Since a longsword always requires finesse and precision as well as also strength, it's not very useful to bring real life into this. This is a matter of game mechanics and balance. It would take a complete system overhaul to accurately implement all aspects of swordsmanship into these weapon mechanics.
You need strength to wield a european longsword or a katana, but in order to actually cut anything, you need the right angle and grip etc. A lot of finesse goes into it. But you need a lot of the right type of strength too to handle it in a controlled manner. But much of this strength comes from technique and precise muscle coordination which is very much a dexterity thing. But also from building and honing the right muscles = str.
a tiny 80 year old master will cut a lot more effectively and faster than the world's strongest man.
Same goes for bows. Shooting a proper longbow accurately takes an insane amount of back strength. In fact you need to be really strong to shoot an 70- 80lbs bow at all, not to mention be able to shoot accurately day in and day out.
I am not an expert on either subject, but I know for a fact that you need a lot of finesse and dexterity for longswords and a lot of strength for longbows.
So it's just about the game mechanics. Nothing to do with real life. There are other systems for more accurate sword fights, DnD 5e is very simplified.
The weapons that exist in 5e are designed the way they are for game balance. Weapons that are made for Strength builds get higher base damage. Because Stength doesn't have as many benefits as Dexterity, and it's used by classes that need more damage. There aren't Finesse greatswords because rogues have other ways to get damage. That's all there is to it. So if you want to change the damage dice of a weapon, or the properties, just understand that is affecting the balance built into the classes. It might not be enough to bother you. But it will change things.
The damage type for mundane is almost never important. It comes into play only for very few monsters, but it does matter sometimes. I think you could change any weapon from Slashing/Piercing/Bludgeoning to another without much impact on anything.
Personally I wouldn't change anything at all. A katana isn't different enough from any other 'versatile' sword in the world to require its own rules. It's a longsword in DnD. You can call any weapon by any name you want, and have it look however you want, without changing the rules and class balance.
But everyone is also free to change anything at their own tables, so do whatever is the most fun for everyone you play with. I do just think it's helpful to know what impact a change will have. You probably don't want one weapon to be so much better than others that everyone would use it. I try to ask myself - "is this change warranted for a better game mechanic? Or am I going to sacrifice balance for realism? Or am I just trying to avoid a class or build restriction?"
As a side note, I would be okay with a more generic weapon table. One based on properties and damage. Then give many examples of each class of weapons so players can better see the freedom they have. The same for armor. But I understand it doesn't quite feel the same as a long list.
The weapons that exist in 5e are designed the way they are for game balance. Weapons that are made for Strength builds get higher base damage. Because Stength doesn't have as many benefits as Dexterity, and it's used by classes that need more damage. There aren't Finesse greatswords because rogues have other ways to get damage. That's all there is to it. So if you want to change the damage dice of a weapon, or the properties, just understand that is affecting the balance built into the classes. It might not be enough to bother you. But it will change things.
The damage type for mundane is almost never important. It comes into play only for very few monsters, but it does matter sometimes. I think you could change any weapon from Slashing/Piercing/Bludgeoning to another without much impact on anything.
Personally I wouldn't change anything at all. A katana isn't different enough from any other 'versatile' sword in the world to require its own rules. It's a longsword in DnD. You can call any weapon by any name you want, and have it look however you want, without changing the rules and class balance.
But everyone is also free to change anything at their own tables, so do whatever is the most fun for everyone you play with. I do just think it's helpful to know what impact a change will have. You probably don't want one weapon to be so much better than others that everyone would use it. I try to ask myself - "is this change warranted for a better game mechanic? Or am I going to sacrifice balance for realism? Or am I just trying to avoid a class or build restriction?"
As a side note, I would be okay with a more generic weapon table. One based on properties and damage. Then give many examples of each class of weapons so players can better see the freedom they have. The same for armor. But I understand it doesn't quite feel the same as a long list.
