Would you make the katana a longsword or rapier equivalent? I am leaning towards rapier, to make it a finesse weapon, but make it slashing. The wakizashi would be the equivalent of the scimitar, I would think.
Longsword. A katana is a heavy hand-and-a-half sword, as reliant on strength to penetrate armor as any other sword. Why is this a question?
The Green Destiny blade from Crouching Kitten, Hidden Lizard would be a rapier.
TiaNadiezja wrote:
It is a question because i asked it. Thought that would be obvious.
I asked it because I have been thinking of a Samurai possibly being able to be a finesse fighter. I know a Katana can, and often was, used two handed, and for that reason the longsword would seem fitting, but a finesse samurai using a katana has its own rich cultural appeal. So I hope you now have some understanding of how such a question got asked.
Would it be overpowering to have the katana being able to be a finesse weapon for a d8 in one hand, or a non-finesse weapon in two hands, doing a d10 like the longsword?
I'd have the katana and wakizashi be a long sword (with finesse and versitile) and a short sword, but both slashing instead of piercing.
Both would be 'masterwork' weapons, however...Harder to buy, expensive, and maybe with a +1 to hit or to damage.
ankiyavon wrote:
Can we maybe not try to sell the katana as straight superior to European-style weapons?
A Katana is definately a slashing weapon, and definately depends on strength, so IMHO the longsword from the 5e base weapon list is the best comparison. The Wakizashi is definately a form of shortsword.
-Polaris
Iorwerth wrote:
TiaNadiezja wrote:
TiaNadiezja wrote:
ankiyavon wrote:
Iorwerth wrote:
Polaris wrote:
There's two ways. Either a direct refavouring of the longsword or a new weapon that's a rapier that deals slashing damage.
It really depends what characteristics of the katana you want to emulate, being able to wield it one or two handed or being able to a use agility and speed to strike.
Personally, I'd go longsword and scimitar for the katana and wakizashi.
I go for the Katana = Longsword, wakizashi = Scimitar or Shortsword.
If the DM AND Player are very much in love with the iconic Katana wielding waif
Then Katana = more expensive rapier that does slashing damage.
Or make it effectively a magic weapon with longsword stats and the finesse property.
If it was my own jerk opinion:
Katana = Longsword, however on a natural 1 on your attack roll the sword breaks due to the inferior steel in medieval Japan due to lack of rich iron ore.* With a DC 13 CHA saving throw, you can convince the universe that this is not actually the case and Katanas can in fact cut through tanks.
*Warning, may or may not be accurate historical fact. May contain traces of British Jingoism. I am not arguing that Japanaese Sword Making sucked, but the materials they had access to may have done.
DnD combat rules are and never have been a terribly accurate simulation of real world combat. In truth both power (str) and speed and coordination (dex) are needed for telling blows against and armored opponent in swordplay. This video shows sparring between a bokken and a longsword, its clear both rely on much more than brute force https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cFGPCTMp2cw . However, trying to cut through mail links or other heavy armor would require considerable strength behind the swing.
Part of that is that the distinction between Strength, Dexterity and Constitution and all they entail is a fine and good abstraction for game purposes, but is very contrary to actual human physiology.
If anything it's rather *difficult* to improve one without having to improve the others as you train, esp. with something like sword use.
In D&D of course we're kinda forced to choose bettween them for balance and iconic archetype purposes.
Iorwerth wrote:
I am for making any one-handed weapon finesse.
The trait doesn't seem to have any real value attached to it. If the rules were a bit cleaner, Rogues and Bards would just have acess to all Martial One-Handed weapons and all with all one-handed weapons you can use Dexterity instead of Strength.
Of course, let us not fool outselves about Katanas. They were never a mass-produced item with detailed designations on size. They came in a myriad of different sizes all to be customized to the way the buyer the smith wanted it to be. Of course, this is also true of swords in all countries.
There are a few traits that katanas have. First, they are made of really pure steel and fairly thin. This means they broke less often than other swords. They have one sharp and one non-sharp edge and are curved. This means that there really isn't all that much art as to how to use them. Japanese sword fighting styles are boring as hell, they focused on getting in range and being the first to strike and not missing with very little concept of blocking, repositing or such. Because the katana is a pretty poor sword for going up against someone who can use a sword effectively. It is basically only good at making long, large sweeping slices... which is fine if you are riding around on horseback swinging at the heads of the soldiers below you or you are attacking someone who doesn't know how to block a blow and doesn't have a shield.
They were virtually never used in real, serious combat. Samurai had polearms, bows and guns. Katanas were primarily worn as status symbols and used in one-on-one duels among someone of the more reckless types.
Now you want to claim your character has a tiny, light-weight one that deals 1d8 damage, can't be wielded two-handedly and is a finesse weapon? Sure. Making it a Slashing Rapier.
Someone else wants to say they have a larger one that can be wielded one or two handed and uses it as a Longsword? Also, perfectly fine.
Like I said, I think the game should have far more flexible weapon creation and usage rules instead of a chart where some weapons are clearly out-and-out superior to other choices on the same chart.
