammar Belittle? I'm sorry if your ego is that fragile. You'll note that nowhere in my post did I -insult- your grammar. I said it was sub-par and that your arguments would have more weight of you dealt with that issue. Please tell me where, exactly, the insult was. Further.. do explain how exactly that's 'crude.' perhaps you may want to consider using private messaging instead of humiliating yourself in public. Which is code for "don't make fun of me where others can see" hidden behind a mask of indifference? Believe me, there was no intent to humiliate or insult you. If you took such offense - I would suggest that you grow a slightly thicker skin. And do stop with the faux-apathy and indifference. Say how you really feel, not how you would like others to think you feel. If you were insulted, simply say so and apologies will be considered. Duely noted and ignored /bow In other words.. "I find that good communication skills are not worth my time on a discussion forum." An interesting position to hold, but one you have a right to.
vankike 11-10-05, 08:52 PM	I agree with the fact that a katana shouldn't be a master work weapon, and have the higher critical rate but the damage doesn't fit training in a katana in which case it should do 1d10 becasue the whole focus was on one stroke for one kill. and for clarification puroses the master work quality can mean anything from a custom made grip to having a dragon etched into the blade. it boils down to the fact someone took more time to make the blade wich would be historically acurate, a katana on average took three days to make whereas a bastard sword could be made in one day, from my understanding.
Orayn, Elvish Blademaster 11-10-05, 09:12 PM	The 'ol katana debate, eh? In my opinion, the Katana is a masterwork bastard sword, nothing more, nothing less. The dai-katana is entirely ficticious, and is most likened to the no-daichi, a slightly longer version of the katana, but not enough to meaninguflly affect the weapon. Yes, the katana was usually a well-made sword, yes Japanese iron was of poor quality, but it's not worth spending another month squabbling over whether it deals 1D8 or 1D10 damage, or has a critical range of 19-20 or 18-20.
Vaalingrade Ashland 11-10-05, 09:37 PM	I agree with the fact that a katana shouldn't be a master work weapon, and have the higher critical rate but the damage doesn't fit training in a katana in which case it should do 1d10 becasue the whole focus was on one stroke for one kill. 1d8/1d10 -- they'll all kill a cmommoner 50% of the time.
ShadowWarrior 11-10-05, 10:40 PM	All that Daikatana is, is a very, very bad game made for the PC. The only thing good that came out of it was one song made by the laziest men on mars. We now return you to your regularly scheduled D&D rant. Katana stats are fine just the way they are, but having to allways be masterwork is just bs. This post brought to you by your friendly neighbourhood bump.
Kulthos 11-11-05, 01:09 AM	By the War of Onin (1467-1477) Japanese armour, and weapons hit a plateau of quality considered to be superior to any weapons made by any other culture in the world, and for centuries afterwards. An average katana made during this time was crafted with a skill that far outshined the master craftsman of other cultures. The Japan worshipping craze of the 1980's has been over for a while. Other cultures folded their blades before the Japanese. The Samurai hit their high point when Europe was steaming around the globe and using repeating firearms.
warlockco 11-11-05, 04:00 AM	The 'ol katana debate, eh? In my opinion, the Katana is a masterwork bastard sword, nothing more, nothing less. The dai-katana is entirely ficticious, and is most likened to the no-daichi, a slightly longer version of the katana, but not enough to meaninguflly affect the weapon. Yes, the katana was usually a well-made sword, yes Japanese iron was of poor quality, but it's not worth spending another month squabbling over whether it deals 1D8 or 1D10 damage, or has a critical range of 19-20 or 18-20. :clap: :clap:
Alchahest 11-11-05, 04:09 AM	has it occured to anyone else that making all katanas functionally masterwork (I am speaking solely in mechanics terms here) effectively gives samurai-types training wheels? the only bonus a masterwork weapon has is to-hit. which means it's easier to use. all of you fanboys. every single last one. please tell me that you're arguing for masterwork katanas... because samurai needed them?
warlockco 11-11-05, 05:30 AM	In my own OA campaigns, there were two standards the creation of Katanas. 1) Any weapon that was part of a Daisho was Masterwork 2) Then there were the "peasant" weapons and training weapons By "peasant" weapon I mean a katana made for illegal use by a commoner, in a Feudal Japan type world. I applied only the 1st standard to Katanas in my game, and my players were told to assume that any weapon found was a standard weapon unless told otherwise in all my games.