The weapons that exist in 5e are designed the way they are for game balance. Weapons that are made for Strength builds get higher base damage. Because Stength doesn't have as many benefits as Dexterity, and it's used by classes that need more damage. There aren't Finesse greatswords because rogues have other ways to get damage. That's all there is to it. So if you want to change the damage dice of a weapon, or the properties, just understand that is affecting the balance built into the classes. It might not be enough to bother you. But it will change things.
The damage type for mundane is almost never important. It comes into play only for very few monsters, but it does matter sometimes. I think you could change any weapon from Slashing/Piercing/Bludgeoning to another without much impact on anything.
Personally I wouldn't change anything at all. A katana isn't different enough from any other 'versatile' sword in the world to require its own rules. It's a longsword in DnD. You can call any weapon by any name you want, and have it look however you want, without changing the rules and class balance.
But everyone is also free to change anything at their own tables, so do whatever is the most fun for everyone you play with. I do just think it's helpful to know what impact a change will have. You probably don't want one weapon to be so much better than others that everyone would use it. I try to ask myself - "is this change warranted for a better game mechanic? Or am I going to sacrifice balance for realism? Or am I just trying to avoid a class or build restriction?"
As a side note, I would be okay with a more generic weapon table. One based on properties and damage. Then give many examples of each class of weapons so players can better see the freedom they have. The same for armor. But I understand it doesn't quite feel the same as a long list.
this is perfect explanation.
rapiers arent light weapons because they do a d8 dmg even though they weigh 2 lbs. Scimitars are light weapons because they do d6 dmg while weighing 3 lbs.
I was laughing at those bringing realism into this fantasy realm. a longsword would never slice through full plate in real life (or stab through it) so we should leave realism out of it.
I see people wanting to use Katanas as a flavor to their character. not trying to take advantage.
You could say I have a longsword *whispers* looks like a katana. This is no big deal & changes nothing. Now the player has a look he is pleased with.
Or I have a rapier *whispers* curved like a katana. Same as above. As long as you arent making this a versatile weapon or a light weapon doesnt upset the apple cart. (same mechanics) I would even allow changing it to a slashing weapon, but if you think someone is taking advantage of that dont change it. The player still has the flavor he wants to envision. they are still envisioning cutting people.
We re-skin weapons quite a bit at our table. It has yet to cause any harm, even though we re-skin weapons so much that they sometimes give players more weapon options.
Especially if the character has martial weapon profi, then I pretty much let them design weapons however they want and try to provide magical versions for those weapons too.
Dexterity handaxe (re-skinned shortsword or rapier)(viking style handaxe)
Finesse spear (one-handed with shield) (re-skinned rapier)
Sabre (re-skinned rapier)(I personally hate rapiers in DnD, because poking monsters with a needle feels ridiculous, even if magical. :P)
Light longsword/katana etc. (re-skinned rapier for finesse or a spear for simple weapon)(I'd of course let them hold it in one or two hands even if it finesse, but it wouldn't work with features that require a two-handed weapon)
etc.
The only practical effect this has IMO, is that they get more options. And I think that's always a good idea. I don't like those class abilities where the class is proficient with one or two weapons (like bladesinger). Going to be pretty boring to miss all the loot in a 1 year long campaign, because you can only use a Net-hook-slingy-rope-sword-hammer-anvil-gun-thrower, which can be found nowhere - unless the DM obviously and deliberately plants a magic version of that weapon. Which I would definitely do, but it would feel silly.
I'm definitely hoping that 6E has a broader array of weaponry than 5E. And actually makes them different from each other.
Yeah, DnD is absolutely awful at representing martial classes. They are really just hack'n slash with a different dmg die and a different ability. Only the battlemaster stands out positively. A friend of mine said that the battlemaster maneuvers should be a default thing for all martial classes, which I think is a really good idea.
You really have to be invested in narration/describing to make martial combat cinematic. DnD 5e does absolutely nothing to encourage this.
But DnD 5e is a great system in many other ways. :)
I'm definitely hoping that 6E has a broader array of weaponry than 5E. And actually makes them different from each other.
