Shadowrun
Shadowrun General => Gear => Topic started by: viaRailGun on <04-29-13/0241:05>
-
under gear listing in SR4A, the katana is mentioned as being "two handed". is this just fluff, and for rules purposes we assume it's one handed?
-
In real life, the katana is an example of a hand and a half sword, which can be used one or two handed.
-
... What would make you think it's a one-handed weapon, rules-wise? Standard -2 penalty for one handed use would apply, by RAW.
-
so i can't raise damage with a katana by using both hands eh? solution: nodachi. 8)
-
monofilament sword. 1 or 2 hand?
As all two-handed weapons are clearly listed as such, I presume monofilament sword is one-handed. Seems OK to me: it's a broadsword and they are usually one-handed (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basket-hilted_sword).
The cost difference (the m-sword is 250nyen or so cheaper), despite the katana being inferior to the monofilament sword due to the -2 for using it with only one hand, is quite reasonable I guess: the katana is prized for, well, being an awesome historical sword and such, while the m-sword is simply a more efficient and modern tool.
Hope that helps :)
-
Oh... You changed you last post, apparently... Sorry, never mind.
-
monofilament sword. 1 or 2 hand?
figured it was 1H
Hope that helps :)
thanks though!
-
This is kinda funny I just realized this. I always envisioned the katana as one-handed weapon. Too much Kenshin I suppose. So when using one on a character I always envisioned it being wielded that way. My GM pictures it as two handed and since he's imagining that I never received a minus. It just never came up.
Long story short, in my opinion, I don't think you really lose anything by letting your player live out his one-handed samurai dream. Unless he starts duel wielding or something in which case you'd have to get a little stricter.
-
Myamoto Musashi says its 1-handed
with a japanese Dance
Medicineman
-
In his two sword style, perhaps, but he actually only used that fairly rarely as I recall.
-
Katanas were traditionally used two-handed.
A few rare exceptions do exist. Musashi, as mentioned, is one, but he was considered unusual even among his contemporaries. And as said, he didn't use it all the time.
-k
-
Katanas were traditionally used two-handed.
A few rare exceptions do exist. Musashi, as mentioned, is one, but he was considered unusual even among his contemporaries. And as said, he didn't use it all the time.
-k
And he won a sword fight using a carved oar, and he threw his wakizashi(a weapon that does not exist in Shadowrun) to win another..
Frankly, using Musashi as a reference for how to fight is...not the best idea. It would be like using James Joyce as an example of how
to write fiction.
-
wakizashi(a weapon that does not exist in Shadowrun) to win another..
Why don't You use the Sword for a Wakizashi ?
HokaHey
Medicineman
-
wakizashi(a weapon that does not exist in Shadowrun) to win another..
Why don't You use the Sword for a Wakizashi ?
HokaHey
Medicineman
That's what I do.
-
... What would make you think it's a one-handed weapon, rules-wise? Standard -2 penalty for one handed use would apply, by RAW.
I find it very disturbing how people here will use the descriptions of the items whenever it suits their purposes, but will make excuses not to go by a description if it goes against their view. This is a prime example--making use of the description for requiring the katana to be two-hand only while at the same time ignoring the lack of a page reference to the "don't tase me roll" on SnS ammo. Double standards are bad, people.
-
... What would make you think it's a one-handed weapon, rules-wise? Standard -2 penalty for one handed use would apply, by RAW.
I find it very disturbing how people here will use the descriptions of the items whenever it suits their purposes, but will make excuses not to go by a description if it goes against their view. This is a prime example--making use of the description for requiring the katana to be two-hand only while at the same time ignoring the lack of a page reference to the "don't tase me roll" on SnS ammo. Double standards are bad, people.
There is no page reference needed there. That roll occurs as a direct result of dealing Electricity damage, because those are the rules for Electricity damage.
-
... What would make you think it's a one-handed weapon, rules-wise? Standard -2 penalty for one handed use would apply, by RAW.
I find it very disturbing how people here will use the descriptions of the items whenever it suits their purposes, but will make excuses not to go by a description if it goes against their view. This is a prime example--making use of the description for requiring the katana to be two-hand only while at the same time ignoring the lack of a page reference to the "don't tase me roll" on SnS ammo. Double standards are bad, people.
There is no page reference needed there. That roll occurs as a direct result of dealing Electricity damage, because those are the rules for Electricity damage.
It's also ignoring that it does not but every other weapon of that nature does have the page reference. That is where the double standard of ignoring some descriptions and taking others to heart comes from.
-
It would have to explicitly state any exceptions from the standard rules for its damage type.
-
Indeed. Unless it is stated otherwise, the normal rules for that damage type apply. Just like how the Yamaha Sakura Fubuki states an explicit exception to the normal rules for recoil in its description.
-
Personally, I consider insistence on ignoring that lack when all others have the reference rather petty and think it's more because people don't like being proven wrong on their opinion of something being supposedly "over powered".
-
And you chose to hijack this topic for making that argument why? Because to me it sounds like you're venting a personal disagreement on rule interpretations in a topic that doesn't need all that personal weight being dumped in it. The question is simple here: Is a katana one-handed or two-handed? You can argue over that answer, or you can argue over why people give the answers and whether they are hypocritcs, and personally at this point only the first option is something I'd consider fair. viaRailGun doesn't need to know about the constant disagreements between the big three.
-
And you chose to hijack this topic for making that argument why? Because to me it sounds like you're venting a personal disagreement on rule interpretations in a topic that doesn't need all that personal weight being dumped in it. The question is simple here: Is a katana one-handed or two-handed? You can argue over that answer, or you can argue over why people give the answers and whether they are hypocritcs, and personally at this point only the first option is something I'd consider fair. viaRailGun doesn't need to know about the constant disagreements between the big three.
Hijack nothing, I saw something that appeared to be a double standard, and I pointed it out.
-
We'll just have to agree to disagree there as to what your actual motives are.
