Complete Warrior Samurai Thread

[Tsyr]

Yeah, but I was staying away from the whole caste/class devience for simplicities sake...

 

[Desdichado]

That's the problem with naming a class after a caste. I have a real problem in general with overlapping metagame terms and in game terms. A rogue might not be a Rogue all the time too, for instance...

 

[hong]

That's the problem with naming a class after a caste. I have a real problem in general with overlapping metagame terms and in game terms. A rogue might not be a Rogue all the time too, for instance...

Unfortunately, the alternative, ie using made-up-of-whole-cloth names like "unfettered" or "greenbond" doesn't seem much better.

 

[Psion]

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

I vehemently disagree with your assessment of the ranger. I see nothing wrong with the ranger WRT the archetype.

As for the paladin, you know what I think about the pokemount thing making the paladin into a FF extract. Even discounting that, a lot of people think a paladin deserved to be a PrC since 3.0. I think it is a borderline case at best, but think this Samurai worse.

Ditch both the 3.5 samurai and paladin AFAIAC.

This samurai represents two very specific things -- two weapon power fighting and fear. It is not sufficiently broad for a 20 level core class. It should be a prestige class.

Further, this Samurai is a continuation of an ugly trend in 3.5: "don't worry about roleplaying considerations, just make things that are kicass cool in the dungeon."

I suspect you're letting your own preferences for what the archetype should mean color the severity of the issue here.

Clue: this is a roleplaying game. Of course I am.

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.

I happen to agree here, too. The bard is too much a celtic spellsinger when it needs to be a broader archetype. Alas, I still think this Samurai is a far worse travesty.

 

[hong]

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.

Interestingly, I think it's the other way round. It's the CW samurai that doesn't have much of a reason to exist, if the fighter already exists.

What, ultimately, is the CW samurai's schtick? As far as I can tell, it's someone who can really kick ass with a katana and wakizashi. If that's the case, what is the difference between that and a fighter with a bunch of Weapon Focus/Weapon Spec feats, TWF, and Whirlwind Attack? (There are also plenty of feats in other books, WotC and otherwise, to emulate the "terrifying presence" thing.)

Conversely, I think there's plenty of room in a campaign for both fighters and OA samurai, or knights, or kshatriya, or whatever else you want to call it. The underlying archetype, that of the knight-in-shining-armour, is one that fits in with most flavours of fantasy, and deserves to have a class of its own. You could use the paladin, but that brings with it a lot of quasi-religious/divine baggage that may not be appropriate. Plus paladins tend to generate alignment wars.

This new CW samurai could still find a place in a campaign. It seems to be reasonably well-balanced, and it has some interesting abilities. You could, for example, call it a "blademaster", say that lots of elves take it, and you're on a winner. But if you wanted to represent a _samurai character_, then the OA class still seems to do a better job.

 

[Psion]

What, ultimately, is the CW samurai's schtick? As far as I can tell, it's someone who can really kick ass with a katana and wakizashi. If that's the case, what is the difference between that and a fighter with a bunch of Weapon Focus/Weapon Spec feats, TWF, and Whirlwind Attack?

This is hong hitting the nail on the head.

Conversely, I think there's plenty of room in a campaign for both fighters and OA samurai, or knights, or kshatriya, or whatever else you want to call it. The underlying archetype, that of the knight-in-shining-armour,

I would call it a "courtly warrior" myself, but the idea is there. Obviously, in games where this sort of warrior is a central archetype, the aristocrat doesn't get it done. There is a niche for the OA Samurai to fill that is not filled well by the existing rules.

Not so for the CW Samurai.

 

[Desdichado]

I vehemently disagree with your assessment of the ranger. I see nothing wrong with the ranger WRT the archetype.

Since gamers in general can't even agree on what the "ranger" archetype is supposed to be I find that very surprising. I think the Ranger situation and the samurai situation here seem to be very similar, with the exception that more people in the West have a better understanding of what they think a woodsman should be as opposed to a samurai.