Ranger REG 11-12-05, 01:29 AM	what time era of samuria are we talking about? Okay, I thought I could ignore it since I first saw it on this messageboards but I have to put my tabi down... It's Rogue, not Rouge. It's Samurai, not Samuria.
warlockco 11-12-05, 03:49 AM	Okay, I thought I could ignore it since I first saw it on this messageboards but I have to put my tabi down... It's Rogue, not Rouge. It's Samurai, not Samuria. :rofl:
Ranger REG 11-13-05, 01:44 AM	Hey, I've got a super idea... STOP JAPANIFYING THE EUROPEAN D&D!!! On one condition: WotC must publicly apologize for westernizing the Complete Warrior Samurai class. Damn US mainlanders. P.S. You're lucky I'm lenient. For such a grave dishonor, I would have demanded a seppuku from among the WotC clan.
warlockco 11-13-05, 03:44 AM	On one condition: WotC must publicly apologize for westernizing the Complete Warrior Samurai class. Damn US mainlanders. P.S. You're lucky I'm lenient. For such a grave dishonor, I would have demanded a seppuku from among the WotC clan. Can't we still demand such a think from some of them? :devil:
LaoKhanWei 11-13-05, 05:46 PM	What exactly do you mean by saying the ore was of "very poor quality"? Why exactly does this have much if any bearing on the quality of the product steel? Do you know why no one cares about ore quality these days?
warlockco 11-13-05, 08:39 PM	Back in the OLD days, the better the ore, the better the metal was. Back then they didn't have the ability to refine metals as well as we do nowadays. Also Ore Quality does matter still, because the lower the quality of the ore, the more refinement goes into it, which raises your operational costs. So Ore Quality nowadays might have no bearing on the finished product, but it does affect the bottomline though.
LaoKhanWei 11-14-05, 12:01 AM	I'll just wait for Vahenir to weave a nice little trap for himself before responding...
Vahenir 11-14-05, 12:09 AM	Yeah, warlockco pretty much got it. Low-quality iron ore means that it has an excessive amount of impurities. In modern times the quality of the ore does matter, but it matters much less. Not only can we be more choosy about which iron ore we use in the modern era, but we also have exceptionally advanced ways to refine the ore to remove impurities -prior- to using it to create a final product (such as steel). However, in the medieval/feudal era this was not the case. In those times, refinement only went so far and lower-quality ore universally meant 'lower-quality product.' That's why Spanish steel weapons were so prized in medieval Europe. It wasn't because the Spanish knew how to make steel better than everyone else... it's because Spain has some of the best iron deposits in the world. How does this translate to swords? Impurities in a sword cause rather nasty variances in strength, leaving vulnerable weaknesses in the blade which invariably lead to a broken sword. High-quality iron ore, lacking most of these impurities, does not suffer from this problem. The world has seen multiple peoples developing different kinds of folding/welding techniques to remove impurities in iron ore (Nordic pattern-welding and Japanese folding are just two examples). What this technique does is force out impurities. Mind you, it doesn't remove them all.. or even -most- of them.. just many of them. This means that the 'mystical Japanese folding' technique simply served to aid a sword-maker in producing a blade with enough structural integrity to not snap on first use. It's important not to -devalue- the folding technique just because it wasn't uber-izing any swords. It was still a very involved and necessary technique. It's just important to remove the mystique surrounding the Japanese sword. But I've gotten off subject. To answer your final question, which was really more of a statement: You're incorrect. The quality of iron ore still plays a part in the decision of company A to buy from iron-miner company B. For example, modern sword-makers usually only purchase higher-grade iron-ores, because while it's expensive.. it also makes for better weapons. Companies that make steel for car parts, on the other hand, save their money and buy cheap crappy iron ore.. using their refinement plants to make it into passable iron ore.. because that's all you really need for an item like an engine (which is too thick for impurities to make a difference). Edit: I hope this was enough of a 'trap' to satisfy you. May I ask exactly where I wronged you that I deserve such ignorant, vitriolic comments like that? Is it some abject horror at someone disagreeing with you? In any event, I suggest you make nice, and not be so dependant on the presumed failure of others. It's not healthy, and it doesn't make for good behaviour on a discussion forum. You'll last a lot longer here if you play nice. And since you've only been here for about a month, I do suggest taking my advice.