-
public forums. gotta love'em :)
-
In his two sword style, perhaps, but he actually only used that fairly rarely as I recall.
I'm grasping for the translation off hand, but I recall it being Two Heavens style. In his Book of Five Rings, he speaks of it being a waste of your hands (essentially) to use both of them for one sword, likening it to an unnatural movement for the body.
Speaking from first hand experience, even with wrist strengthening techniques and training; using a katana or similar weapon your movement is noticeably harder to control and less refined, not to mention a greater lack of strength and sturdiness. But japanese sword fighting is more similar to fencing than other more direct styles, in that you don't block hard you parry most blows that you otherwise could not dodge.
So rules wise, I think the -2 for wielding a two handed weapon one handed is apt, but I honestly think that should apply to any weapon that is classed as a sword. Knives are a different case because they're used in conjunction with grappling and don't rely on a wide swing radius and arm strength, so they need to be used one handed.
-
these being "optional" advanced combat rules as stated in SR4. AR.
so when do i get to use:
Using One-Handed Melee Weapons
A character may choose to use a one-handed weapon (Reach 0 or 1) with both hands to swing with more strength and power. This adds a +1 DV bonus to such attacks. Only weapons capable of being grasped with two hands may be used in this manner; knives and similar small weapons do not get any bonus when used in this way.?
-
A knife or a dagger, at my table, used with a second hand for thrusting or for added weight to the blade would get the bonus, or an equal AP bonus or something similar. But in the sense that you're swinging it like a sword a knife or dagger would suffer and become clumsy.
-
How did this get beyond "The rules say it is two-handed"?
Where does the "fluff" idea even come from?
It states, clearly, it is a two-handed weapon.
Because it isn't in a chart, it's "fluff"?
-Jn-
Ifriti Sophist
-
How did this get beyond "The rules say it is two-handed"?
Where does the "fluff" idea even come from?
It states, clearly, it is a two-handed weapon.
Because it isn't in a chart, it's "fluff"?
-Jn-
Ifriti Sophist
i guess the idea stemmed from this fantasctic idea of a swordsman rendering his foes lifeless with the experienced used of katana/wakizashi techniques. but, no, this is SR not Lo5r.
-
Dual wield regular swords that happen to be shaped like a katana/wakizashi or say screw it and go with the rule of cool.
-
Rule of cool works for me. And apparently Minamoto Yoshitsune (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genji:_Dawn_of_the_Samurai). "Sword" is vague enough I don't see why variations like a shamshir, scimitar, or falchion shouldn't be perfectly viable options.
Like many "hand and a half" swords, the katana can be used effectively with 1 hand, particularly if you train that way, but it's probably (usually) more effectively used 2-handed. Dual-wielding is something that just requires a lot of practice. 2-handed sword wielding? Not as much, you have twice the control.
-
How did this get beyond "The rules say it is two-handed"?
Where does the "fluff" idea even come from?
It states, clearly, it is a two-handed weapon.
Because it isn't in a chart, it's "fluff"?
-Jn-
Ifriti Sophist
i guess the idea stemmed from this fantasctic idea of a swordsman rendering his foes lifeless with the experienced used of katana/wakizashi techniques. but, no, this is SR not Lo5r.
Still an option, you just have a very minor penalty to offset. As Reach 1 weapons, katana are eligible for the various two weapon martial arts stuff.
-
How did this get beyond "The rules say it is two-handed"?
Where does the "fluff" idea even come from?
It states, clearly, it is a two-handed weapon.
Because it isn't in a chart, it's "fluff"?
-Jn-
Ifriti Sophist
Truth. This forum has made me hate the previously-neutral word, 'fluff'. It's just an excuse to ignore some aspects of the book while concentrating on others. A gerrymandering of text, if you will.
-
i just don't see why anyone would grab the katana over the nodachi. greater DV, AP, and reach for an extra 1400Y. if i can't increase DV by using both hands, i'm taking the nodachi.
-
It's also a giant cheese knife that's very difficult to hide, whereas you can put the Katana under your long coat and be a modicum of subtle.
Personally, I don't understand why Katanas are all the rage. They are rather tacky, IMO. Just like Michael Dudikoff.
None of my characters would be caught dead in a ditch with one.
-
i just don't see why anyone would grab the katana over the nodachi. greater DV, AP, and reach for an extra 1400Y. if i can't increase DV by using both hands, i'm taking the nodachi.
Probably because they wanted to be able to use it freely in close quarters. A sword where the blade is 4-5 feet long is not exactly something you can swing around in a hallway that easily. And good luck concealing it. There's a reason it was primarily used by horsemen to take down infantry without getting pulled from their horse, and not by, say, people storming a castle.
And good luck concealing it.
Personally, I don't understand why Katanas are all the rage. They are rather tacky, IMO. Just like Michael Dudikoff.
None of my characters would be caught dead in a ditch with one.
They are the quintessential weapon of the samurai, as passed down to us through modern media. Just like most Americans have a special reaction when they hear names like 'Colt Peacemaker' or 'Winchester'. And it has an aesthetic appeal to many, which outweighs the fact that there may be deadlier weapons out there.
-
Yeah, an aesthetic appeal where people bolt cheap knock-offs to their bedroom walls. See: tacky :D
-
Falcatas (http://www.myarmoury.com/review_ws_falcata.html) are the way to go.
-
That may be your opinion, bannockburn, but some of us appreciate the graceful lines of a sword and other blades. The elegance and simplicity in design, which can be enhanced with engraving, while still keeping the blade looking like it was a weapon of war. I should say at this point that my collection of blades (of various types) is over a dozen, ranging from a kriss dagger, to a two-handed scimitar, to a longsword, to a scythe, a naginata, and several katanas, one of which came in a set with a wakizashi and tanto. Sure, none of them are actual combat weapons, but that's only because a) I can't afford them, and b) I don't want to bother with the possible paperwork for legally owning them.
