Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="gamerprinter" data-source="post: 6254215" data-attributes="member: 50895">In my first response to this thread, I did, include "If you're saying you get a more powerful martial class, then yes, I agree with you." Just in case we were missing each other on definitions of "fighter" - I did consider the possibility that we were having a misunderstanding of the vocabulary being used. I was very specific on what I meant by "fighter", and why I had a problem with his explanation.As an aside, when I say I hate the Bo9S, I think its really because I hate the wizard, and most caster classes (the concept just doesn't sync with me, somehow, I can't really explain), and IMO, the martial adept classes are martial classes that play like a caster - and I don't like casters. So I'm guessing that's what does it for me. I can't really be objective about it.I perfectly get the "chicken before the egg" issue, a fighter was named such to describe what he's supposed to be good at, whether that actually fits the concept of the word "fighter" best is really inconsequential. The word was assigned to a specific character class that has been in use for 40 years - that alone should give the benefit of the doubt that "fighter" in the context of D&D shouldn't be assigned to describe all non-casters, rather one specific class. Would you use the word "wizard" to describe any caster, such as a being used to describe a "cleric"?I think I'll just include what I mean, and what I think a given OP might mean in any response I give to this same train of thought, just as I did in my first post to this thread. I guess I am anal about using exact terminology in everything I say. Even if I'm talking to a child, I don't deliberately use 'small words' to mean what I am saying. To everyone, in all conversations (online and off) I always use exact terminology if I can. And when an issue appears that may be based on misunderstood terminology, I almost always clarify exactly what I mean. If I'm using the right words, and state the meaning of the words I say, I have to believe anyone reading understands my meaning, and shouldn't really twist it to mean something else - because I clarified.I agree that their argument makes no sense, under the pretense of the word "fighter" being used in their explanation, and why I offered several "if this is what you mean instead" statements in my response, since I wasn't really sure they meant was what I meant, in the word "fighter". I was trying to find some common ground (be on the same page), so the issue could be discussed with reason. If I had not offered alternatives to my use of the "fighter" in my response, then you'd be perfectly right in pointing out my mistranslation of the words they are using.Again, I did say, "if you you mean you get a more powerful martial class, then I agree with you". I said this just in case we were not in agreement with the word "fighter".I thought there was one, I had the Bo9S for about a month, before I gave it away to another group who wanted to learn about martial adepts (I don't remember for sure). Maybe not, but again, the entire OP was not exclusively about the Bo9S, just one part of the argument. So I wasn't limiting my discourse on melee combatants or martial adepts only - the rest of the post was regarding the whole of Pathfinder, and not just one 3x book mentioned in the discussion.Perhaps I play suboptimally, but I never reserve my attacks to only one kind - charge, spring attack, trip. I have a mix of combat feats and I use whatever seems optimal in combat at the time, which can vary with circumstance. Sometimes you're fighting in a static small area with no room to charge - what do you do then, not fight? That might seem a good time to trip.I don't know, I think samurai resolve is for something other than "hit someone over the head". That Rite Publishing release was designed for any low or high fantasy oriental setting, not for Kaidan specifically, though that is why it was created. Historically, samurai are archers not primarily katana wielders, so one of my favorite Way of the Samurai archetypes is for Yabusame, the original traditional archetype for samurai in Japanese history before the Edo Period. Right now without the archetype, a samurai can use a bow like any other character, but is not optimized for bow, so yabusame fixes that. The Kuge archetype is for those who want samurai skill monkeys, those with better educations and an emphasis on diplomacy - more skill points (6+INT), bonus skill focus feats, bonus to Knowledge checks, etc. Those who like the courtier concept for L5R, the kuge is the archetype for a samurai courtier (which Kaidan has no needs for since the imperial court is undead, who'd want to handle diplomacy there?!). The nitojutsu-sensei is the Pathfinderized "Miyamoto Musashi", the 2-weapon samurai, and more than that, its getting rid of the samurai dependence on a mount, more like a samurai built to explore dungeons.Also, since you obviously don't have the supplement in question, you wouldn't know this, but only at the very beginning it the book states that "this was originally designed for use for the Kaidan setting of Japanese horror, but" and throughout the rest of the supplement the word and setting of Kaidan is never mentioned again. IMO, the PF samurai is an extremely limited on the concept of samurai, and I needed to fix that for use in any oriental game. The archetypes, traits, feats, samurai clan statblock rules are for any use of the samurai class in any setting, and not for Kaidan use only.The best way to explain is that in my development of Kaidan, I need two different things, one being setting material, the other being Oriental Adventure type rules adapted for use in Pathfinder. All the adventures, setting guides, even the racial supplements are all strictly setting material, whereas both "Way of..." books (yakuza and samurai) belong to a more general Oriental Adventures rules material. Since PF doesn't have an official OA book - we're making that too.I don't know, I don't find this to be true, but its quite subjective I suppose, I imagine there are people who do think that. Maybe there is a better way to make a fighter, but from my point of view the Bo9S was not it. Though I am sure it is perfect for some.</blockquote>

Verification