Now as for Samurai as a class? Social class, yes. Character class, hell no.
Samurai ought to be Fighters, Paladins, Bards and (if we ever get the class back) Warlord/Commanders. Some might even be Clerics or Rogues!! There ought to be a pretty good diversity of attitudes, philosophies, and fighting styles among them. They were never one and only one thing-- in fact, they didn't even have much in the way of properly organized schools in which to pass on their techniques. Typically any such schools disappeared fairly soon after they were opened.
Samurai would make for a far better BACKGROUND than a class.
But if you mean to say you want to make a character who is a Samurai out of the Fighter class? And you want to go Dexterity Fighter? Well, sure. I supposed. Knock yourslf out. Granted, samurai prior to the Edo period are generally thought about running around in heavy scalemail armor and you are going to be giving that up if you go the Dex Fighter route. But if you are going an Edo period one or a dualist? Sure. Sounds like a fine concept.
Iorwerth wrote:
I actually agree about samurai being a background, that's closer to the reality.
i think longsword and shortsword fit the bill for a katana and wakizashi respectively. They are not finesse weapons particularly.
If you wanted a fighter to use their dex bonus with these weapons, you could create a feat or fighting style. The swords could also be classified as monk weapons for flavor as well. But now we are getting well into setting specific mods. Katanas are not some all superior wonder weapon that turns a mediocre swordsman into a master.... Even if I were a katana fanboy, which it am not, I would have to acknowledge the source of the Katanas power lies in the training of the warrior and not the weapon. Thus if you must have the katana be a finesse weapon, do it by feat, not weapon quality.
This is a bit tangential, but only a bit:
When the Japanese and the Portuguese met in the 16th century, each culture was dominated by a touchy, honour-bound military caste with a strong duelling tradition. Inevitably, there were encounters between them, and they tended to result in a similar outcome: the Portugues duellist would end up dead on the spot, slashed open from nave to chaps by the Japanese katana, while the Japanese duellist would end up dead two or three days later from septicaemia and/or peritonitis, having had their bowels run through by the much longer Portugese rapier and the contents of their gut spilled into the abdominal cavity.
Interestingly, the Portuguese tended to view these duels as a resulting in a draw because both combatants died, while to the Japanese they were clear victories because they were still alive at the end of the combat.
This information comes to us via the research of Don Draeger, who spent a lifetime looking into this sort of thing.
Back to the main point at hand: from my own experince of handling Japanese swords (though in a controlled martial arts milieu, not in actual combat — about 25 years of aikido training) I would be very dubious about assigning any rapier-like qualities to the tachi or katana. They are designed for quite different fighting styles.
Mirtek wrote:
On a purely physical level a historical katana is about the same length and weight as a sabre or tulwar, although weighted much more towards the blade for a heavier slashing stroke rather than balanced for agility, and with a grip that allows two hands rather than just one. If you want a finessable katana, a scimitar works fine.
A longer, more modern style katana would fit into the D&D longsword category if needed, with the much larger variants working as greatswords.
A Wakizashi has a blade length the could put it anywhere in dagger/shortsword territory. There are examples around that are almost the same size as a katana, which might also fit into scimitar range.
Best bet is to ask your player about what they think their character's weapons look like and go by that. Or just pick the mechanically superior options from the weapons table.
Iorwerth wrote:
Polaris wrote:
Plaguescarred wrote:
Plaguescarred wrote:
ankiyavon wrote:
Katanas are fine IMO as expensive, finessable longswords. A versatile (1d10) finesse weapon isn't overpowered for fighters. While attractive to rogues, they'd be spending a whole super-feat to get proficiency with it.
Anime fantasy aesthetic is as legitimate as any other. The agile, unarmored katana-wielder archetype is popular and deserves to be a viable character option in the "all-inclusive edition" of D&D.
Kalandri wrote:
Polaris wrote:
Kalandri wrote:
Zardnaar wrote:
Kalandri wrote:
Zardnaar wrote:
Kalandri wrote:
Alright, first let me say that I agree with most others that the Longsword is easily the best 5e equivilent for a Katana as I feel it's a strength based weapon (IE not finessable) and the versatility aspect of the longsword makes sense.
Now, that said, MY opinion on how a game should go in terms of a reflavored weapon as a katana is kind of useless for YOU. So going off what YOU say is your intent, but trying to stay within the system and balanced...
If you're going to try to "dual weild" while being "finesse" I'd say make the Katana a Rapier but get the DM to sign off with changing the damage from piercing to slashing. Then use a scimitar as the wakizashi. You'd need to have the feat enabling you to use non-light weapons as part of your two weapon fighting to do this though, so you'd need to be human to fight in this manner from level one.
Allowing the katana to be finessable AND versatile is over powering. It makes it by far the most powerful weapon in the system as no other weapon allows for such a combination.
Iorwerth wrote:
Is it the basic PDF that treats the Katana and Waki whatever as short and longswords. I do not recall this in the PHB. since there is not exotic weapons in this game I suppose you could make a feat that allows the katana/Longsword to be used as a finesse weapon but that is about the best I wouod allow myself.