LaoKhanWei 11-14-05, 01:43 AM	Nope, define impurities.
Vahenir 11-14-05, 02:14 AM	Are you seriously disputing the well-known fact that iron ore contains impurities? Fine.. I'll humour you.. impurities in iron ore include sand, rock, silica, Sulfur, phosphorus, Boron.. Here.. look it up yourself: http://www.answers.com/impurities%20in%20iron%20ore
LaoKhanWei 11-14-05, 02:26 AM	And are you seriously trying to tell me steel contains "sand, rock, silica, Sulfur, phosphorus, Boron"?
Vahenir 11-14-05, 02:34 AM	It's -seriously- true. I can't believe that's even being contested. Did -you- think that even the worst-grade steel was simply iron and carbon? I'm not insulting you.. I am genuinely surprised. I've never actually known someone (that I knew of, at least) who didn't realize that impurities were present in these types of processes and that these impurities, even with -modern- refining technology, end up in the final product. If you have trouble believing it... you don't need to believe me. I directed you to a host of websites that do all of the scientific explaining better than I ever could.
LaoKhanWei 11-14-05, 02:54 AM	Yeah, that's about all I need. I am in no way denying that pig iron contains trace amounts of various substances, that's going to be unavoidable. I'm certainly going to contest that these trace amounts have much bearing on the finished product. Differences in ore usually result in differences in the resulting materials crystaline structure during the smelting process. Though I certainly don't deny the possibility of my information being incorrect, I greatly doubt that it is. Although the intent of folding the steel is certainly arguable, I think it's safe to say it was to create a homogenous material after the metal has been alloyed with materials beyond carbon that were intentionally introduced! With 20 folds you have an essentially homogenous material. Steel itself is made by varying the carbon content of iron. The vary definition of steel is iron with a specific range of carbon content. Obviously carbon content in pig iron does not matter as it's easily controlled. The physical properties of a sword depend almost exclusively on two things, allotropic structure and carbon content. Both are precisely controlled during the forging process. Trace amounts of contiminates are intentionally removed so that they might be controlled at a later time. The only major impact the composition of iron ore is going to have is in the allotropic structure of pig iron! Geez. Edit: I'm sorry if I come off as hostile, I'm just a bit exasperated.
warlockco 11-14-05, 07:39 AM	Seems to me that you are applying Modern Metallury Knowledge to what the Ancients could have known, which they didn't. Bronze and Brass were practically accidental discoveries due to impurities in Copper Ore that was used for making something.