As for the paladin, you know what I think about the pokemount thing making the paladin into a FF extract. Even discounting that, a lot of people think a paladin deserved to be a PrC since 3.0. I think it is a borderline case at best, but think this Samurai worse.

Ditch both the 3.5 samurai and paladin AFAIAC.

Works for me. I don't mind either class, but both seem to be too narrow for my tastes.

This samurai represents two very specific things -- two weapon power fighting and fear. It is not sufficiently broad for a 20 level core class. It should be a prestige class.

That's true for most alternate core classes. For that matter, it's true for the Paladin, the Druid, the Monk, the Ranger, the Bard and even the Barbarian. The reason to have a more narrow core class is to emphasise the roll of that class in the setting. D&D isn't a generic setting, it's D&D, so the Paladin et al. work as core classes for the most part, because they belong in a D&D setting.

I'd agree that from the sound of it, this alt.samurai doesn't belong in a regular, traditional D&D setting, but that doesn't mean the class is useless or that it doesn't belong in some other setting.

Further, this Samurai is a continuation of an ugly trend in 3.5: "don't worry about roleplaying considerations, just make things that are kicass cool in the dungeon."

I agree, that's a very ugly trend.

Clue: this is a roleplaying game. Of course I am.

I happen to agree here, too. The bard is too much a celtic spellsinger when it needs to be a broader archetype. Alas, I still think this Samurai is a far worse travesty.

It all depends on what you want a core class to do, I suppose. I'd rather have broader, more flexible core classes in general, but barring that, I'd rather have more narrow classes rather than fewer. If the core classes are going to be narrowly focused, I want one that actually matches the focus I had in mind for the setting or the character.

 

[Psion]

That's true for most alternate core classes.

This is Joshua hitting the nail on the head...

For that matter, it's true for the Paladin, the Druid, the Monk, the Ranger, the Bard and even the Barbarian.

Mmmm... to a lesser extent, yes.

I think it would be hard to make a barbarian out of a fighter, but way back when 3.0 came out, I was surprised they had both. I think Barbarian could have been tucked in under the fighter with enough add-on feat chains, but that would have been to much of a burden in the end, I think. I think the trained fighter/wild fighter dichotomy is a fair enough one to divide a class around.

Bard I agree as stated. (The one good thing about Path of Magic is that the variant bard rules make it broad enough to pass muster with me.)

Druid... again it would be hard to make a druid out of a cleric, but I miss the inherent logic of making the druid and cleric two sides of the same priestly coin as in 2e Spells & Magic. That said, I think that differences in spellcasting methods is one sufficient condition for justifying a different core class, so I am not torn out of shape about this one.

I could see remaking the cleric so it is general enough to include the druid (frex, by allowing choices of what sorts of spells can be casy spontaneously), but for simplicity's sake, I think the current arrangement works.

Paladin, there's a reason I use Green Ronin's (un)holy warriors instead.

Rangers, as already stated, I disagree it'sa great travesty, but enough of one that I allow rangers in my game to swap out combat styles and new spellcasting levels for bonus feats.

 

[Desdichado]

The reason you think that way on those issues is because you are fine with the D&D default assumptions and this new alt.samurai doesn't work well with them. For a different set of default assumptions, I imagine you're position on the samurai vs. the druid, or the ranger or some of the other more narrowly focused core classes would flip-flop. After all, from an objective, mechanical point of view, the issue with them is the exact same. It's the taste and expectations point of view that's causing this problem.

 

[Psion]

After all, from an objective, mechanical point of view, the issue with them is the exact same. It's the taste and expectations point of view that's causing this problem.

No, I don't think so.

I think its true my other objections could be taste based. Like Pokemounts.

But as Hong stated, the samurai, as it is, is pretty close to a slightly tweaked out fighter with two weapon fighting. That is a pretty mechanical basis.

Now I can see justifying a new class if the mechanical basis for its contruction in the existing system is weak compared to more typical character concepts. But I don't think two weapon fighting is a concept that anyone has accused of being weak.