For realism and balance, make it an identical longsword variant and be done with it.
For funzies, make it a Versatile Finesse longsword. This screws the balance of Strength vs. Dexterity even more than it already is (Dex is so OP it isn't even funny), but if you really want to then feel free to allow it. It's up to the DM's discretion.
It's true that the katana was just another kind of longsword. Indeed it is exactly that: a sword which is long. The differences between european and japanese longswords is marginal. The only reason I might allow the Finesse property is because Kendo, the art of Japanese swordfighting, is designed to be a less brute-force approach to combat. It's most akin to Judo in practice, and they incorporated judo throws into the fighting style. This speaks to a more "finesse" fighting style as most asian martial arts do because, and I know it sounds racist to say this but it's kinda true, asian people are generally smaller than other ethnicities. Asian martial artists couldn't rely on overpowering opponents, so they devised their art to overcome an opponent's strength through fluid motion and physics.
If you're OK with Dexterity having yet another trump over Strength, then go ahead and make the Katana a finessable longsword. Just don't be offended when people call you a weeaboo. :P
RKVM wrote:
Hebitsuikaza wrote:
Things to consider: (keep in mind I am a katana fan...)
•Katana are heavier and more unwieldy than european longswords. The blades are significantly thicker and heavier and the design lacks a pommel to counter-balance the weight of the blade. If you think any katana ever was designed to be a "finesse weapon," you're living in pure fantasy. 
For that matter...
•Every martial art ever created in the history of martial arts allows for some finesse. It's just a part of fightning regardless. However, there is a distinct difference between styles that primarily involve finesse (many styles of knife fighting, rapier styles, etc) and styles that are not based primarily in finesse (heavier bladed styles, such as kendo). You can have grace and finesse as a katana wielder, but that doesn't mean the katana is a weapon of finesse.
•Katana are better at thrusting than most internet people give them credit for. Yes, it has a slightly curved blade, and that makes it excellent for slashing, but it's a slight curve that ends in a tapered point. A katana is like a perfect middle ground of design between a straight blade (such as a long sword or gladius) and a true curved blade (such as a talwar or scimitar).
•Samurai were knights. They wore their armor as often or not-often as their European couterpart. Why people seem to think that european and germanic knights spent 90% of their time in full battle regalia, while samurai did the exact opposite, is completely lost on me. If you're going into battle, you wear your armor. If you're not going into battle, you don't. Simple as that.
So, that all said, if you are trying to be as close to reality as possible, a katana = a longsword, and a wakizashi = a short sword. The stats fit wonderfully. (The only real issue that comes up is trying to duel wield them if you're not playing with feats. I don't know why the devs decided longsword/shortsword or rapier/dagger or equivalent combos didn't work - it's a silly restriction.)
If you're not worried about staying true to reality, then of course feel free to create your own weapons for your own game. You can even call them whatever you want. But there is merit in the idea that it's unbalancing to offer a 1d8/1d10 versatile finessable weapon choice.
-It's better than a rapier because a rapier isn't versatile.
-It's better than a longsword because a longsword isn't finessable.
-It's better than a greatsword because you never have the option of a shield with a greatsword.
RKVM wrote:
Diffan wrote:
I am confused as to why one specific sort of sword is being fiddled about with - why not assign the Japanese equivalent for all sword types, rather than arguing about which one a katana should be?
greatsword = odachi
longsword = katana
rapier = tachi
scimitar = wakizashi
shortsword = ninjato
dagger = tanto
My experience using katana and European swords (longswords, arming swords, etc) has told me that, more or less, katana are roughly equivalent to the D&D longsword. D&D combat is simply not robust and simulationist enough to accomodate the differences in use.
That said, there is something to the myth that katana are a "finesse" weapon. The katana had tremendous cutting power if the strike was performed well. The curvature of the blade and the shade of the edge, combined with the "drawing" motion of a proper strike ensured a long and deep cut. But if the angle of the cut is off by more than a little bit, the blade has a tendency to twist and flatten. European swords tend to not require so much precision. I'm not an expert, but I think it has to do with the relative thickness and weight of the blade. While hardly an axe, European swords are more "forgiving" when it comes to proper angles of cuts.
Also, the katana is a poor weapon for parrying, at least in the "clashing swords" way. A katana that clashed with another blade (katana or otherwise) would likely shatter, given their forging techniques. Japanese swordfighting techniques thus developed parrying techniques that used a "ride the blade" style. The swordsman would meet the cut with a cut of their own that would subtly deflect the opponent's blade while keeping their own strike "true". A duel would look strikingly different from a duel on a European battlefield, and would have barely any resemblance to a fencing duel with rapiers. Even so, the "ride the blade" technique certainly evokes a more dextrous and precise style, as opposed to the classic "ringing and clashing" sword fights you see in Hollywood (which, while cinematically "enhanced" have an element of truth to them).