-
Of course it is my opinion. That's why I wrote 'IMO' and 'personally'. People also collect stamps which I find exceedingly boring.
I wouldn't dispute either person's right to like big overused knives or small pieces of paper.
-
The nodachi is just a field sword, it was used by infantrymen to fight mounted infantry more frequently than the other way around, from what I recall. Or, the Nodachi did not necessitate the use of a horse, and it's nickname was the "Horse Cutter" from its implied ability to cut the horse and rider in two. I had one in my room that I'd swing around the back yard to strengthen my wrists, yes I could wield it one handed and some cuts you just don't hold onto it with both your hands all the way through, but hell if that wasn't harder. That would be a very good example of penalty for using a two handed weapon one handed.
You can easily fluff it up as saying you're just using one hand, or your using the other to give it force at times but generally only holding it with one hand, while still rules wise using both your hands. I mean, in sword technique it'd be used one and two handed in the same maneuver and then back again, it's pretty fluid with that.
-
smart-steel nodachi at the hip >:(
-
People don't effin' read.
Using Two-Handed Melee Weapons
A number of melee weapons are designed to be used with two hands. These include most pole arms and most weapons with a Reach of 2, plus any others the gamemaster designates as requiring two hands. It is possible for a character to use a two-handed weapon with only one hand, though doing so is difficult and the attack is less powerful. Apply a –2 dice pool modifier to such attacks and reduce the DV of the attack by –2.
Trolls can wield such two-handed weapons in a single hand more easily, suffering only a –1 dice pool modifier and a –1 to DV.
Using One-Handed Melee Weapons
A character may choose to use a one-handed weapon (Reach 0 or 1) with both hands to swing with more strength and power. This adds a +1 DV bonus to such attacks. Only weapons capable of being grasped with two hands may be used in this manner; knives and similar small weapons do not get any bonus when used in this way.
In-text emphasis mine.
While the description of a katana says it is two-handed, it is a Reach 1 weapon. If the GM wants to say, "No, you can only wield a katana with both hands," that's his perogative. The definition of an actual weapon that requires two hands to wield effectively and therefore gives a penalty if wielded in one hand does not state 'and any weapon with 'two-handed' in their descriptor'; it states pole arms and most weapons with a Reach of 2. Not even ALL weapons with a Reach of 2 - but again, that's GM determination.
The definition of a one-handed weapon is one with a Reach of 0 or 1. The katana has a Reach of 1. Therefore, unless your GM says differently, the katana is considered a one-handed weapon for purposes of melee use.
Period.
-
i just don't see why anyone would grab the katana over the nodachi. greater DV, AP, and reach for an extra 1400Y. if i can't increase DV by using both hands, i'm taking the nodachi.
As a Reach 1 weapon, it has some benefits over the nodachi based on material in the same book as the nodachi.
Wyrm: Specific overrides general.
-
People don't effin' read.
Using Two-Handed Melee Weapons
A number of melee weapons are designed to be used with two hands. These include most pole arms and most weapons with a Reach of 2, plus any others the gamemaster designates as requiring two hands. It is possible for a character to use a two-handed weapon with only one hand, though doing so is difficult and the attack is less powerful. Apply a –2 dice pool modifier to such attacks and reduce the DV of the attack by –2.
Trolls can wield such two-handed weapons in a single hand more easily, suffering only a –1 dice pool modifier and a –1 to DV.
Using One-Handed Melee Weapons
A character may choose to use a one-handed weapon (Reach 0 or 1) with both hands to swing with more strength and power. This adds a +1 DV bonus to such attacks. Only weapons capable of being grasped with two hands may be used in this manner; knives and similar small weapons do not get any bonus when used in this way.
In-text emphasis mine.
While the description of a katana says it is two-handed, it is a Reach 1 weapon. If the GM wants to say, "No, you can only wield a katana with both hands," that's his perogative. The definition of an actual weapon that requires two hands to wield effectively and therefore gives a penalty if wielded in one hand does not state 'and any weapon with 'two-handed' in their descriptor'; it states pole arms and most weapons with a Reach of 2. Not even ALL weapons with a Reach of 2 - but again, that's GM determination.
The definition of a one-handed weapon is one with a Reach of 0 or 1. The katana has a Reach of 1. Therefore, unless your GM says differently, the katana is considered a one-handed weapon for purposes of melee use.
Period.
Absolutely not.
A specific rule cannot list every possible exception to the rule, the exception is noted where it is relevant. Otherwise the book would be as thick as a legal tome and obsolete as soon as the first splatbook was published.
In this case, the text of the katana states unequivocally that it is a two-handed weapon. This may be in contradiction to the general rule, but as it is a statement made specifically about that weapon, it still applies.
If that were not the case, other rules exceptions cited in the text pertaining to specific items and weapons, such as the special recoil rules mentioned above for the Yamaha Sakura Fubuki, would be overridden by the general rule, which is clearly not the case.
-Jn-
Ifriti Sophist
-
Absolutely not "period".
A specific rule cannot list every possible exception to the rule, the exception is noted where it is relevant. Otherwise the book would be as thick as a legal tome and obsolete as soon as the first splatbook was published.
In this case, the text of the katana states unequivocally that it is a two-handed weapon. This may be in contradiction to the general rule, but as it is a statement made specifically about that weapon, it still applies.
If that were not the case, other rules exceptions cited in the text pertaining to specific items and weapons, such as the special recoil rules mentioned above, would be overridden by the general rule, which is clearly not the case.
-Jn-
Ifriti Sophist
And if one uses that portion of the description to override that general rule, then by extension (unless you want to be a hypocrite), one must at least consider that the description of something else can "override a general rule", even through an omission present in other descriptions. :P
-
Wow to RHat and JoeNapalm.
And no.