Tristan 11-14-05, 11:43 AM	--->Masterwork Katana Daisho --->Masterwork Shortsword they are masterwork because a Samurai's Daisho was usually crafted by a good swordsmith. They wheren't halfassed, because they where as spiritual as deadly. Thus you can have a normal Katana that wasnt fancy (what all the bushi used) No-Dachi(and I gues Dai Katana)--->Greatsword A No-Dachi is just a curved Greatsword. Rarely expertly made, its size was enough to strike awe into opponents. No fine craft needed
BeyondFated 11-14-05, 02:45 PM	I've got to say, though, I really love these boards. I can't think of anywhere else where you can ask if a sword ever really existed, and then have people damn near give college leactures on the subject (Vahenir, you have my utmost respect.). I've learned more about from these boards then I have from most of my previous schooling. Pelor bless these borads. My babbling aside, I would just like to say that, on the topic of the stats of the Dai Katan, that the sword should be a greatsword. Simply make some cosmetic changes, single-bladed and a katana style hilt, and RolePlay to your hearts content. If you want to go really big, make it a full blade. Making it masterwork just doesn't sit right with me. There were crappy katanas, just like there was crappy Euro-sword, rapiers, estocs, spears, glaives, knives, and even clubs. Saying that all katanas are masterwork, is the same as saying that all food from McDonalds is gourmet. At least, thats how I feel, for what it's worth. (Which isn't much) ___ Also, And are you seriously trying to tell me steel contains "sand, rock, silica, Sulfur, phosphorus, Boron"? Were you this surprised to hear that cereal had vitamins? :rolleyes:
Millennium 11-14-05, 03:16 PM	Why must we think all Japanese swords "masterwork";90% of katana you can buy today are anything but. Can you say "cheeze metal";I know you can. Actually, you could say "cheese metal" of most traditionally-made katana as well; the metal used in forging the blades is quite poor. This is why their manufacture was so heavily ritualized; if things weren't done just right, the sword would be almost useless. Certain parts of the process were only done at night, for example, so that the smith could tell the exact temperature of the metal by what color it glowed when heated. Yes, the smiths of ancient Japan were probably more skilled than any others. They had to be, in order to make any kind of usable sword at all from that sort of metal. Yes,I know that some Japanese swords are folded 5,000 times,and are finest quality. However not all smiths are the same. Not all smiths are the same, but I refer you back to the fact that the process was highly ritualized. Frankly, the reason all katana are masterwork is that any blade which came out as less than masterwork quality would be smashed by the smith before it could ever be sold. Such blades wouldn't stand up to any kind of combat situation, and the smiths knew it. It's possible that some unscrupulous smiths may have tried to cheat their customers with inferior blades, but such smiths would likely not live long after their swords started breaking and their now-deceased customers' friends wanted revenge on the smith who had made a crap weapon.
Ranger REG 11-14-05, 03:25 PM	My babbling aside, I would just like to say that, on the topic of the stats of the Dai Katan, that the sword should be a greatsword. Simply make some cosmetic changes, single-bladed and a katana style hilt, and RolePlay to your hearts content. If you want to go really big, make it a full blade. If you give dai-katana the equivalent stat of the greatsword, what do you give no-dachi (the one used in The Seven Samurai)?
LaoKhanWei 11-14-05, 03:38 PM	Seems to me that you are applying Modern Metallury Knowledge to what the Ancients could have known, which they didn't. Bronze and Brass were practically accidental discoveries due to impurities in Copper Ore that was used for making something. This statement makes little sense as clearly they did possess this knowledge. I'm not trying to say anyone in the 15th century understood particle physics but they clearly knew how to manipulate carbon levels and crystaline structure. Tempering, differential hardening, pattern welding, etc - These techniques demonstrate tremendous practical knowledge of metalurgy honed through centuries of experimentation. You don't just blindnly stumble upon these things. Were you this surprised to hear that cereal had vitamins? Make all the snide comments you want. Instead of stating my opinions over and over again I've actually backed my claims up scientifically. Roughly 20 folds produces layers one atom in thickness. Such a homogeneous material will not be weakened by trace amounts of silica.
BeyondFated 11-14-05, 03:54 PM	If you give dai-katana the equivalent stat of the greatsword, what do you give no-dachi (the one used in The Seven Samurai)? Never saw Seven Samurai, but I'm going to assume that a no-dachi is bigger than a dai-katana. Greatsword stats.
LaoKhanWei 11-14-05, 04:04 PM	I assumed Dai-Katana refered to Nodachi.
Tristan 11-14-05, 04:28 PM	I assumed Dai-Katana refered to Nodachi. meh, me to. I dont think I saw anything like that in the Oriental adventures book, or never heard of it. So I assumed it had to be a special katana, No-Dachi, Nagamaki, or naginata.