So, the real case is not that the katana itself is a "finesse" weapon, but that the fighting style that used a katana had perhaps a greater emphasis on single precision strikes, as opposed to the parry and riposte stylings of European swordplay. And it wasn't just the design of the swords. It was design of armor, presence of shields, cultural aspects, and a whole number of other factors that contributed to the differences. None can be looked at in isolation, because all the factors were knitted together in a complex woven web. Katana were used in a certain way because there were no shields, and there were no shields because katana were used with two hands, and katana were used with two hands because they had to cut a certain way, and they had to cut a certain way because armor was designed a certain way, and so on and so forth. A similar breakdown can be made for European swords.
So, at best, I can see an argument for a different fighting style that "finesses" certain weapons (like longswords or katanas) at the expense of other things (like not using shields). That way, a katana could simply use the longsword stats, but the "samurai style" of fiction can be attained.
AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
Iorwerth wrote:
The unarmored samurai archetype comes from chanbara period fiction, which was often based in the relatively warless Tokugawa period when samurai walked around without armor because they weren't going to wars, but kept their swords as a symbol of station (tho' a lot of them were clerical workers in practice). There was still armed banditry, dueling, assassinations, and Aizu castle was burned down, IIRC, but there is some historical basis for this archetype. Not that we need strong historical foundation to play wild west gunslingers, knights errant, magical skalds, and wuxia monks, anyway.
If you have concern over balance, you could also say that only the two-handed style is finesse (no shield benefit).
How much finesse you need to qualiify as a "finesse weapon" or not, and the classification of a weapon as piercing, bludgeoning, or slashing when many weapons are actually used for slashing and piercing, or bludgeoning and piercing, etc. is a game distinction, not a reality one. If we didn't have katanas to argue about, we'd probably be arguing about great swords and great axes or something, so don't let it bother you.
Zardnaar wrote:
Historical accuracy aside, in 3rd edition it was possible to play a dex-based "katana" wielder by dint of the Sunblade magic weapon, which looked and did damage as a bastard sword but was treated as a shortsword for proficiency and dual wielding purposes.
If the Sunblade makes a return, maybe that'd let people get what they wanted (eventually, DM-willing).
Atheosis wrote:
You're going to come into the Fantasy vs Reality argument in this topic :P
Yes, a Katana is, in reality, a strength based weapon that was based off of long, heavy, powerful slashes (much more str oriented than dex). But pop culture has crafted it's own image of the Katana as a fast, finesse type weapon.
What you do with it all comes down to is the Katana is going to match the ideals the creator has in mind. Does the creator ground himself in reality? or fantasy? Either is acceptable, but neither will satisfy everyone :P
I mean ****, during the playtest I was part of a 20 page discussion of using Hand Axes as finesse weapons. There was a rather large crowd for it just because of Assassin's Creed 3, even though the Axe was litterally created 100% with a heavy chop in mind and are built as such. Just because you can swing something around fast does not mean it's a dex weapon :P
Read all that. Thank you all for taking the time to give your thoughts. I am more interested in allowing players to create the myth of the samurai/ronin as we see it in our/my western culture, rather than have to play it as some kind of historical simulation. I am not a believer in D&D being some kind of historical simulation of swordfighting anyway.
My current idea for the katana is as follows:
in one hand it operates like the rapier, though is slashing rather than piercing, so is d8 weapon capable of being used finesse style, but can also be used with strength. However, when used in two hands it operates like a longsword - D10 slashing but not finesse. Not perfect, but I agree that making the Katana a versatile finesse weapon is probably making it overpowered.
As samurai class, i was never thinking of creating a class, just using one of the exisiting ones. As to which one, hadn't given it any thought.
Of course it's not about speed, but why's a scimitar finesse, Jenks? I think we'll first need to define what a dex-based weapon is, as the term is defined, on PHB 147, in game terms, not real-world terms. I suspect the drawing line is more a game consideration than anything else, like all weapons above a certain damage or size are not finesse, no matter how they're used.
PS: Happy we could help(?), Iowerth! Goodness knows we gave you some reading!
Dreamstryder wrote:
Every sword is different, obviously.
But speaking generally, katana were slightly heavier and shorter than their european counterparts. Long swords (bastard swords) tended to be slightly lighter because of how much thinner the blade was forged, and they felt significantly lighter because of the pommel weight, which a katana does not have.
(That said, the difference in actual weight is pretty insignificant. But the difference in apparent weight is huge.)
Captain_Kobold wrote:
TehSchwann wrote:
2Chlorobutanal wrote:
Captain_Kobold wrote:
On the historical side, just watched part 3 of that video series that Captain_Kobold linked to (thanks for that, by the way - it is very interesting). A few things that I noted about what he said about the Katana compared to european baldes. Firstly, that the katana is shorter bladed than than the european longsword, and heavier for its size, due to the problems the Japanese has with quanties of the right kind of carbonized steel. Partly because of this the katana uses more draw cuts, where the blade is pulled throught the cut, as opposed to the european longsword's swinging cuts. Lastly, he describes the katana as being like a 2-handed short sabre, rather than a longsword.