In the examples people normally give - and right now I'm looking at the Light and Heavy Pistol sections, where I see the Hammerli 620S, the Yamaha Fubuki, the Ares Viper Slivergun, and the Remington Roomsweeper - every specific rule given contains descriptive text followed by very specific technical details about the rule and how it differs than normal.
- Hammerli 620S: Sleek and stylish, the Hammerli offers the range of a heavy pistol within a light pistol casing (use Heavy Pistol ranges, p. 151).
- Yamaha Fubuki: The Fubuki may only fire narrow bursts (not wide), but burst recoil is handled like SA recoil (–1 Recoil on the second burst each Action Phase only).
- Ares Viper Slivergun: It fires metal slivers that count as flechette ammunition (already factored in to the Damage Code).
- Remington Roomsweeper: This short-barreled “shotgun pistol” can be loaded with shot rounds rather than slugs, in which cases it uses heavy-pistol ranges but shotgun rules (Shotguns, pp. 154–155)
The katana and the combat axe both are described as 'two-handed', but have no specific technical details, as is otherwise common. You can - and will - argue that since Arsenal v.2 hadn't come out yet, they didn't think of saying, 'oh, this weapon is considered a two-handed weapon despite having a Reach of 1' - but Arsenal v.1 had. Every other weapon with the 'two-handed' descriptor has - surprise! - a Reach of 2, and there are weapons that do NOT have the 'two-handed' descriptor that still require two hands to use, because they have a Reach of 2.
The counter-argument here is that those two weapons are being specifically highlighted as always being ones that can be used with two hands, as per the 'using one-handed melee weapons with two hands' rule. But again, this is not specified.
Specific exceptions to rules are EXPRESSED as specific exceptions to rules, as seen above, with reference to HOW the rule is changed. Deciding that because the descriptor says something that could be interpreted in two different ways it is an exception instead of the one that would not make an exception? Err, well ... no.
Your GM - or you as the GM - may rule differently, as specifically directed. But just because you think it's an exception when there's a clear and distinct other interpretation doesn't make it an exception.
(And wow to A4BG - rare is even the suggestion of agreement between us... ;) )
-
Absolutely not "period".
A specific rule cannot list every possible exception to the rule, the exception is noted where it is relevant. Otherwise the book would be as thick as a legal tome and obsolete as soon as the first splatbook was published.
In this case, the text of the katana states unequivocally that it is a two-handed weapon. This may be in contradiction to the general rule, but as it is a statement made specifically about that weapon, it still applies.
If that were not the case, other rules exceptions cited in the text pertaining to specific items and weapons, such as the special recoil rules mentioned above, would be overridden by the general rule, which is clearly not the case.
-Jn-
Ifriti Sophist
And if one uses that portion of the description to override that general rule, then by extension (unless you want to be a hypocrite), one must at least consider that the description of something else can "override a general rule", even through an omission present in other descriptions. :P
"Specific" has to be explicit to override the general rule. Simply not referencing the general rule is not sufficient, because it is assumed to inherit everything from the general rule that it does not explicitly override.
Wyrm: How is "two-handed sword" not sufficient detail to establish that it is a two-handed weapon? Details like you cite are given when the weapon adds relatively rules-unique elements.
-
Absolutely not "period".
A specific rule cannot list every possible exception to the rule, the exception is noted where it is relevant. Otherwise the book would be as thick as a legal tome and obsolete as soon as the first splatbook was published.
In this case, the text of the katana states unequivocally that it is a two-handed weapon. This may be in contradiction to the general rule, but as it is a statement made specifically about that weapon, it still applies.
If that were not the case, other rules exceptions cited in the text pertaining to specific items and weapons, such as the special recoil rules mentioned above, would be overridden by the general rule, which is clearly not the case.
-Jn-
Ifriti Sophist
And if one uses that portion of the description to override that general rule, then by extension (unless you want to be a hypocrite), one must at least consider that the description of something else can "override a general rule", even through an omission present in other descriptions. :P
Are you still muttering about tasers?
-Jn-
Ifriti Sophist
-
with regards to the "exceptional rule" of the combat axe/katana being a two-handed weapon, under it's description, nowhere else but under the advanced combat rules SR4. AR is handedness mentioned. rules for handedness are found under this section and should be used in conjunction with eachother.
The katana and the combat axe both are described as 'two-handed', but have no specific technical details, as is otherwise common. You can - and will - argue that since Arsenal v.2 hadn't come out yet, they didn't think of saying, 'oh, this weapon is considered a two-handed weapon despite having a Reach of 1' - but Arsenal v.1 had. Every other weapon with the 'two-handed' descriptor has - surprise! - a Reach of 2, and there are weapons that do NOT have the 'two-handed' descriptor that still require two hands to use, because they have a Reach of 2.
thank you
-
"Specific" has to be explicit to override the general rule. Simply not referencing the general rule is not sufficient, because it is assumed to inherit everything from the general rule that it does not explicitly override.
Wyrm: How is "two-handed sword" not sufficient detail to establish that it is a two-handed weapon? Details like you cite are given when the weapon adds relatively rules-unique elements.
Because of the TWO General Rules.
- Reach 2 weapons require two hands to use properly; they are designed that way. Using them with one hand gives a penalty.
- Reach 0 and 1 weapons only require one hand. If the weapon can be grasped with two hands, you can use it as such and get a bonus.
You then have the following:
- I have a Reach of 1. I require one hand to use.
- I am described as a two-handed weapon. I can therefore be used with two hands.
Because of Rules 1 and 2, we have established that some weapons that require two hands to use properly may be used with only one hand - and that some weapons that only require one hand to use properly may be used with two hands. Calling a Reach 1 weapon a two-handed weapon thus permits the confusion you are thus displaying, possibly but not necessarily because you have never hefted one in your hand or swung it in a correct combat exercise.