Vahenir 11-14-05, 07:02 PM	Dai-katana and no-dachi are the same thing. Dai-katana, so far as I am aware, is a modern (incorrect) term for a no-dachi (which itself is bastardized from its root, which I don't remember). So for our purposes.. yes.. dai-katana and no-dachi can be used interchangeably.. they refer to the same weapon. Instead of stating my opinions over and over again I've actually backed my claims up scientifically. No, you haven't. You've stated the scientific explanation for how steel is -made-. You have provided no scientific basis for your belief that the impurities found in iron ore have no affect on the finished steel. Your opinion is flat out incorrect. I'm not saying it to be mean, or to embarass you, or anything of the sort. I'm saying it because it's the simple truth. The impurities contained in the iron ore do not magically disappear. Folding presses impurities out of the steel, but the remaining impurities will still have an affect on the final product. The more impurities present in the iron ore, the more will be present even after folding/pattern-welding has been done. Folding can remove almost all impurities in a very 'pure' iron ore.. but Japanese iron ore is in no way this pure. Simple facts. If you so incredibly dislike believing me.. you're welcome to research the topic yourself. There are many books on the subject of medieval steel production, especially concerned with Japanese swords, which have enjoyed a sort of cult following in the 20th/21st century. The good people at the American Bladesmith Society can direct you to information to correct your false presumptions. But I can already see that no matter what I say to you here, you will not only continue thinking you are correct, regardless of your lack of basis, but you're simply going to further and further become obstinate about your 'correctness.' It's like telling a 5-year-old 'No' -- the more you say 'No' -- the more they say 'Yes.' (Not that I'm likening you to a 5-year-old). So, while I do hate to appear like I'm 'letting you win' due to 'lack of ability to present my side' (which is, I'm sure, how you'll spin it) -- I can't see this conversation going anywhere except straight down with the attitude I'm sensing from you. So I'm letting it go. I've pointed you in the direction to research this topic if you choose to do it. I cannot force you. Do as you will, believe what you will. (Vahenir, you have my utmost respect.). Thank you. I appreciate the sentiment.
LaoKhanWei 11-14-05, 08:24 PM	And I would say exactly the same of you. You are utterly convinced that what you believe is fact and can't believe I think otherwise. It's fact afterall, right? I'm in the same position. I'm an engineer, I have a masters degree, I've read extensively on this subject, I practice traditional Korean and Chinese martial arts, I've spent time at a traditional swordsmith in Korea, etc, etc, etc... I assure you I am not uneducated in this area, we simply have come to a large disagreement (one that's extremely relative in nature I might add). I do agree it would be best to simply leave this argument as it is as it's not likely to end anytime soon. My point is that the resulting crystal structure of the alloy is what matters.
WhiteHarness 11-15-05, 12:45 AM	No offense, LaoKhan, but it looks like Vahenir has presented a lot more convincing scientific evidence than you have. It doesn't matter that you're an engineer; he clearly knows more about swords and metallurgy. As for your having studied East-Asian martial arts, I suspect that's why you seem inclined to hang onto the 1980's "ninja-craze" katana myth. Incidentally, who was it in this thread that said something to the effect of "katana were folded 5000 times?" AFAIK, they were folded only a couple dozen times at most (the exact number of folds depending on which school of sword manufacture the smith belonged to, which time period, location, etc...), resulting in thousands of *layers*. Folding the steel thousands of times would likely work all of your carbon out of the steel, leaving you with a soft iron blade.
LaoKhanWei 11-15-05, 01:08 AM	As for your having studied East-Asian martial arts, I suspect that's why you seem inclined to hang onto the 1980's "ninja-craze" katana myth. When did I display this? I'm disputing the relative impact of ore on a finished product. We're arguing about something rather specific that actually has little to do with this thread. I have the utmost respect for medieval european martial arts and weapons, furthermore I am not trying to assign any kind of fabulous quality to Japanese swords, only stating that they display considerably higher shock resistance than Vahenir seems to think. Incidentally, who was it in this thread that said something to the effect of "katana were folded 5000 times?" Not me, my example was 20 folds. I think you're getting me confused with another poster.
warlockco 11-15-05, 02:13 AM	I'm in the same position. I'm an engineer, I have a masters degree, I've read extensively on this subject, I practice traditional Korean and Chinese martial arts, I've spent time at a traditional swordsmith in Korea, etc, etc, etc... I assure you I am not uneducated in this area, we simply have come to a large disagreement (one that's extremely relative in nature I might add). I do agree it would be best to simply leave this argument as it is as it's not likely to end anytime soon. That is where the following came from As for your having studied East-Asian martial arts, I suspect that's why you seem inclined to hang onto the 1980's "ninja-craze" katana myth.