The fact that it draw cuts more does suggest to me that a finesse style with a Katana makes some kind of sense, as much as any real life sword stuff does in D&D. The fact that he describes it as being more like a 2handed short sabre does suggest that when used it one hand it would be more like a D&D scimitar than a longsword, so would only do d6 dam when used in one hand, but would be a finesse light weapon (in fact the scimitar in D&D weighs more than the Katana that guy weighed in one of his vids). If that was the case, it would also suggest that it would do D8 finesse when used 2 handed. However, this makes it a substandard 2 handed martial weapon. Why would anyone use one in 2 hands if it only did a d8? I suppose the versatility of it would be that you have a weapon that can be used for two weapon fighting but also as a D8 weapon if don't have the other blade and are forced to fight with the one weapon, rather than being stuck with a D6. Still doesn't seem enough of an advantage really to be worth it, game wise.
Perhaps there is another bonus it could be having that would give it that little boost? Not sure what though. perhaps the dual weapon fighting feat had an added bonus that if using the Katana in one hand it goes up to a d8 (so it stays on a par with the rapier as far as two weapon fighting goes). However this doesn't do much for how in two hands it still only does a d8.
Dreamstryder wrote:
autolycus wrote:
I think the Katana should be more than a finesse weapon. I think it's a perfect example of something that should use WIS for the attack bonus. Japanese swordfighting was definitely based more on the mind than the body.
Samrin wrote:
Iorwerth wrote:
Iorwerth wrote:
Iorwerth wrote:
Samrin wrote:
If asked to stat out the pop culture katana (or an elf dueling saber) I might do d8 slashing, finesse, versatile (d8). That makes its damage still inferior to the Strength-based longsword but would let you combo Dex with two-handed abilities.
TiaNadiezja wrote:
I would think that the katana and wakazashi are both strength based slashing weapons. Wakazashi would be a light weapon, but not finesse. a Dao would be a scimitar. A Jian would be a rapier. I would likely give finesse to both the Dao and Jian. The dao is the curved blade you see in martial arts movies that people are dancing around with, and jian are tai chi straight blades used with finesse instead of strength. Tai chi's sword form is comparable to fishing... not chopping down a tree.
So I'd say my weapon table would look like this:
katana does 1d6 slashing (1d8 two-handed) with versatile descriptor
wakazashi does 1d4 slashing with light descriptor
Both are slashing/chopping weapons designed for powerful, strength based strikes.
Dao does 1d6 slashing damage with light, finesse descriptors
Jian does 1d8 piercing with finesse descriptor
These are fluid weapons, designed for fighting with grace rather than strength so they should both have finesse.
Polaris wrote:
Iorwerth wrote:
TiaNadiezja wrote:
Polaris wrote:
Chameleon-X wrote:
Samrin wrote:
Dreamstryder wrote:
h347h50 wrote:
The Katana is a longsword. The Wakizashi is a shortsword. There is no reason to bring rapiers into the equation, even for the purposes of daishou style combat.
The nitoujutsu (Daishou) fighting style is a character with the Dual Wielder Feat. No samurai studied nitoujutsu out of the gate. Such training came later, after the character had already mastered the basics of kenjutsu using a bokken, and later a Katana.... As 1st level characters represent apprentices, it is unrealistic for such characters to be trained in nitoujutsu. Advancing to 4th level happens quickly enough that this should not be a problem for most characters.
If however, you absolutely must be skilled in nitoujutsu at 1st level, play a variant human and take Dual Wielder as your racial feat. A samurai dual-wielder, will most likely use Strength for both weapons. Dexterity is unlikely as the kenjutsu fighting style was all about precision and strength, with the majority of its techniques focused on 8 slashing attacks each of which is preceeded by a feint. The exception of this are the "quick strikes", which did not require a preceeding feint.
The Feinting Attack maneuver is almost a must for anyone who truly wishes to simulate samurai fighting styles.
Foxface wrote:
h347h50 wrote:
The longer Japanese sword = long sword.
The shorter Japanese sword = short sword.
Samrin wrote:
Samrin wrote:
I guess using a Longsword Stats for a Katana will be alright until we can get a decent Oriental Adventure Splat book published.
OrwellianHaggis wrote:
I wouldn't count on any potential future OA handbook making any drastic changes.
Longsword/Shortsword work perfectly to simulate Katana/Wakizashi. If you disagree and think eastern weapons/styles are somehow inherently more finesse-based than western ones, you're just falling into a pop culture fantasy trope trap.
(And for that matter, can anyone point to specific anime that suggest that katana are somehow finesse weapons? I'm a huge anime fan, and period-style chanbara tends to be my favorite, but I can't think of any situation where this is true in anime!)
In 3E there was a Prestige Class (Iajutsu Master) that allowed Katanas to be finessed and the Wheel of Time campaign setting which had a Katana rip-off was finessable with the right feats.
