Complete Warrior Samurai Thread

[Wormwood]

Seems like most people object mainly to the name (which seems reasonable to me, though I haven't seen CW yet). Anybody got a better one?

While I really like the class, perhaps calling it 'samurai' *is* problematic. Since my Realms campaign has virtually zero oriental influence, I intended to rename it anyway.

 

[Desdichado]

But this class is ridiculously specific. Only the 3.0 monk approaches how narrowly defined it is.

Eh, I don't buy it. The Paladin and the Ranger are also very narrowly defined, and I'd argue that the ranger goes further towards alienating the archetype than the new samurai does (with the caveat that I haven't seen the new samurai.) Keep in mind, there's a difference between the archetype as percieved by the educated and knowledgable about Japanese history/culture and the archetype as percieved by people who watch American Ninja 3 with Michael Dudikoff and think that's what Japan is all about.

There's a difference between "historically accurate" and "random nonsense thrown together without regard for the archetype". It's not like anyone is insisting on anything along the lines of WIZARDS CANNOT CAST SPELLS AND MUST BE ROLE_PLAYED AS INSANE BECAUSE MAGIC DOESN'T EXIST AND PEOPLE WHO THINK THEY POSESSED IT WERE CRAZY, it's that their complaining that if this "Samurai" class wasn't named "Samurai" then we would have no idea what on earth it was supposed to be. It makes no sense.

I suspect you're letting your own preferences for what the archetype should mean color the severity of the issue here. I freely admit to doing the same thing to the Ranger class. The Ranger class is a fine class, if you want to play some stupid two-wielding, spell-casting fellow that has some vague association with the wilderness. Lots of people do, so I keep my preferences largely to myself, and take some other clas in lieu of the Ranger when I'm DMing and tell folks they have to use that to play the archetype. Problem solved.

Let's say you traveled back in time prior to the Bard being a class. Let's say you gave gamers the list of class features for the Bard with the name scratched out and asked them to name it. They would come up with Troubadour, Ministrel, Scald, whatever. People would understand the archtype/concept even if they didn't know what it was named. This would not happen with the Samurai. The name, and the concept invoked by it, have no relation to what the class is. It's the Spooky Warrior of Dual-Wielding, not a Samurai.

I beg to differ. A vaguely Thiefy fellow that casts spells is clearly a bard? The bard is another core class suffering from a deplorable lack of clear archetype/concept except within the nepotistic world of D&D itself.

 

[Desdichado]

But then there's a more basic sense of conceptual accuracy that should be observed. I bet most folks think Divine Grace suits a paladin a lot better than Sneak Attack. And safe to say most would agree that Survival is a more appropriate class skill for a barbarian than Craft (alchemy). A lot of folks seem to think this samurai is a bit too slap-dash.

Sure, but see my post above. Also, a lot of folks seem to think otherwise.

 

[Ackem]

Eh, I don't buy it. The Paladin and the Ranger are also very narrowly defined, and I'd argue that the ranger goes further towards alienating the archetype than the new samurai does (with the caveat that I haven't seen the new samurai.) Keep in mind, there's a difference between the archetype as percieved by the educated and knowledgable about Japanese history/culture and the archetype as percieved by people who watch American Ninja 3 with Michael Dudikoff and think that's what Japan is all about.

Paladins/Rangers are both wacky classes and certainly not among my favorites but the Samurai really is much more narrow. Paladins/Rangers have weapon and spell choices to differeniate them. Samurai are completely pigeon-holed.

Seriously, check the new Samurai out. It's far far worse.

 

[Celtavian]

re

I don't think the class needs to be historically accurate, but it should be customizable to fit a variety of visions of the Samurai. The OA Samurai did this just fine. The Samurai basically is a fighter with a few tweaks, and I don't see why it needed any seasoning considering it was nicely customizable. The Prc's in OA allowed a Samurai to individualize his or her path to an even greater degree. They should have just made a few Prc's specifically geared towards the Samurai in the CW, rather than making a limiting Samurai core class.

This new Samurai limits the playable Samurai archetypes. And for those of us who like Samurai and know about the various archetypes, the new Samurai is far too constraining.

Like me for example, I am currently playing a fictional Samurai based on the Samurai in the film Yojimbo, a two-handed Katana wielder. That movie really made me want to play a Samurai. If only the CW version of the Samurai were available, I wouldn't be able to do it.

Now it seems to me that James Wyatt did alot research when making OA. He made a customizable Samurai class that could fit a variety of archetypes as well as do well in a fantasy setting. I don't see why the designers of the CW couldn't see that James Wyatt's version of the Samurai was far superior to their creation for a core class.

Now if this new Samurai were a Prc, I wouldn't have batted an eyelash. Why? Because it would have simply been a way to create a particular Samurai archetype, and that would have been fine. Instead, this new version of the Samurai is a core class forcing a particular archetype on anyone who wants to play a Samurai. IMO, that shouldn't have been the case. It shows a lack of research by the designer of the Samurai core class into the variety of Samurai archetypes (fictional and historical-for example, there were even female Samurai that used a polearm as a primary weapon) that exist.

 

[Aaron L]

Seems like most people object mainly to the name (which seems reasonable to me, though I haven't seen CW yet). Anybody got a better one?

Ginsu Master

 

[Viktyr Gehrig]

And one last thing slightly related that's been bugging me for ever since 3e, why the bloody hell are all katana masterwork, what's so freakin' mystical about them? Arg!

I don't think this has anything to do with "katana myth" mysticism. I think it more relates to the obscene complexity of making a katana-- it requires the same time and effort that a masterwork would, so they made them masterwork.

The +1 to-hit bonus could also represent how insanely sharp they were, while ignoring how ineffective they'd be against heavy armor. (Similar to how maces do not get to-hit bonuses against chainmail.)

In my opinion, it's better than trying to simulate crappy Japanese raw iron, which is why they developed forge-folding in the first place.

 

[DMScott]

This would not happen with the Samurai. The name, and the concept invoked by it, have no relation to what the class is. It's the Spooky Warrior of Dual-Wielding, not a Samurai.

I'd probably say "hey, this class looks like it's for people who want to be Musashi", and go from there. From that point of view, it seems to fall pretty close to at least one vision of what it's trying to model.

As for the OA version, that's a replacement for the Fighter. There's no good reason to have both in the same game - if you pick your feats and skills appropriately and roleplay, it's pretty easy to say your Fighter is a Samurai. Presumably the Complete Warrior version is aimed at campaigns in which the Fighter already exists.

 

[Tsyr]

Actually, no, it isn't a replacement at all. The fighter exists in OA as well, as is said very clearly in the book. The samurai is a varient fighter within that setting, representing a specific caste of fighter, with more skillpoints, differing feat chains, the Daisho ability, and some roleplaying restrictions... in other words, a sort of knight. The fighter class is still very much present, representing anyone else who isn't a samurai but is mostly martial focused... professional soldiers, bandits, wannnabe conquerers who don't have the birth to be samurai, professional bodyguards, things of that nature.

 

[Desdichado]

And actually again; it says very clearly in OA that the samurai caste and the samurai class don't necessarily match up; there are plenty of fighters and members of other classes that are members of the samurai caste. Although the reverse is not true, of course.