Katanas and battle-axes were designed to be used with one hand - because the other hand was going to be busy, whether holding the reins of a horse, or carrying a shield, or whatever. The length of their hafts enables them to be used with two hands - but does not require them to be used with two hands. Did they get used with two hands an awful lot? Sure, in part because using two hands gave more power. (Also more control.) But neither weapon was designed to require two hands the way a polearm is.
Both the katana and the battle axe (which is a lot bloody different than a great-axe, let me tell you) have Reach 1, require only one hand to use, but may use two hands. Their description as being 'two-handed' thus fits into the definition of Rule #2, simplified above.
Details like you cite are given when the weapon adds relatively rules-unique elements.
I want to specifically address this, though, because one thing SR doesn't have is a Great Hammer - or a Great Axe. You know, the huge weapons with a giant chunk of metal on it, or an axehead facing one way, and another giant axehead facing the other way? These things might easily be mounted on a short shaft, thus making it Reach 1, but you would then state more than just 'two-handed weapon'. You would say, "Because of its massive weight and momentum, a Great (Weapon) requires two hands to wield." THAT is an exception, with the explanation as to why it is a 'two-handed weapon' even though it only has a Reach of 1.
Saying that just because something says 'two-handed weapon' means it is designed to require two hands to wield properly, when there is an explanation that is equal or better which fits the real-life physical reality of the item if it exists, is willful blindness.
-
Wow to RHat and JoeNapalm.
And no.
In the examples people normally give - and right now I'm looking at the Light and Heavy Pistol sections, where I see the Hammerli 620S, the Yamaha Fubuki, the Ares Viper Slivergun, and the Remington Roomsweeper - every specific rule given contains descriptive text followed by very specific technical details about the rule and how it differs than normal.
- Hammerli 620S: Sleek and stylish, the Hammerli offers the range of a heavy pistol within a light pistol casing (use Heavy Pistol ranges, p. 151).
- Yamaha Fubuki: The Fubuki may only fire narrow bursts (not wide), but burst recoil is handled like SA recoil (–1 Recoil on the second burst each Action Phase only).
- Ares Viper Slivergun: It fires metal slivers that count as flechette ammunition (already factored in to the Damage Code).
- Remington Roomsweeper: This short-barreled “shotgun pistol” can be loaded with shot rounds rather than slugs, in which cases it uses heavy-pistol ranges but shotgun rules (Shotguns, pp. 154–155)
The katana and the combat axe both are described as 'two-handed', but have no specific technical details, as is otherwise common. You can - and will - argue that since Arsenal v.2 hadn't come out yet, they didn't think of saying, 'oh, this weapon is considered a two-handed weapon despite having a Reach of 1' - but Arsenal v.1 had. Every other weapon with the 'two-handed' descriptor has - surprise! - a Reach of 2, and there are weapons that do NOT have the 'two-handed' descriptor that still require two hands to use, because they have a Reach of 2.
The counter-argument here is that those two weapons are being specifically highlighted as always being ones that can be used with two hands, as per the 'using one-handed melee weapons with two hands' rule. But again, this is not specified.
Specific exceptions to rules are EXPRESSED as specific exceptions to rules, as seen above, with reference to HOW the rule is changed. Deciding that because the descriptor says something that could be interpreted in two different ways it is an exception instead of the one that would not make an exception? Err, well ... no.
Your GM - or you as the GM - may rule differently, as specifically directed. But just because you think it's an exception when there's a clear and distinct other interpretation doesn't make it an exception.
(And wow to A4BG - rare is even the suggestion of agreement between us... ;) )
It is specified. The text says they are two-handed.
How is "this weapon is two-handed" open to interpretation, other than arbitrarily deciding to ignore some descriptive text and not others?
This concept of "it is fluff unless I say it isn't" is not a viable interpretation of a rules system. The only "fluff" is clearly delineated in short fiction on color commentary from setting persona.
Everything else is the rules.
If that is NOT the case, how do you think the descriptive text would need to be written to make a weapon that is a Reach 1 weapon and is a two-handed weapon, such as a katana, be two-handed?
Because a katana is actually two-handed, like the text says. It was developed as the Samurai transitioned from primarily mounted archers to more of a close combat role.
-Jn-
City of Brass Expatriate
-
quote from joenapalm
"If that is NOT the case, how do you think the descriptive text would need to be written to make a weapon that is a Reach 1 weapon and is a two-handed weapon, such as a katana, be two-handed? Because a katana is actually two-handed, like the text says."
if such is the case, what rules actually apply because of this, if not using AR's advanced combat rules and only SR4 Core. to have an exception and no rules to follow are kinda redundant no?
-
Calling a Reach 1 weapon a two-handed weapon thus permits the confusion you are thus displaying, possibly but not necessarily because you have never hefted one in your hand or swung it in a correct combat exercise.
...
Saying that just because something says 'two-handed weapon' means it is designed to require two hands to wield properly, when there is an explanation that is equal or better which fits the real-life physical reality of the item if it exists, is willful blindness.
There is no need to get spun up. We don't see eye to eye. It's not a crisis.
It's unwise to make assumptions about what I have and haven't done. My avatar isn't a random choice.
A katana is designed to be used two-handed. It can be used with one, but is designed for two. Iai-jutsu and Niten Ichi-Ryu are the exceptions, not the rule.
It would not be game-breaking to allow one-handed use, but I disagree with the increasingly common practice of simply disregarding the descriptive text as "fluff". If you perceive an optional rule, such as in Arsenal, as overriding that, then fine - but that is an optional rule. If, at your table, you choose to disregard that text, then fine, but that is not RAW.
We don't pay at the same table, you can wave a sword around however you see fit - I just happen to disagree with your interpretation.
-Jn-
Ifriti Sophist
-
It is specified. The text says they are two-handed.
How is "this weapon is two-handed" open to interpretation, other than arbitrarily deciding to ignore some descriptive text and not others?
This concept of "it is fluff unless I say it isn't" is not a viable interpretation of a rules system. The only "fluff" is clearly delineated in short fiction on color commentary from setting persona.