My 2cp here would be to include either a feat or a marial archetype that allowed it. Otherwise, katana = longsword and wakizashi = short sword.
spelley wrote:
spelley wrote:
Polaris wrote:
Yeah, but D&D has a history of treating blunt weapons like garbage (probably because the main advantage of a blunt weapon is pointless in an "armor is AC" system).
Zardnaar wrote:
2Chlorobutanal wrote:
Zardnaar wrote:
2Chlorobutanal wrote:
Zardnaar wrote:
In most japanese sword arts and techniques using two hands on the weapon, one hand is used for strength (the one holding the kashira/pommel), and the other hand (near the tsuba/guard) is generally lightly holding the hilt to guide and control the blade - not provide power. This is true in Naginata use as well (and probably Yari too but I haven't trained with the Yari.)
Most schools of japanese swordsmanship concentrate on techniques inovlving attacks from a kneeling or sitting position and attacks from the draw (iaido) because most of the time they would be in those positions when they would likely be attacked - while out eating dinner, walking down the street, or drinking with their buddies. Most of the techniques with the sword already out of its sheath (kenjutsu) are usually more related to battlefield techniques. Many techniques weild a katana in one hand at least for the first cut and/or block, and often two hands for following/final cuts.
The sides and back of a japanese blade are a softer, more flexible metal than the edge due to the tempering, and in most techniques the sides or back is what is used to block attacks (some schools prefer the side more than the back, other schools the back more than the sides). Most blocks with a japanese sword are not intended to completely stop the opponent's blade, but to deflect it in a harmless or compromising way (many of which use the block to add momentum to a counter strike). Trying to block with the sharp edge will not only ruin the edge but could break or seriously chip the sword and so it is not done unless really necessary.
Kendo is a sport. It has its roots in swordsmanship, obviously, and is something an iaido or kenjutsu student should practice as it teaches speed, precision, footwork, and a whole host of other things. However, as a sport, it is more about offense, speed, and scoring points on very limited target areas than it is about proper sword technique, defense, and what can and should be done in real combat.
Swordsmanship requries a lot of upper body strength, not for the power of blows, but because even a fairly light 2lb blade is very tiring to swing several hundred times while practicing. Japanese or european, it doesn't matter - my shoulders certainly burned while practicing both, even an epee (or fencing saber) as light as it is takes a certain amount of upper body strength to wield for more than a short duration of time.
I think that perhaps a more accurate representation of the Katana and wakizashi with D&D weapons would be the scimitar/shortsword (scimitar probably, as though both the scimitar and wakizashi/katana can thrust, all of them are primarily slashing weapons). While the wakizashi is smaller, its blade is not that much smaller, and the scimitar/shortsword in D&D covers a variety of sword lengths anyway. As such, both Katana and wakizashi would be classed as D6 finesse, light weapons. The main difference of the Katana is that its hilt allows it to be used 2 handed. Following how D&D does itsdamage progression from 1 handed to 2 handed, that would suggest that a katana in 2 hands would be a D8 weapon, and I see no reason why it would lose the finesse, so would make it D8 finesse.
Trouble with this is that a martial weapon in 2 hands doing a D8 is a bit underpowered. I think creating feats and other class abilities to boost them is probably the wrong way to go, as it would drive anyone using a katana down a route, thus limiting the character's choices, which seems not ideal. Why force a samurai style PC into having to have a feat to work properly et?. You could say that if used in two hands as a non-finesse weapon, it goes up to a d10 (i.e. becomes same as a long sword). Alternatively, you could say in 2 hands in does D8+1 dam, which would give it the same average as a longsword D10, but its maximum damage would be one less.
Either way, I think looking at both wakizashi and katana, when used one handed, as more like scimitar/shortsword than longsword/rapier, might be more accurate (whatever accurate means in D&D!)
As I said earlier just make a Katana based feat that makes it finesse. You still have to pay something to get it and have the feat grant +1 AC and some other minor benefit.
Zardnaar wrote:
Polaris wrote:
Zardnaar wrote:
Dual wielding two of these http://casiberia.com/img/prod/sh2354.jpg without penalty, but not being allowed to dual wield rapier and dagger, still weirds me out. 
TehSchwann wrote:
Captain_Kobold wrote:
Well so far this thread has lead me to the conclusion that I should ban Katanas....
Iorwerth wrote:
Like I have posted recently, i think perhaps a Katana and wakizashi are both scimtar/shortswords, being light d6 finesse weapons. The Katana then being able to be used 2 handed as a D8 finesse weapon.
Another thing this debate has led to think about is what would a pure one-handed sword, like a viking sword, or arming sword, be classified as? A one-handed sword is not a bastard sword, which the longsword obviously is, and cannot be used 2 handed with any comfort. Does D&D just treat them all like longswords and ignore the real-life differences, or would they classify them as shortswords? My guess is that they just lump them in with longswords. After all, is there that much difference between a longsword used one-handed and a purely one-handed sword? My guess would be no. Still interesting to think about a sword classification, where you have three types of swords - pure 2handed, hand and a half swords, and one handed swords, which in D&D would translate as the Great Sword, Longsword, and Shortsword. So the short sword would cover all 1 handed swords. A very short sword would then be classed as a dagger. Not saying I think this is how it works, or even that it should work like that, but still interesting none-the-less.