Yeah, DnD is absolutely awful at representing martial classes. They are really just hack'n slash with a different dmg die and a different ability. Only the battlemaster stands out positively. A friend of mine said that the battlemaster maneuvers should be a default thing for all martial classes, which I think is a really good idea.
You really have to be invested in narration/describing to make martial combat cinematic. DnD 5e does absolutely nothing to encourage this.
But DnD 5e is a great system in many other ways. :)
I wasn't even talking about the classes, I was talking about the weapons themselves. If you're playing a martial class and you decide to go weapon and shield with a strength build, you've got a choice between longsword, battle axe, warhammer, pick, or morningstar. And the difference between them is... the warhammer will do extra damage to skeletons. And if you're playing with Tasha's Cauldron of Everything there's a feat that gives a weak secondary effect to your weapon.
Compare that to 3.5 Edition, where the longsword could threaten a crit on a natural 19-20 while the battle axe dealt triple damage on a successful crit, morningstars were simple weapons but considered useful because they dealt both piercing and bludgeoning damage at the same time and could count as either one for the purposes of overcoming resistances (which was much more handing in 3.5 because there were a lot of monsters that had damage resistance that could only be overcome by a specific type of physical damage), picks only did 1d6 damage but dealt quadruple on a crit..
Weapon choices were actually interesting and meaningful back then. In 5E they're cosmetic.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
For the Master feature I personally think it should be clear or graze instead of Sap for the Katana die to the sheer sharpness of the weapon. I do believe not should be versatile but not quite Finesse. That would be more for a walasashi.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I'm definitely hoping that 6E has a broader array of weaponry than 5E. And actually makes them different from each other.
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
Since a longsword always requires finesse and precision as well as also strength, it's not very useful to bring real life into this. This is a matter of game mechanics and balance. It would take a complete system overhaul to accurately implement all aspects of swordsmanship into these weapon mechanics.
You need strength to wield a european longsword or a katana, but in order to actually cut anything, you need the right angle and grip etc. A lot of finesse goes into it. But you need a lot of the right type of strength too to handle it in a controlled manner. But much of this strength comes from technique and precise muscle coordination which is very much a dexterity thing. But also from building and honing the right muscles = str.
a tiny 80 year old master will cut a lot more effectively and faster than the world's strongest man.
Same goes for bows. Shooting a proper longbow accurately takes an insane amount of back strength. In fact you need to be really strong to shoot an 70- 80lbs bow at all, not to mention be able to shoot accurately day in and day out.
I am not an expert on either subject, but I know for a fact that you need a lot of finesse and dexterity for longswords and a lot of strength for longbows.
So it's just about the game mechanics. Nothing to do with real life. There are other systems for more accurate sword fights, DnD 5e is very simplified.
Finland GMT/UTC +2
The weapons that exist in 5e are designed the way they are for game balance. Weapons that are made for Strength builds get higher base damage. Because Stength doesn't have as many benefits as Dexterity, and it's used by classes that need more damage. There aren't Finesse greatswords because rogues have other ways to get damage. That's all there is to it. So if you want to change the damage dice of a weapon, or the properties, just understand that is affecting the balance built into the classes. It might not be enough to bother you. But it will change things.
The damage type for mundane is almost never important. It comes into play only for very few monsters, but it does matter sometimes. I think you could change any weapon from Slashing/Piercing/Bludgeoning to another without much impact on anything.
Personally I wouldn't change anything at all. A katana isn't different enough from any other 'versatile' sword in the world to require its own rules. It's a longsword in DnD. You can call any weapon by any name you want, and have it look however you want, without changing the rules and class balance.
But everyone is also free to change anything at their own tables, so do whatever is the most fun for everyone you play with. I do just think it's helpful to know what impact a change will have. You probably don't want one weapon to be so much better than others that everyone would use it. I try to ask myself - "is this change warranted for a better game mechanic? Or am I going to sacrifice balance for realism? Or am I just trying to avoid a class or build restriction?"