Everything else is the rules.
I never said it was 'fluff'; it is a description, and that description states that the weapon is a two-handed weapon. In the description of the Hammerli 620S, it tells you that the weapon comes with an integral gas-vent and a smartgun system. This isn't 'fluff'; this is description.
We're not disagreeing on what is written. What we're disagreeing on is what saying 'it is a two-handed weapon' means in regards to a Reach 1 weapon.
You say that that means that it requires two hands to wield properly. I say that, in regards to a Reach 1 weapon, it may be used with both hands. You say that 'this two-handed sword' delineates an exception - when every exception I've found specifies how the exception is handled. I say that 'this two-handed sword' clearly defines a weapon that is NOT an exception, but is instead the archetypal weapon requiring one hand to be used with both hands in order to gain an improvement in striking.
Your interpretation is 'exception' when there is no 'and this is how the exception is handled'.
My interpretation is 'this one in particular exemplifies the rule' - not the exception, but an example of what the rule is about.
If that is NOT the case, how do you think the descriptive text would need to be written to make a weapon that is a Reach 1 weapon and is a two-handed weapon, such as a katana, be two-handed?
Thus:
Details like you cite are given when the weapon adds relatively rules-unique elements.
I want to specifically address this, though, because one thing SR doesn't have is a Great Hammer - or a Great Axe. You know, the huge weapons with a giant chunk of metal on it, or an axehead facing one way, and another giant axehead facing the other way? These things might easily be mounted on a short shaft, thus making it Reach 1, but you would then state more than just 'two-handed weapon'. You would say, "Because of its massive weight and momentum, a Great (Weapon) requires two hands to wield." THAT is an exception, with the explanation as to why it is a 'two-handed weapon' even though it only has a Reach of 1.
Because a katana is actually two-handed, like the text says. It was developed as the Samurai transitioned from primarily mounted archers to more of a close combat role.
A katana is designed to be used two-handed. It can be used with one, but is designed for two. Iai-jutsu and Niten Ichi-Ryu are the exceptions, not the rule.
No offense, but you can't have both be true.
Equip a mounted archer - bow, arrows. Have his class start moving from focussing on mounted archery to close combat - which means the first weapon designed is a melee weapon designed to be used while on horseback. This is a one-handed weapon, with the other hand for your mount. Once you dismount (willfully or forcibly), yes, using both hands is wise, in part because as an archer you don't carry a shield. (Nor, really, were shields big things in Japan, so far as I can discover.)
If you are correct and the design of the weapon comes from the transition of horse-mounted archers to, well, horse-mounted close combatants (and eventually ground combatants), then the design of the weapon comes from that necessity, and not being built as the weapon of a fighter on foot. (Those, as we know, are primarily polearms.) The techniques developed to use that weapon on foot evolved from the weapon design and cultural philosophies; the weapon design did not evolve from the technique.
You really are proving my point. In any case, as you said, I don't play at your table, so you as GM can declare it's a two-hands-required weapon, as is your right. Textev does not require that, however.
-
They can both be true, because they both say the same thing: The katana is a two-handed weapon.
All of your discussion of mounted combat is more relevant to the tachi than the katana, and irrelevant to Shadowrun - unless you intend to be using it from the back of your Harley (which would be awesome, but not the normal usage).
As combat styles shifted, the Samurai moved from the tachi to the katana, which was more suited to the sudden close-combat engagement.
Your comments implied you've trained, in which case you know that, fundamentally, the katana is used with two hands. One-handed techniques are there, but are certainly not the core of the weapon style.
-Jn-
Ifriti Sophist
-
Your comments implied you've trained, in which case you know that, fundamentally, the katana is used with two hands. One-handed techniques are there, but are certainly not the core of the weapon style.
-Jn-
Ifriti Sophist
Also, IIRC, the one handed techniques are for more artistic use then actual combat. The displays of skill, etc, not the, you know, actual
killing people. And those who could use a Katana in the niten ichi-ryu style, or who practice any style that focuses on using a katana
one handed had years of specific training in just that, and still had to master the using it in two hands, first. The actual standard style
being to turn the enemy blade(using the back of your blade), then strike down the opening you just created.
-
Actually, the katana, like the bastard sword in Europe, is an example of a hand-and-a-half sword. In other words, a sword that can be wielded in either one or two hands, typically longer and heavier than a longsword or wakizashi, but shorter and lighter than a claymore, greatsword, or nodachi, to give examples. As with most weapons of the type, it is easier to use the sword in two hands, unless you've trained in using it one-handed. Unfortunately, this is a style of sword that is largely overlooked in the shadowrun rules.
How would I resolve it? Probably I would make a quality or maneuver for it, modeled off the Ambidexterity quality and the Off-hand Training maneuver. Simple, easy, and gets the job done in a way most people should at least be able to agree with mechanically, yes?
-
As an alternative, perhaps reduce the one-handed penalty by one - -1 for most, 0 for trolls.
-
just as a thought :
If I (me ,Medicineman,real Person) can wield a Katana one handed, why shouldn't Streetsam be able to do so too ?
I can't wield a Halberd,Claymore or even a No-Dachi one handed,so these are Two Handed Weapons to Me but a Katana is hardly a Problem
with a one Handed Dance
Medicineman
-
It's not that it CAN'T be done. There's simply a penalty assessed for it.
-
It's not that it CAN'T be done. There's simply a penalty assessed for it.
:)
My Argument is ,that If I ,as a normal Person ,can wield and fight without (or with only a small ) penalty than a Streetsam ,Ork or (especially a Streetsam-)Troll shouldn't have any at all
with an effordless Dance
Medicineman
-
I'd argue that you're incorrect about the lack of penalty - the one handed grip drastically interferes with the cutting technique.
-
uuh, not so much, the hilt of a Katana is smooth and without large cumbersome weights (Which I have learned will cut up your wrists quite painfully)
It would have less strength when hitting a solid object though, so a two handed grip would be necessary to cut bone or through armour.