As to the whole strength debate about katanas, the same guy who did those vids about the katana v longswords also has an interesting one on strength: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ip-_vEPotYo
What he says here would suggest that it is not absured to imagine other weapons, like the katana, being finesse weapons in D&D terms.
Another point that has been raised about finesse weapons, namely that finesse weapons are those that can shift the point of attack quickly, being faster weapons etc, also seems to be debunked by the vid guy. He does a video on speed of weapons, which suggests that this type of weapon speed is not really a factor in combat: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IGs36FPB_yo
Really glad someone pointed out this guy and his videos, as they are v.interesting.
Firstly, I agree that the longsword = katana and short sword = wakizashi equivalency is the right way to go.
If you are running a mythic asian themed campaign where katanas are the product of superior swordmaking technique, make them (non-magic) +1/+1 at a significantly increased cost.
If the style of your campaign requires something to make Katana/Wakizashi use unique in some way, and you don't want to use Feats, make it a fighting style choice. So instead of "Great Weapon Fighting" or "Protection" you have:
Nitoken
"You may treat the Katana as a Finesse weapon. You may engage in two weapon fighting with a katana in one hand and a wakizashi in the other."
Gain something, forego something. Seems balanced to me.
You don't need a new weapon. If you want to have the longsword = katana use dexterity, there is a much better way to go about doing that. Have a new fighting style instead of a new weapon.
Versatile Finesse Fighting Style
You may use your Dexterity modifier instead of your Strength modifier for attack and damage rolls with versatile weapons.
Captain_Kobold wrote:
Lawolf wrote:
Iorwerth wrote:
Iorwerth wrote:
I said it another thread; but some seem to want their cake and Edith too.
Iorwerth wrote:
TehSchwann wrote:
Actually, the entire point of using a parrying dagger instead of, say, a buckler, was that it allowed you to block and parry incoming attacks while still allowing you the option of going on the offense (which a buckler couldn't do nearly as well).
Really, the "default" for dual wielding should be the optional bonus attack with the offhand weapon, and a +1 to AC (ie: the AC bump shouldn't be tied into the feat) - the feat is where we go wildly outside of reality and into pure fantasy by allowing twin long blades and lots of offhand damage. 
Iorwerth wrote:
Another very interesting video by the same guy about longswords and how to hold them: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0t1h_fVutw4
From what I gather from this is that longswords were primarily used with two hands, one hand only being used normally when the distance was closed and the user wanted to use his other hand to do something, grab, push, hold etc. The other time would be from horseback. So, the longsword was not a weapon that was used one-handed - if you wanted to use a sword and a shield you would be using a true one handed sword e.g. arming sword.
What does this have to do with anything? To me it suggests that D&D has fudged its swords. To me it would be more sensible to say that the longsword was the two-handed sword. An actual one handed sword useable with a shield etc would be a D8 sword. This obviously causes all kinds of problems, so I am not suggesting actually doing this - after all, what does that do with the great sword, and what about the balance between axes and swords etc? Also, from what I gather, then great sword was not really a weapon like that modelled in D&D - it's purpose was to be a battlefield weapon to break up pike formations, or for bodyguarding purposes where it could be swung defensively to ward off multiple attackers.
If one were to make changes (which i am not going to do, but think interesting to talk about), then you could make the longsword have the stats of the Great Sword. Change the Great Sword into a polarm type weapon (?), introduce the medieval one handed sword (the arming Sword) as a D8 weapon, and basically get rid of D&D's bastard sword, as weapons that could be used equally in one hand or two are not accurate. In this scenario the katana in one hand would be like the scimitar - finesse, light and a D6. If used in two hands it would do a D8. The advantage it gets over a one-handed arming sword with shield, is that it can use the two weapon feats and fighting styles. What you lose in this system would be a sword that does a d10 used in two-hands.
Obviously, would then have to think about the battleaxe, warhammer etc - basically all the other versatile weapons. Not sure if they would have to change though.
Anyway, thought it an interesting way of thinking about D&D weapons.
Iorwerth wrote:
I would *semi* seriously suggest that a Katana is best modelled as a Quarterstaff.
It's Versatile, and it's usable as a Finesse weapon provided you have specific asian-flavoured martial arts training (i.e. you're a Monk).
Iorwerth wrote:
Captain_Kobold wrote:
Found another vid!!
This one he talks specifically about the longsword being used in one hand : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wezckiWeAAI
The gist of what he says is that it is possible - there are contemporary pictures showing it. However, using a longsowrd in one had is not as good as using a one handed sword in one hand. The one handed sword is designed for fighting in one hand, whereas the longsword is designed to be longer, slightly heavier etc and used primarily with two hands.
How one would try and model this is D&D I wouldn't know. Really D&D has used the Longsword to cover two types of swords, those designed to be used with one hand and those designed to be used with two hands.
Out of interest, what is the game advantage of using a longsword in two hands rather than a great sword?
