Ninja-To, Cutlass, Wakizashi: All just short swords, or something different?

[AFGNCAAP]

Seeing the stats for a cutlass in Dragon #318, plus the ninja class proficiency list, reminded me of this:

Could a lot of weapons like the ninja-to, wakizashi, & ninja-to just be lumped under the "short sword" weapon category? Also, how big of a deal is it for a short sword to be classified as "slashing or piercing" instead of just "piercing" or "slashing" (or other types of swords, for that matter)?

I never really understood why in Oriental Adventures the ninja-to was deemed an Exotic weapon, while the wakizashi was a Martial weapon (the 19-29 crit range for the ninja-to is obviously a typo, unless for some unstated reason a d30 is now used to roll for attacks instead of a d20).

The cutlass is basically a finesseable scimitar, but with a reduced crit range and lowered off-hand penalties (and the cost of a basket hilt added in to the weapon price).

I don't really see the need for a broad range of weapons, esp. when those weapons can simply be covered by an existing weapon.

What to y'all think?

 

[Black Knight Irios]

how big of a deal is it for a short sword to be classified as "slashing or piercing"

Because there are DR .../slashing and DR .../piercing in the rules of 3.5 so that you can break both with the weapon but you can't break DR .../slashing and piercing but never seen that combination.

You say many swords or probably other weapons can be put together in one group let's say short swords, includes short sword, drusus, gladius, ninja-to, wakizashi, they could have done that, but they did the following a wakizashi is always a masterwork short sword because it is something special, too many other weapons that you could probably simply put together say asigned boni for disarming or tripping and so on. I think that makes the choice of weapon much more interesting than all those weapons with the same name but all the same statistical values.

 

[Ranger REG]

Seeing the stats for a cutlass in Dragon #318, plus the ninja class proficiency list, reminded me of this:

Could a lot of weapons like the ninja-to, wakizashi, & ninja-to just be lumped under the "short sword" weapon category? Also, how big of a deal is it for a short sword to be classified as "slashing or piercing" instead of just "piercing" or "slashing" (or other types of swords, for that matter)?

Weapon design? In game terms, it can tell us whether they cut a rope effectively?

I never really understood why in Oriental Adventures the ninja-to was deemed an Exotic weapon, while the wakizashi was a Martial weapon (the 19-29 crit range for the ninja-to is obviously a typo, unless for some unstated reason a d30 is now used to roll for attacks instead of a d20).

The same reason hand crossbow is considered exotic. It's not a common weapon, nor is it made for war. Only a few people would use such weapon, which is considered a trade secret ... that assumes that ninja do exist in Japan.

The cutlass is basically a finesseable scimitar, but with a reduced crit range and lowered off-hand penalties (and the cost of a basket hilt added in to the weapon price).

And IIRC, the basket hilt offer protection against disarm attempt.

I don't really see the need for a broad range of weapons, esp. when those weapons can simply be covered by an existing weapon.

What to y'all think?

There is much debate about this (see katana/bastard sword discussions), the same applies to firearms (but I won't go into that as well). I mean a longsword forged in England is pretty much the same as a longsword forged in Spanish steel. But when it comes to difference in weapon design, like adding a basket hilt to a cutlass, or the curvature of a slashing weapon, then it should be pointed out.

YMMV.

 

[robberbaron]

Sorry, edit went through as a new post.

 

[robberbaron]

Hmm.
Why should a cutlass be finessable? As far as I know, cutlasses are heavier than scimitars.

Ninja-to should be the same as wakizashis. Their use only by ninja is a cultural thing, not a sword-usage thing.
They should both be classed as short swords, but only be used by certain elements of society, e.g., no-one but a ninja would use a ninja-to.
A "samurai" using a ninja-to would be an "wrong" as a noble wearing peasant garb or a peasant wearing the daisho.

 

[mhd]

Ninja-to should be the same as wakizashis. Their use only by ninja is a cultural thing, not a sword-usage thing.

They should be the same as a short sword. Wakizashis are basically masterwork short swords, and ninja-tos certainly don't qualify for mwk...

If I remember correctly, they were either very rough swords -- sometimes even without an actual edge -- mostly to parry and get away quickly. Or they just grabbed a Katana, stepped on the tip and broke it to make it more manageable.

I wouldn't even make Katanas/Wakizashis masterwork. The ancestral blades of high-standing Samurais, okay, but not every blade forged in Japan was that good. They basically _had_ to fold it due to the crappy steel they got.

 

[robberbaron]

What mhd said.

Any weapon could be made as a masterwork one, even a ninja-to, should the desire arise. A low-ranking samurai would likely have a fairly non-descript daisho, but that of the shogun would be fantastic.
Same as the difference between a rookie fighter's long sword and the King's personal weapon.

 

[Ranger REG]

Hmm.
Why should a cutlass be finessable? As far as I know, cutlasses are heavier than scimitars.

Because, using 3e rules, cutlass -- in D&D -- is a size Small weapon, commonly (or stereotypically) used by pirates.

If a weapon is one size category smaller then your size, then it is considered a light weapon. It has NOTHING to do with weapon's weight.

Ninja-to should be the same as wakizashis. Their use only by ninja is a cultural thing, not a sword-usage thing.

But think of this. If because of cultural taboo, you are not trained to use ninja-to, how can you be so sure that they both work exactly on the function of shortsword or wakizashi design?

They should both be classed as short swords, but only be used by certain elements of society, e.g., no-one but a ninja would use a ninja-to.
A "samurai" using a ninja-to would be an "wrong" as a noble wearing peasant garb or a peasant wearing the daisho.

But how would you enforce that? If no one witness his action to use the ninja-to, or the only witnesses are his comrades who won't tell anyone outside their party, he could use a ninja-to as easily if he had been trained to use it (or that the dojo taught him how to use such weapon).

The less exposure to the weapon, the more exotic that weapon must be to others, except the secretive ninja clans, who consider it their trademark weapon as much as the katana to the warrior-based buke clans.

 

[mhd]

But think of this. If because of cultural taboo, you are not trained to use ninja-to, how can you be so sure that they both work exactly on the function of shortsword or wakizashi design?

Come on, we're not talking rocket science here. It's got a grip, it's got a blade, 'nuff said. Due to different construction/length I might not be able to use it optimally, but that would translate in not being able to use e.g. my Gladius WF for a Ninja-To.

A "cultural taboo" should not preclude me from using the weapon normally, or lack of knowledge should be even worse. If my desert nomad never has seen a greatsword, what should he do with it? Infamiliarity penalties a la GURPS would just complicate the system way too much.

There has to be a culturally-independent notion of "exotic". Face it, there's no guideline we can come up with that would explain the grouping as written -- there always will be some exceptions. We can come close to with anything requiring additional training not usually found with most "normal" weapons. Works for bastard swords, double weapons etc.

Personally, I'd rate a hand crossbow as simple. Aiming with a pistol-like device is about as hard as aiming with a rifle-like contraption (i.e. normal crossbow) and both are simpler than using a bow.

Weapon proficiency is rather illogically solved. We got Simple/Martial/Exotic, then we got lists of proficiencies for several professions, some rather bent on game history (Druid). At least we got rid of weapon speed factor, different damage die for large targets and all damage rolls are simplified to polyhedral dice, no 1d6+2 damage anymore... Most of certainly can live with those rules, but a logical explanation will be hard to come by to. I leave this to bible scholars and rule apologists

 

[Ranger REG]

Then let's agree to disagree.