There are Middle Eastern and Indian swords that can be handled similarly, though Indian swords more commonly have 2 hand sized grips than Middle Eastern ones.
-
It would have less strength when hitting a solid object though, so a two handed grip would be necessary to cut bone or through armour.
thus making way for using both hands to increase DV
-
classifying the katana as a two-handed weapon in SR4 puts the weapon in complete unbalance when compared to others. for example the nodachi and combat axe both have a reach of 2, making the katana the only two-handed non-exotic weapon with a reach of 1, and both have greater DV. the monofil. sword can be used two handed to increase DV but the katana can't? here's my point, it puts the katana somewhere in the middle, unable to increase DV with two hands and less reach than other two handed weapons. two handed katanas are broken IMO.
-
So let me get this straight:
To back the position, that the katana is really one handed one needs to use the Arsenal, to reference a number of quite vague rules and jump to an assumption, that "two-handed" is one-handed, which can be used two-handed.
On the other hand all the opponents of the position have to reference is just the description of the katana using the most logical and wide-spread definition (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/two-handed) of "two-handed". That's it.
I'm so with JoeNapalm on this!
BTW, although katana really looks cool and you can admire the design, it's efficiency in combat is hugely overrated (thanks to anime, I guess). My opinion was defined by this (http://clips.team-andro.com/watch/e5ee2f3b311fe4f145ae/deadliest-warrior-viking-vs.-samurai)episode of the Deadliest Warrior.
-
So let me get this straight:
To back the position, that the katana is really one handed one needs to use the Arsenal, to reference a number of quite vague rules and jump to an assumption, that "two-handed" is one-handed, which can be used two-handed.
That, or a simple application of Rule Zero. It doesn't break anything, and saddling the Katana with being two handed basically makes it a strictly worse monofilament sword. It's a Cool Sword (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/CoolSword) (Standard TVTropes Warning), and since it neither breaks anything nor severely breaks versimilitude, it looks like a lot of people have Rule Zero'd it (sometimes without noticing). I know I have.
Trying to find RAW or even RAI backup for what is essentially a Rule Zero call is where things get ugly. Real ugly.
-
So let me get this straight:
To back the position, that the katana is really one handed one needs to use the Arsenal, to reference a number of quite vague rules and jump to an assumption, that "two-handed" is one-handed, which can be used two-handed.
That, or a simple application of Rule Zero. It doesn't break anything, and saddling the Katana with being two handed basically makes it a strictly worse monofilament sword. It's a Cool Sword (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/CoolSword) (Standard TVTropes Warning), and since it neither breaks anything nor severely breaks versimilitude, it looks like a lot of people have Rule Zero'd it (sometimes without noticing). I know I have.
Trying to find RAW or even RAI backup for what is essentially a Rule Zero call is where things get ugly. Real ugly.
I'm cool and have zero problems with rule zero'ing the katana as a Cool Sword (pun intended), those rules-lawyering the katana as a Cool Sword bother me. It's a personal thing: some love the sword, some don't. I'm in the latter camp and it occurs to me that the technological wonder of a monofilament sword should leave the katana far behind. If you love it - go ahead, Rule Zero it, but don't invent intricate explanaitions as to why it is better, RAW or RAI.
P.S.
I personally Rule Zero revolvers at my table ^_^
-
To back the position, that the katana is really one handed one needs to use the Arsenal
If one of my GMs would Tell me, that a Katana is a 2 Handed Weapon only
I'd buy a Monosword add Pimp1 to make it look like a Katana and have a 1handed Katana with a +1 bonus to Intimidate :P
(for less ¥ than a real Katana IIRC).
I would never ever pay 1000 for a Katana If I can get a better one for 850 ¥ (I'd feel stupid )
with a simple Dance
Medicineman
-
To back the position, that the katana is really one handed one needs to use the Arsenal
If one of my GMs would Tell me, that a Katana is a 2 Handed Weapon only
I'd buy a Monosword add Pimp1 to make it look like a Katana and have a 1handed Katana with a +1 bonus to Intimidate :P
(for less ¥ than a real Katana IIRC).
I would never ever pay 1000 for a Katana If I can get a better one for 850 ¥ (I'd feel stupid )
with a simple Dance
Medicineman
And you'll have a monofilament weapon, that should be better anyways) Don't see a problem here. BTW, not everyone uses Arsenal: I don't yet.
-
But If You follow that Logic, than a Monosword is always better than a Katana (same stats with less cost) no one would buy a Katana and It'll disappear from the Market (same with light Pistols in SR3)
who would buy a last Gen I-phone for 1000 $ if he can get a new one for 750 $ ?
yahtahey
Medicineman
-
But If You follow that Logic, than a Monosword is always better than a Katana (same stats with less cost) no one would buy a Katana and It'll disappear from the Market (same with light Pistols in SR3)
yahtahey
Medicineman
The m-sword is supposed to be more efficient. But people don't always get what is more efficient, they often get what's hip and popular. Ever heard about those iphones?) Or just check out the car market.
Katanas are adored, there is a cult around them. It doesn't really matter if they are worse than a m-sword: they are way more cool =)
-
No one has suggested that the rules are GOOD, but they are what they are. Being aware of that, you're perfectly free to look at houseruling them if you wish.
-
No one has suggested that the rules are GOOD, but they are what they are. Being aware of that, you're perfectly free to look at houseruling them if you wish.
or using GMV... Common Sense (I guess) ;)
with a Housedance
Medicineman
-
or using GMV... Common Sense (I guess) ;)
with a Housedance
Medicineman
What's GMV? :o
-
Gesunder MenschenVerstand. German for common sense, literal translation: healthy human mind, and also known as houserule in case of strange or stupid RAW.
-
So, in other words, precisely what I suggested.
