Complete Warrior Samurai Thread

[Tsyr]

I think the point he is trying to make JD (And thought I normally agree with you, I agree with Psion on this) is that the Samurai class *is* something "totaly different", at least insomuch as, say, the Sorcerer is something totaly different from the Wizard, while the CW Samurai is *not*.

The CW Samurai does nothing you couldn't do with a fighter except a rather strange inspire fear effect. (Which, keeping in mind that I haven't seen the CW version, doesn't sound like much that you couldn't do with Intimidate + Skill Focus (Intimidate). Everything else can be done just through feat progression.

The OA Samurai cannot be done through feats (More skillpoints, the daisho ability, both would not translate well to feats).

This introduces two marked changed from the core fighter: One, the Samurai is actually usefull outside of combat, in diplomatic situations and so forth. How many standard adventuring parties just tell the warrior to keep his mouth shut in non-combat situations? Quite a few. Likewise, the Daisho ability, as well as being flavorfull, provides an entierly different method of improving the characters combat ability, more versitile in some ways (Ability to choose easily what abilities your weapon picks up, for example), but is a hindrence in others (You only have the one pair of weapons, not a golf bag for all situations)... Sort of like the difference between a wizard and sorcerer, a trade between two different types of versatility.

 

[WizarDru]

Well, the OA samurai's sacrifice is more signifcant under 3.5, since he has more DR to contend with, but that's neither here nor there.

The OA samurai and the CW samurai are aiming for different concepts, and the idea that either one doesn't model a kind of samurai is incorrect, to me. What they both fail to do is model ALL samurai, and the OA version does a far better job as acting as a more generic version than the CW does.

The CW version is a perfectly viable Miyamoto Musashi in mechanical terms, but a terrible one in 'fluff' terms. The OA samurai makes for a great Samurai Jack, but a terrible Zatoichi or Ashikaga Yoshimitsu .

The concept of the samurai ranges from mounted bowman to dedicated feudal warrior to lone swordsman to court diplomat. Itto Ogami and Nobunaga Oda don't seem to fit that closely together, and I can see a place for mutliple core classes to do this, if my game were focused in such a way.

I think that if the class wasn't called a samurai, we wouldn't be having this discussion. I don't see anyone really worked up over the Hexblade, for example.

 

[Desdichado]

WizarDru makes an excellent point as well; looking at the history of the samurai, which epoch are you trying to model anyway?

 

[Psion]

I think that if the class wasn't called a samurai, we wouldn't be having this discussion. I don't see anyone really worked up over the Hexblade, for example.

The contrasts with the OA Samurai wouldn't be there, and I would be less disgruntled about the fact that a suitable class has been mechanically supplanted.

That said, I would still think that it's just a feat chain plus a new feat.

As for the hexblade, I think I am on record as saying there is nothing wrong with the concept, but it has no place to fit in my game. I couldn't make one with a fighter. So I think the other half of the equation is not just the title; the CW Samurai is worse done than the hexblade.

 

[Davelozzi]

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.

First off, clearly the publication of a new class isn't forcing anyone to do anything. Second, people keeping refering to these three new classes as core classes, but do the books? I could be wrong, but I can't remember seeing them called core when I was reading it. I think they just called them classes, or maybe variant classes. It seems like nitpicking but I think the use of the term core is partly what is causing people like yourself to get hung up them as being something essential to the game instead of just something extra like a prestige class.

 

[Psion]

First off, clearly the publication of a new class isn't forcing anyone to do anything.

True, but it is an indication of the shape of things to come from the company. It says that OA as it is will no longer be supported or referred to. It won't see conversion material for 3.5e. It relegates it to the past.

I can still keep using it, of course (and obviously, must), but it would have been nice IMO if WotC had kept supporting it.

Second, people keeping refering to these three new classes as core classes, but do the books? I could be wrong, but I can't remember seeing them called core when I was reading it.

No, they never do. It has just become a distinction to mean "20 level class with no prestige classes" as far as the audience is concerned.

It seems like nitpicking but I think the use of the term core is partly what is causing people like yourself to get hung up them as being something essential to the game instead of just something extra like a prestige class.

Which begs the question: if they aren't cental to the game, and are just specializations of existing classes, why aren't they prestige classes?

I think in the case of the CW Samurai it should be a prestige class. "Nito Kenjutsu Stylist" or somesuch. It would have been more accurately named.

 

[Gez]

People keep confusing "core class" and "base class". The samurai isn't a core class, but the shadowdancer is.

 

[Celtavian]

re

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.

Joshua,

It is a slightly tweaked fighter, but done so in just the right measure to make a viable Samurai. The good will save, ancestral Daisho, and increased skills make up for the loss of bonus feats and give a different feel from the standard fighter.

As I stated earlier, this is a core(base) class and thus should have more avaiable options for customizing your character. The CW Samurai lacks options, where as the OA Samurai allows you to make such archetypes as the soldier Samurai with bow and sword, the TWF Samurai dueler, or the THF Samurai dueler.

They should have known by now that people like options with their core classes. Feats give them those options. They could just as well have thrown in some Prc's to allow for a more specialized Samurai. The CW Samurai would have been much easier to stomach as a Prc.

As far as my personal taste, the fear is just hokey.

P.S. If you want to take a look at the rough abilities of the CW Samurai, look in gfunk's ruined thread. He listed their abilities.

 

[Celtavian]

re

Well, the OA samurai's sacrifice is more signifcant under 3.5, since he has more DR to contend with, but that's neither here nor there.

The OA samurai and the CW samurai are aiming for different concepts, and the idea that either one doesn't model a kind of samurai is incorrect, to me. What they both fail to do is model ALL samurai, and the OA version does a far better job as acting as a more generic version than the CW does.

The CW version is a perfectly viable Miyamoto Musashi in mechanical terms, but a terrible one in 'fluff' terms. The OA samurai makes for a great Samurai Jack, but a terrible Zatoichi or Ashikaga Yoshimitsu .

The concept of the samurai ranges from mounted bowman to dedicated feudal warrior to lone swordsman to court diplomat. Itto Ogami and Nobunaga Oda don't seem to fit that closely together, and I can see a place for mutliple core classes to do this, if my game were focused in such a way.

I think that if the class wasn't called a samurai, we wouldn't be having this discussion. I don't see anyone really worked up over the Hexblade, for example.

With Prc's you could actually make a Zaitoichi. The Iajutsu Master Prc is perfect for that single sword dueler of incredible speed who can cut down many a man before he himself is struck.

OA did a good job of offering options. I really wish they would have kept the Samurai in CW a Prc if they weren't going to do it justice. We wouldn't even be having this discussion right now if they had just kept the Samurai a Prc.

 

[Davelozzi]

True, but it is an indication of the shape of things to come from the company. It says that OA as it is will no longer be supported or referred to. It won't see conversion material for 3.5e. It relegates it to the past.

Good point.

Which begs the question: if they aren't cental to the game, and are just specializations of existing classes, why aren't they prestige classes?

Because it's a valid character type even for a beginning character. To me, that's what should differentiate base classes and prestige classes more than degree of specialization. That's why, like many others, I treat paladins as a prestige class because it my campaign it's part of a knightly order that someone has to qualify for through living up to high ideals. But a gladiator (presented as a PrC in Sword & Fist) is more something that you aspire to move away from, not towards, and hence is better handled as a straight fighter. Whereas, something like the swashbuckler to me seems like it should be a valid way to go from level 1 up, and hence worthy of consideration as a base class (or at least a variant of one). I've read the new swashbuckler class but not given it an in-depth enough study to decide how well it does it's job, but I agree regardless that it's a job that is worth doing.