LaoKhanWei 11-15-05, 02:32 AM	And this somehow invovles me in 80's American pop culture how?
Ranger REG 11-15-05, 03:26 AM	Dai-katana and no-dachi are the same thing. Dai-katana, so far as I am aware, is a modern (incorrect) term for a no-dachi (which itself is bastardized from its root, which I don't remember). So for our purposes.. yes.. dai-katana and no-dachi can be used interchangeably.. they refer to the same weapon. Actually, I like the dai-katana to have the equivalent stat of a masterwork greatsword, something Sasaki Kojiro wielded when he fought and fatally lost to Miyamoto Musashi. A no-dachi is hardly crafted as masterwork, an alternate ashigaru (footman) weapon to the yari, used to bring down and harm any mounted opponents.
LaoKhanWei 11-15-05, 03:38 AM	How is a nodachi any less or more automatically masterwork than a katana? How is a daikatana any different from a nodachi or odachi other than the fact that daikatana isn't a historical term?
Watchman 11-15-05, 08:06 AM	I don't think the no-dachi was ever a very common weapon - especially among the infantry grunts (rather many of whom were actually samurai, seeing as how every social class has its high and low ends, but anyway). All the mentions I've ever seen of the things suggest they were fairly rare things, usually wielded by members of the middle and upper ranks of the samurai class (ie. the sorts who actually fought on horseback) whenever used. If what Vahenir and some others have been saying of the quality of Japanese ore is true (and I see no reason why it wouldn't be), a fairly sensible explanation would be a certain difficulty in working that stuff into a wholesome blade that long... aside from tactical considerations and preferences, naturally. One weapon extremely popular among about everyone after the Japanese started using iron was the naginata, though. Old Chinese texts even refer to the island as "the land of thousand fine halberds"... And why not - polearms are good. Only limited amount of complicated metallurgy involved keeps the costs down, they give good reach and killing power (sheer leverage ought to make a naginata swing more lethal than sword), and AFAIK are pretty easy to balance properly. Even cavalrymen would sometimes use them, although their two most popular weapons were the bow and its later replacement, the three- to four-meter long cavalry yari.
Kem 11-15-05, 09:43 AM	LaoKhanWei is basically right. The reason for the folding is that it reduced the "effect" of the impurities in the final product. He is not saying it removes them, or eliminates them, but that it minimizes them to such a degree that the initial level of impurity is "less important" then the method and mastery of smithing involved. Noone has actually said anything to the contrary, so I don't know what all the venom is for. (And I'm one to know venom when I see it :) )
Kyuketsukiouji 11-15-05, 10:33 AM	The very fact LaoKhanWei use the terms "pig iron" and "ore" when refering to the metal used to make katanas is an indication that he does not know what he's talking about. Pig iron is iron produced through smelting. It is iron that is functionally melted down into liquid form before hardening again, usually through the use of a coke smelter. Pig iron was never used in the manifacturing of katanas. The japanese did not possess the technology to make pig iron until the Meiji era. Japanese iron is ferrous sand, not ore. It is of horrible quality, as stated before, and most of the skill involved in japanese smithing is turning this sand into a usable form. It was turned to steel by in-forge enrichment, basically making a bar of iron, putting it in live coals in a hot forge, and letting the carbon bond to the iron. It was a very unscientific process, and yes, it became ritualised, simply because the japanese smith didn't know the science behind what they were doing. The end result of this was steel that was very uneven in quality. The metal itself did contain impurities (foreign matter that was present in the original iron before it was enriched) and the quality of the metal was uneven, since the enrichment process resulted in different iron/carbon ratios. A blade make as a block with that kind of steel would have contained far too many stress points to be useful. It would have snapped on the first blow. To compensate this, the smiths started folding the metal. Folding the steel they had allowed them to minimise the negative effects of the uneven carbon distribution, while also forcing the grosser impurities out of the metal. Enough folds, and their sub-par steel became actually usable. So, yes. The quality of the original iron does matter. If the japanese smith had had access to decent quality iron, they would never have had to develop the techniques they did. Japanese smiths are respected not for making superweapons. They're respected for making good quality weapons out of bad quality materials.