As a side note, I would be okay with a more generic weapon table. One based on properties and damage. Then give many examples of each class of weapons so players can better see the freedom they have. The same for armor. But I understand it doesn't quite feel the same as a long list.
This. 👍
Finland GMT/UTC +2
this is perfect explanation.
rapiers arent light weapons because they do a d8 dmg even though they weigh 2 lbs. Scimitars are light weapons because they do d6 dmg while weighing 3 lbs.
I was laughing at those bringing realism into this fantasy realm. a longsword would never slice through full plate in real life (or stab through it) so we should leave realism out of it.
I see people wanting to use Katanas as a flavor to their character. not trying to take advantage.
You could say I have a longsword *whispers* looks like a katana. This is no big deal & changes nothing. Now the player has a look he is pleased with.
Or I have a rapier *whispers* curved like a katana. Same as above. As long as you arent making this a versatile weapon or a light weapon doesnt upset the apple cart. (same mechanics) I would even allow changing it to a slashing weapon, but if you think someone is taking advantage of that dont change it. The player still has the flavor he wants to envision. they are still envisioning cutting people.
We re-skin weapons quite a bit at our table. It has yet to cause any harm, even though we re-skin weapons so much that they sometimes give players more weapon options.
Especially if the character has martial weapon profi, then I pretty much let them design weapons however they want and try to provide magical versions for those weapons too.
Dexterity handaxe (re-skinned shortsword or rapier)(viking style handaxe)
Finesse spear (one-handed with shield) (re-skinned rapier)
Sabre (re-skinned rapier)(I personally hate rapiers in DnD, because poking monsters with a needle feels ridiculous, even if magical. :P)
Light longsword/katana etc. (re-skinned rapier for finesse or a spear for simple weapon)(I'd of course let them hold it in one or two hands even if it finesse, but it wouldn't work with features that require a two-handed weapon)
etc.
The only practical effect this has IMO, is that they get more options. And I think that's always a good idea. I don't like those class abilities where the class is proficient with one or two weapons (like bladesinger). Going to be pretty boring to miss all the loot in a 1 year long campaign, because you can only use a Net-hook-slingy-rope-sword-hammer-anvil-gun-thrower, which can be found nowhere - unless the DM obviously and deliberately plants a magic version of that weapon. Which I would definitely do, but it would feel silly.
Finland GMT/UTC +2
Yeah, DnD is absolutely awful at representing martial classes. They are really just hack'n slash with a different dmg die and a different ability. Only the battlemaster stands out positively. A friend of mine said that the battlemaster maneuvers should be a default thing for all martial classes, which I think is a really good idea.
You really have to be invested in narration/describing to make martial combat cinematic. DnD 5e does absolutely nothing to encourage this.
But DnD 5e is a great system in many other ways. :)
Finland GMT/UTC +2
I wasn't even talking about the classes, I was talking about the weapons themselves. If you're playing a martial class and you decide to go weapon and shield with a strength build, you've got a choice between longsword, battle axe, warhammer, pick, or morningstar. And the difference between them is... the warhammer will do extra damage to skeletons. And if you're playing with Tasha's Cauldron of Everything there's a feat that gives a weak secondary effect to your weapon.
Compare that to 3.5 Edition, where the longsword could threaten a crit on a natural 19-20 while the battle axe dealt triple damage on a successful crit, morningstars were simple weapons but considered useful because they dealt both piercing and bludgeoning damage at the same time and could count as either one for the purposes of overcoming resistances (which was much more handing in 3.5 because there were a lot of monsters that had damage resistance that could only be overcome by a specific type of physical damage), picks only did 1d6 damage but dealt quadruple on a crit..
Weapon choices were actually interesting and meaningful back then. In 5E they're cosmetic.
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
For the Master feature I personally think it should be clear or graze instead of Sap for the Katana die to the sheer sharpness of the weapon. I do believe not should be versatile but not quite Finesse. That would be more for a walasashi.