A well-meaning thread that degenerated into "is the OA Samuari historically accurate"

[Gez]

Indeed, they're totally appropriate for a samurai who can, like, TOTALLY destroy a tank with his katana, because like, it's a katana and stuff. And if any of those punk ass ninjae tried to stop him he'd be all like mrowwwwww-ya and chop their heads off with his kung-fu grip.

I've already read this. Either I'm psychic or you're just repeating yourself, hong.

Not that there's anything wrong with postwhoring.

 

[hong]

I've already read this. Either I'm psychic or you're just repeating yourself, hong.

Hong "Meepo does this better than me" Ooi

 

[Kobold Avenger]

The Samurai in Complete Warrior after looking at them, is something that wouldn't work in my game despite being a multicultural campaign setting. And this doesn't have to do with the fact that this world's Japan is much like the Meiji Era Japan, but rather its too limited in focus to actually exist anywhere else like in my world's version of India, China, Russia, the Ottoman Empire, Aztec Empire, Prussian Empire and so on.

I was actually hoping that it was still flexible enough that you could make something like a Knight, Hwoarang, Jannisary, Ksatriya, Jaguar Warrior or whatever out of the class with only perhaps a few changes.

 

[Nightchilde-2]

I'd just like to ask if it's worth the money? I put on my wish list for Christmas, but if you're telling me, it isn't worth owning, then I'd better remove it from my list and think of something else.

If you like crunchy bits (feats and *especially* Prestige Classes) then, yes, this book is very much worth owning.

If you don't like the crunch (again, *especially* PrCs, as this book is mostly PrCs) then, no, you won't find it worth owning.

Me, I can't get enough of the stuff. I loved CW. Not as much as I loved Draconomicon, mind you, but still....

 

[Li Shenron]

There is an EWP.

3 level PrC, Figher BAB and saves

You can take it at 7th level at the earliest (BAB +6)

Each level gives you an Exotic weapon stunt such as:

• Close-Quarters Ragned Combat: Doesn't provoke AoO when using Ex ranged weapon
• Double Weapon Defense: +1 shield bonus when using a two-handed EWP
• Exotic Reach: Can make AoO with EWP against foe with cover (but not total cover)
• Exotic Sunder: Extra 1d6 on sunder attempt with EWP
  ...
• Stunning Blow: If you have the feat you can stun through your EWP
• Throw EWP: Can throw EWP with no penalty, 10 ft range increment
• Twin EWP: Like two-weapon fighting, but only for two of the same light EWPs. If you already have TWP, penalties reduced to -1
• Trip Attack: +2 to trip with EWP, becomes trip weapon, can be dropped to avoid counter trip
• Uncanny BLows: x2 damage Str bonus when wielding one-handed exotic weapon in two hands. Also can double with Power attack like two-handed weapon.

Oh my my my... I know this is supposed to be a master with exotic weapons, but, aren't exotic weapons something less common and more difficult to use than martial weapons? Isn't it the reason why Fighters and others are proficient with all martial weapons because of their general fighting training, but not with exotic weapons because they require some extra specific training? Then how can a character get special abilities with all exotic weapons but not be able to use the same abilities with weapons which are more common and easier to use?

Tell me why Close-Quarters Ragned Combat gives you the benefit with a repeating crossbow but not a normal crossbow, or why Throw EWP gives you benefit when throwing spiked chains, doubleswords and hooked hammers but you still find difficulties in throwing a shortsword, longsword or pick.

I think all this abilities exploit a hard rule definition without even considering what it means.

 

[RingXero]

I have watched many a fictional Samurai film or read Samurai , and that is what drives me to want to play one. This version would not allow me to emulate a fictional Samurai of my choice.

Then use the one in OA. Honestly, why all the critique and discussion? The CW Samurai presents a one sided, stereotyped version of a samurai, allowing for a DM or player to quickly drop something 'foriegn' into the campaign without much thinking at all. If the DM or player wanted options, history, culture, then they would naturally pick up OA, that is what that book was written for, not the CW.

I don't see a problem here.


RX

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

Then use the one in OA. Honestly, why all the critique and discussion? The CW Samurai presents a one sided, stereotyped version of a samurai, allowing for a DM or player to quickly drop something 'foriegn' into the campaign without much thinking at all. If the DM or player wanted options, history, culture, then they would naturally pick up OA, that is what that book was written for, not the CW.

I don't see a problem here.


RX

One-sided and stereotypical it may be, but at least the author of OA bothered to do a little research first.

 

[Psion]

Then use the one in OA. Honestly, why all the critique and discussion?

Can't speak for anyone else, but when I see a well considered mechanical element see an alternate version that is rather trite by way of comparison, that
1) stands out as me as a sign that the company is headed in the wrong direction and dashes my hopes of ever seen the earlier and IMO better version seing proper treatment under this edition
2) makes it so I am swimming upstream when trying to convince players with the "latest and greatest" mentality which version will/should be used.

 

[Plane Sailing]

Gfunk,

I just wanted to say that I feel your pain, and the renamed thread title says it all really.

Hey, all you samuri-issue guys! Why not start a whole new thread to talk about that stuff, and let Gfunk's poor little thread get back to its original topic


BTW, do you remember whether they made any significant change to "expert tactician"?

 

[Felon]

Gfunk,
I just wanted to say that I feel your pain, and the renamed thread title says it all really. Hey, all you samuri-issue guys! Why not start a whole new thread to talk about that stuff, and let Gfunk's poor little thread get back to its original topic BTW, do you remember whether they made any significant change to "expert tactician"?

Sorry for my part in all that.

I actually went out and bought the damn book. Expert Tactician is not in there, or if it is it has been most surreptitioulsy renamed.

Some initial observations:

Gez, don't know if you knew this already, but the iconic samurai featured in the book is actually a dwarf.

The ronin isn't evil, just not lawful. I can live with that.

The ravager seems to have the same abilities presented in Sword & Shaft. Why re-present it in CW? Well, it looks like what they actually tweaked was the flavor, not the crunch. See, in S&F, you could only join the ravagers by hunting down their warband and killing another ravager in ritual combat. At some point it must've occurred to somebody at WotC that if this were actually the case, the ravagers would experience, at best, zero-population-growth. Now you become a ravager by running a gauntlet and sacrificing an innocent.

I can't believe they didn't make any attempts to fix the frenzied berserker so that a single point of damage didn't have a good chance of sending him on a killing spree.

And it really wasn't a typo: the swashbuckler does not get a good Reflex save. Instead, he gets a minor "grace" bonus to his poor Reflex saves when not carrying a medium or heavy load. It's too small to compensate (he gets a +3 bonus at 20th level). I really don't understand WTF they were thinking here.

Since I have the splats and a long-running subscription to Dragon, I have actually seen most of this stuff before. Wasn't there some sort of contention that 70% of this content would be original? I knew that going in though, and am somewhat pleased that Dragon material is actually finding its way into WotC books. A lot of my fellow players just haven't been able to get it through their heads that the little tagline that says "official D&D magazine" on the cover really really means that it's official.