WhiteHarness 11-15-05, 02:08 PM	If the japanese smith had had access to decent quality iron... Which, I think, is precisely why they were so keen (heh!) on importing European iron, and (through the Europeans) Indian wootz after the Europeans made contact. A book I have (Bottomley's "Arms and Armour of the Samurai") notes that items made from "namban-tetsu" were highly prized...
Watchman 11-15-05, 03:00 PM	As a side note, imported European armour (breastplates and helmets mostly) became pretty popular too, and probably not in the least as the standards of metallurgy were a fair bit higher than the Japanese armourers had the raw materials or know-how for. Although, since it was pretty rare and priced high, it then became a bit of a fashion to manufacture Japanese armour to similar appereance... As another side note, the issue with avoiding the weak points and fault-lines created by localized deposits of impurities (such as the humble slag) were apparently a major stumbling block on the way to developing solid-plate armour (the problems become more acute with single large pieces) and one reason why just about everyone built their protective gear up from numerous smaller parts. The Europeans had to develop a new type of furnace just to get suitable iron to work on, and a few additional metalworking tricks (mainly involving multiple layers AFAIK), before they got it working right and could start producing large steel plates of sufficiently homogenous quality.
Alchahest 11-16-05, 01:58 PM	Make all the snide comments you want. Instead of stating my opinions over and over again I've actually backed my claims up scientifically. Roughly 20 folds produces layers one atom in thickness. Such a homogeneous material will not be weakened by trace amounts of silica. I just thought I'd look at the math side of that statement, it doesn't seem to sit right with me. each fold effectively doubles the number of layers, right? fold #1 : 1x2=2 fold #2 : 2x4=8 fold #3 : 2x8=16 fold #4 : 2x16=32 fold #5 : 2x32=64 fold #6 : 2x64=128 fold #7 : 2x128=256 fold #8 : 2x256=512 fold #10: 2x512=1024 fold #11: 2x1024=2048 fold #12: 2x2048=4096 fold #13: 2x4096=8192 fold #14: 2x8192=16384 fold #15: 2x16384=32768 fold #16: 2x32768=65536 fold #17: 2x65536=131072 fold #18: 2x131072=262144 fold #19: 2x262144=524288 fold #20: 2x524288=1048576 that leaves us with 1 048 576 atom-thick layers. now, some quick research using my friend google yields this page: atomic diameter (http://hypertextbook.com/facts/MichaelPhillip.shtml) conservatively (for the sake of large atoms) I will use the measurement of 0.1 nanometers for an atom. so that would equal a width of 104857.6 nanometers.. so, your twenty-fold, homogenous crystal structure would have a diameter of... 0.0104857cm. for those using imperial measurements, that's 0.0041282 inches. science, yeah :D --edit-- I'd almost forgotten. being that carbon and iron are actually two seperate elements, the idea of having a mixture of them in one atom layers is laughable. I mean, even more so than with just the math.
BeyondFated 11-16-05, 02:49 PM	science, yeah :D And that, my friends, is what we call a 'Zing'.
Callahan 11-16-05, 03:02 PM	atom thick? erm yeah... Well ignore the slip of scientific impossibility but yes, Katanas did reach 20 folds, though most common were about 12 fold. Not many went beyond 12. Beyond 20 however... well the molecular structure of the blade is such that further folding would most likely serve no further purpose so not many ever bothered to go further then that.
jasper 11-16-05, 03:26 PM	folds and layers. I think and know some people including writers get lazy and use these words incorrectly. 5000 folds when the mean 5000 layers which means 12 folds if the smith started with one bar. I have video in japanese with english subtitles which was produced in the 50s showing one of master swordsmiths making a sword. He starts with three layers. And if I remember correctly he occasionally heated and folded lengthwise and then width. The bars were about the size of his fist to begin with.
