Complete Warrior Samurai Thread

[Desdichado]

Oddly enough, its the OA samurai that doesn't really need to exist because it's a minor tweak to the fighter, though. It sounds like this is a fairly significant unique mechanical class, but there's still no reason for it to have been made.

Anyway, IMO at least. I still haven't actually seen the complete warrior to comment on the class first-hand.

 

[DMScott]

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.

And does it with so much style people don't like to get on his bad side, yes. As opposed to the OA Samurai, who is somebody a lot like a Fighter but has slightly different skill and feat access and carries around a katana and wakizashi for the purpose of kicking ass. If you're saying "you know, you could easily dump both of them and just use the Fighter to roleplay a Samurai, or keep both in as different takes on the fighter archetype", then I agree with you 100%. If you're saying "the CW Samurai is shallow and has no schtick, but the OA Samurai is a much more distinct and worthy class", then I disagree. You seem to be saying the former more than the latter, let me know if I'm misreading.

 

[Desdichado]

Regardless of what hong is saying, a lot of folks have said the latter, and that's what I fundamentally disagree with.

 

[Gez]

Since it's a dual-wielding class, I propose we rename it the Fearsome Drizzt Wannabe. You just have to make him dual-wield a pair of identical weapons, rather than katana+wakizashi.

 

[Psion]

Oddly enough, its the OA samurai that doesn't really need to exist because it's a minor tweak to the fighter, though.

But it's not. You can't give a fighter courtly skills, at least not enough of them (I'll hand you that you could give him anscestral weapon from BoED now.) Unlike the CW samurai, where you can give him two weapon fighting and a supporting feat chain to max it out.

You can do the CW samurai concept pretty well with the fighter. Not so with OA samurai.

 

[Shazman]

I was also put off a bit by the new samurai. When I think of a samurai, I think of a Japanese style fighter devoted to a lord and using a katana in both hands to the exclusion of any other melee weapon. The wakazashi is pretty much there for backup and maybe decoration. It's not a bad class, but probably should be renamed.

 

[Gez]

Ironically, if the CW samurai was only focused on inspiring fear, he would be easier to accept. Well, maybe not with the Samurai name, rather a name like Dread Warlord or a similar cheesy name so typical of D&D , but you get the idea.

I don't like focusing a class on a single melee combat style (unarmed, weapon & shield, single weapon, or dual weapons). That's my problem with the 3.0 ranger and the monk. Now, in D&D, unarmed combat is so weak (or rather, at high level, the necessary damage output is so high) that I can accept the monk as a fix. The 3.5 ranger is a bit better with different combat styles to chose from (although it's still weird rangers get combat styles -- if anyone should get combat styles, it's the fighter), I just regret they gave only two... (IMC, they'll be more, and not all of them are actually combat styles, but this is not the house-rule forum).

 

[daTim]

Figure I'll chime in here to provide a fresh voice. The only real knowledge I have about Samauri is from reading Shogun and seeing a few movies.
The CW Samauri class seems to me, about half right. I always thought Samauri fought with either short bows, or long spears. After all, those seem like the two best weapons for fighting from horseback. The Katana seemed more like a personal dueling weapon, something too valuable to risk breaking in a battle.
The part I thought they got right was the fear. Didnt samauri wear those scary masks and helmets to scare peasant warriors and make people think they were demons?

 

[Desdichado]

But it's not. You can't give a fighter courtly skills, at least not enough of them (I'll hand you that you could give him anscestral weapon from BoED now.) Unlike the CW samurai, where you can give him two weapon fighting and a supporting feat chain to max it out.

You can do the CW samurai concept pretty well with the fighter. Not so with OA samurai.

That's not the point. You're focusing on the details of building the exact same thing mechanically rather than the point I was making; that the OA Samurai is a slightly tweaked fighter, not unlike the multiple fighter variants recently published in Dragon Magazine. It seems odd to me that you, who are a known non-fan of alternate core classes, would prefer a class that's essentially a very minor tweak to the fighter as opposed to something that does something completely different.

 

[Psion]

It seems odd to me that you, who are a known non-fan of alternate core classes, would prefer a class that's essentially a very minor tweak to the fighter as opposed to something that does something completely different.

Heh, funny that. I was just commenting on NKL that of the deluge of variant classes, I considered the fighter article to be the only one minor enough a shift to be sensible in the same campaign.

That said, please don't presume to speak for me. I think it is nearly as much as a tweak as the barbarian, and is not doable with the existing fighter class. Unlike the CW class. It is the CW samurai that is too small a tweak to be worth it. I don't see how the CW Samurai is "completely different." It's a feat chain with a new fear feat.