-
OK, Zdravyiy Smyisl it is :)
-
in part because as an archer you don't carry a shield. (Nor, really, were shields big things in Japan, so far as I can discover.)
Not nearly as much as it was in Greek-influenced Europe, or the variety of shields used by Scandanavian peoples, or the occasional shields used by Persian-influenced peoples. The peasant conscripts often used shields, but when you're up against samurai cavalry and archers and your warlord has given you a spear and possibly a helm but not armor, you have very strong inclination to lash together some bamboo to make yourself a shield. I find more military historical evidence for this in China where they moved up to metal more often, but there are signs of it being done in Japan as well.
uuh, not so much, the hilt of a Katana is smooth and without large cumbersome weights (Which I have learned will cut up your wrists quite painfully)
It's not a matter of things on the grip getting in the way. As Mirikon said, the katana better fits in the "hand and a half" category, meaning it can be used easily in two hands, or with training can be used in one hand. The heft and balance of the weapon are simply easier to direct with precision when you're using it two-handed, but if you've put in years (or months of intense) training then it's possible to use it one-handed. Again, I think that the Maneuver idea deals with this easily, with no additional rules fudging necessary.
Gesunder MenschenVerstand. German for common sense, literal translation: healthy human mind, and also known as houserule in case of strange or stupid RAW.
That explains a few things from past forum posts I've read. Thanks for pointing out the translation.
-
I can see your point, but I was pointing out that Katanas or any other similarly smooth gripped blade would not impede a one handed swing like many european swords would.
Though, I would state for rules purposes I would take the rule in arsenal as an overwriting rule with a criteria in it for reach 0-1 weapons, which the katana falls under, which though being two handed still also falls under an umbrella rule.
Side note, archers did use shields in europe, and so did crossbowmen, though sometimes they were very small and supported by a simple cord. The shields archers had effectively made them very small emplacements, so they could restring in relative safety, they would also usually have a serf (or something like that) in tow, to carry their shield and arrows.
the Pavise (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pavise)
and the smaller shield I can't seem to find at the moment, but spearmen also used them.
-
Side note, archers did use shields in europe, and so did crossbowmen, though sometimes they were very small and supported by a simple cord. The shields archers had effectively made them very small emplacements, so they could restring in relative safety, they would also usually have a serf (or something like that) in tow, to carry their shield and arrows.
the Pavise (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pavise)
and the smaller shield I can't seem to find at the moment, but spearmen also used them.
Europe, yes, but Japan, not so much.
In the Pre-Samurai era, there was some shield use in Japan, but it died out fairly early.
The Japanese arsenal heavily favored two-handed weapons, and survival wasn't necessarily as a high priority as you might think.
A Samurai, as a mounted archer and two-handed swordsman (who steered with their knees, by the way, not with the reigns in their off-hand, as has been suggested), wouldn't have a use for a shield, and wouldn't have been caught dead cowering behind one, anyway.
Blades for use while mounted would have been the Tachi, or Odachi / Nodachi. In later periods, as Samurai moved away from the traditional mounted combat, they transitioned to the katana, which was worn edge-upward through the belt (not suitable for mounted warfare, but better for quick-draw Iai-jutsu action and CQB).
Infantry favored polearms (gotta love those naginatas).
What shields they did have mostly consisted of tower shields, I believe, for levy infantry to hunker behind when necessary. (Honor-less peasants!)
Oh, and the Ninja sometimes used bucklers. (Pesky Ninja!)
-Jn-
Ifriti Sophist
-
Though there is a strong misconception today as to what samurai considered honorable, samurai were indeed afraid to die, but less so than to be found dishonorable and killed, and have their families shamed. In combat they would use any means necessary to win, and samurai would employ things like shuriken as distractions and other tools or weapons we commonly identify as ninja weapons, whom the samurai were in some cases ninja themselves.
Though armour was very finely crafted and often ornate in japan, the proliferation of it was about the same as any other country in europe, there were those who had bits and pieces of armour, usually for their sword arm, but wore little else and many who wore only normal clothing. For them, the Yari and the Naginata were quite common tools, though the Naginata is often associated with women, it was seen in many other peoples hands.
-
From Hagakure:
Bushidó, I have found out, lies in dying.
When confronted with two alternatives, life and death, one is to choose death without hesitation. There is nothing particularly difficult; one has only to be resolved and push forward.
While some say, "Death without gaining one's end is but a futile death," such a calculating way of thinking comes from conceited, citified bushidó. Pressed between two alternatives, one can hardly be sure of choosing the righteous of the two. To be sure, everybody prefers life to death; he tends to reason himself into staying alive somehow. But if he comes out alive without gaining his righteous end, he is a coward. Therein lies a crucial point to consider.
Conversely, as long as one's choice is death, even if he died without accomplishing his just aim, his death is free of disgrace, although others may term it as a vain or insane one. This is the essence of bushidó. If one, through being prepared for death every morning and evening, expects death at any moment, bushidó will become his own, whereby he shall be able to serve the lord all his life through and through without blunder.
-Jn-
Deshi of the Kazekure Ugi
-
And here's why Buddhism caught on big time in Japan, there's reincarnation in it. Shinto, not so much, there's an afterlife; where you lay dead in a pit for all of eternity, with everyone else dead, and you're still decaying as normal, only conscious of it.
Shinto shrines make their money from weddings
Buddhist temples make their money from funerals
go figure.
-
There is actually a saying:
Japanese are born Shinto, live Christian, and die Buddhist.
- Shinto is a philosophy regarding life and living.
- Christianity has many holidays and (for the most part) is a "fun/popular" thing for the Japanese to follow/emulate.
- Buddhism gives a feeling of security in death and eases the transition.
-
When I was in tokyo, some 5 years ago, I only ever recall seeing maybe 1 church. Though western influence was absolutely everywhere, actual christian iconography was rather rare. But I'm sure they enjoy the holidays, and I rather enjoy some of the hilariously misguided holiday items that emerge from it all.