jasper 11-18-05, 09:17 AM	SWORD found it!!!!! It had been placed with my wife's school videos Title Japanese sword making technique a documentary record of a dying art. back cover states the film was found in private collection. paper insert talks about swordsmith Shohei Miyairi of Nagano. Third generation swordsmith who started in 1935. Due to ww2 he learn to use scrap steel to make swords. In video he use 4 pieces of steel of 3 grades. One grade was heated 18 times, one 12 and one 10 in process to make new metal called oroshigane. These steel bricks are then broken for the raw material. He use 4 pieces of steel. hard for the edge,less hard for the sides, and soft for the core. These are heat, beaten and drawn out. More shape is given using files and shapers until if nears the final form. He then uses a clay compound to regulate the tempering of the sword and edge. The manner which the clay is applied with dictate the shape of the temper edge or harmon. the final temper and quenching is done after dark. The polisher takes over. the polishe has 30 years experience. He starts with rough stones and works down to finer stones to bring out the beauty of swordsmith's art. This was gift to me. And That all the documentation I have on it. edit I did some google work. the swordsmith is now a national treasure. my copy of the tape appears to be out of print however a video with some other footage is called "molten fire" appears to be still in printl enjoy
Dire Celestial Bonobo 11-18-05, 06:26 PM	so, your twenty-fold, homogenous crystal structure would have a diameter of... 0.0104857cm. for those using imperial measurements, that's 0.0041282 inches. science, yeah A katana blade is approximately 0.6cm thick; 0.6cm/0.0105cm = 57.1, meaning that it would take 28 folds to achieve the 1 Angstrom thickness you're looking for. That being said, folding a blade to that extent would be worse than useless - it would burn out too much carbon, creating a softer iron that would be poor at holding an edge. In practice, around 12 folds (4000 layers, which may be where the poster got "5000 folds" from) was pretty common, and no authentic blades with more than 24 folds are known to exist. (See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Katana for a certain amount of info that seems mostly reasonalbe. It also addresses the claim that folding a blade performed some kind of voodoo strengthening magic, and correctly dismisses it as bunk; folding a blade has well-understood beneficial properties which are neither magical nor uniquely Japanese.)
LaoKhanWei 11-18-05, 10:46 PM	A katana blade is approximately 0.6cm thick; 0.6cm/0.0105cm = 57.1, meaning that it would take 28 folds to achieve the 1 Angstrom thickness you're looking for. That being said, folding a blade to that extent would be worse than useless - it would burn out too much carbon, creating a softer iron that would be poor at holding an edge. In practice, around 12 folds (4000 layers, which may be where the poster got "5000 folds" from) was pretty common, and no authentic blades with more than 24 folds are known to exist. (See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Katana for a certain amount of info that seems mostly reasonalbe. It also addresses the claim that folding a blade performed some kind of voodoo strengthening magic, and correctly dismisses it as bunk; folding a blade has well-understood beneficial properties which are neither magical nor uniquely Japanese.) 28 Folds? Yeah, that seems to about jive with my previous statement of "roughly 20". Pig iron is iron produced through smelting. It is iron that is functionally melted down into liquid form before hardening again, usually through the use of a coke smelter. Pig iron was never used in the manifacturing of katanas. The japanese did not possess the technology to make pig iron until the Meiji era. And this would be the root of the problem throughout our entire argument. I'd say a coal based blast furnace would be a bit more likely than a coke smelter and the blast furnace was a widespread on the mainland since around 400 BC. Where did Japan learn ironworking? The mainland, likely through Korea, China or Siberia (not to imply I think these countries were distinguishable at the time). Now before it's fall, Baekje had strong trade relations with the Japanese Wa, metalworking technology and weapons were certainly exchanged during this time. Being quite familiar with Korean and Chinese metalworking throughout history, I'd simply assumed similar techniques were employed by the Japanese. So why no Japanese blast furnace? It makes little sense why this obviously superior technique wasn't taken up. However, after looking up the composition of common Japanese iron ores I see an unusually high concentration of titanium which would likely have shut down any Japanese attempts to use the technology with local ores. If this is the case, then it most certainly is contamination of Japanese ore that's the problem, it's simply a bit more complex as it's actually the prevention of smelting that causes all of these problems. So in closing, I apologize for drawing this argument out so long. You must understand though, your argument didn't make any sense to me before this information came up.