Iorwerth wrote:
spelley wrote:
Zardnaar wrote:
There's no reason to clutter up the weapon table with minor variations of a weapon.
Katanas are longswords. No, they're not finesse weapons. No, they can't cut a tank in half. Next.
Grifford wrote:
Iorwerth wrote:
So, what I am getting from this is that Katanas are basically equal to tanks.
So really, the question we should be asking is "Are tanks finesse weapons?"
Iorwerth wrote:
DemoMonkey wrote:
If katana get to be finesse weapons, can longswords be finesse weapons too? They generally had much better balance and a lighter blade weight, after all.
TehSchwann wrote:
Zardnaar wrote:
Captain_Kobold wrote:
And there is the 3rd Ed Elven Court Blade (Two-Handed, 1d10, Finesse).
I still would love someone to point me towards an anime where "using a katana seems like a finesse fighting style."
Because I don't know of any, and I'm constantly on the look-out for samurai-themed anime.
If you want a certain type of weapon in your game because you want to fit a certain type of trope, can we at least know if said trope exists in the first place?
Slyck314 wrote:
Some people are interpreting the feint and strike method employed in Katana sword play as proof of the weapon being a "finesse" weapon. Such is not the case. It would be more indicative of the Feinting Attack maneuver, than it is proof of the weapon being "finessable".
In fact, the majority of Kenjutsu techniques can be summarized using the Battle Master maneuvers, Fighting Styles and/or feats - in particular:
- Iaijutsu: Precision Attack, Alert (feat), Dueling (FS), Defensive Duelist (feat)
- Nitoujutsu: TWF (FS), Dual Wielder (feat)
- Kenjutsu: Feinting Attack, Lunging Attack, Parry, Precision Attack, Pushing Attack, Riposte, Sweeping Attack, GWF (FS), Dueling (FS)
The only example I can think of, is the unarmored kensei. In D&D mechanics, such a character would have the unarmored defense ability, and as such - people are stating such a character would be MAD, and are therefore using this as justification for Katana's having the finesse quality.
To counter this claim - I say that all this proves is that monks should be allowed to choose longswords (katana) as a monk weapon - either as a feat, or as part of a kensei tradition.
As it seems the primary desire to add the finesse property is to allow characters to use DEX instead of strength, the simple solution is to create a fighting style or feat that allows you to use Dexterity for attack and damage when wielding a longsword (and perhaps several other weapons) in one hand.
There are only two reasons I can see for why people are resistant to this suggestion.
- 1) They want to make sneak attacks with the weapon... Something which goes against the trope, and is highly abusable as SA is balanced against low damage dice.
- 2) They want to add DEX to attack/damage "for free".
I'm sorry. But getting these benefits for free smacks of munchkinism. You should pay an opportunity cost to be allowed to fight using DEX with a longsword (or equivalent weapon), as you are gaining an increased damage die as a result.
TiaNadiezja wrote:
Katana, like other swords, can be balaned differently. A katana does not have a sizeable pommel, but it is not necessarily blade-heavy. A well-balanced katana is weighted at the hand-guard (or tsuba) because it is, like a quarterstaff/bo and claymore, a lever when in two hands. A few ways you could stat out a katana (they vary; I imagine many other weapons do, too):
- 1d8 versatile (1d10)
- 1d6 finesse, versatile (1d8)
- 1d10 finesse, two-handed
As pointed out, a 1d8 finesse, versatile (1d10) would make one weapon statistically better than another. We'll ignore that the same happens for the Battleaxe and Flail, the Quarterstaff and Mace, and, if price is discounted, the Greataxe and Greatsword and Club and Dagger. If price is a factor, hiking the price (like 150 gp) might work, despite offending people with European sword fixation. It's like they read all these eddas and knightly romances and think they can play hero in a game of fantasy adventure!
Dreamstryder wrote:
Dreamstryder wrote:
All of this talk about which weapons in reality were finesse and which were not, and then arguing back to D&D weapons is pointless and based on an inflated idea of the importance of strength in weapon fighting. The truth is no weapon just uses strength or dexterity, so trying to argue from that basis is non-sensical.
When deciding what the Katana would be in D&D terms you need to do it from the viewpoint of not making one weapon much better than others i.e. weapons need to be balanced - what they gain in one place they lose in another.
If you want a katana to be a finesse weapon then there is nothing ahistorical about doing so. However, it cannot be better than the equivalent weapon that the strength build fighter use. i would argue that it actually needs to be slightly worse, as the dex build has advantages over the strength build anyway (unless building a tank). That is why I think my finesse katana is not going to be the equivalent of the longsword, but of the scimitar, with the addition if used two handed it does a D8 (this has the added benefit of making dual fighting with katana and wakizashi possible, as both are classified as light in one hand). However, given that no one with any sense is going to use a longsword in two hands if damage is their goal, then I think there is little problem if you want the Katana to be a finesse longsword. After all, this means the best damage a finesse weapon in two hands can achieve is a D10, whereas a non-finesse weapon in two hands gets up a D12 or 2d6.