Samurai concept

[doctorbadwolf]

[MENTION=82106]AbdulAlhazred[/MENTION] ah, ok! I was wondering why you of all ppl were taking a hard charop stance, and I'm glad to see I was just misunderstanding you!

Agreed. Any feat which provides minimal statistical benefit is a bad charop option. Luckily 4e doesn't have hat 3.5 issue you mentioned, outside of some edge case class options like the trapper keeper. And even the binder isn't worthless.

Anyway. One of the things my group loves is some level of fiddle numbers, so advantage/disadvantage is not a popular mechanic for us.

OP: hast thou considered the monk?

My preferred samurai is still the theif with sohei theme, but I could see monk doing good stuff too.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

@AbdulAlhazred ah, ok! I was wondering why you of all ppl were taking a hard charop stance, and I'm glad to see I was just misunderstanding you!

Agreed. Any feat which provides minimal statistical benefit is a bad charop option. Luckily 4e doesn't have hat 3.5 issue you mentioned, outside of some edge case class options like the trapper keeper. And even the binder isn't worthless.

Anyway. One of the things my group loves is some level of fiddle numbers, so advantage/disadvantage is not a popular mechanic for us.

OP: hast thou considered the monk?

My preferred samurai is still the theif with sohei theme, but I could see monk doing good stuff too.

I honestly don't remember all the details of the Sohei theme, but thief in general seems like a pretty good fit, at least for your more 'kungfu' types as opposed to the big bruiser with the heavy armor. Monk seems a bit better for, well, monk! I mean they're going to do OK in general for a lot of your 'moving and dodging around' type of guys, but the theme seems to be more like you use your ki focus and weapon is more based on what enchantment you really want, feats, etc.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

I honestly don't remember all the details of the Sohei theme, but thief in general seems like a pretty good fit, at least for your more 'kungfu' types as opposed to the big bruiser with the heavy armor. Monk seems a bit better for, well, monk! I mean they're going to do OK in general for a lot of your 'moving and dodging around' type of guys, but the theme seems to be more like you use your ki focus and weapon is more based on what enchantment you really want, feats, etc.

the advantage of monk is, it can use a wide range of weapons, although some custom options are needed for archery, and it is very fast, and good at taking on groups of enemies. All things that evoke, to me, the wandering ronin trope. No armor, mobile, blinding fast with attacks, etc.

the thief is less Kung fu, more just...what I would use to represent every Aikido and bushido fighter I've ever met or seen. I mean, they're just as good with a sword or a bow, and move circles around less well trained opponents. All that's missing is some forced movement. IMO, of course.

 

[Shin Okada]

By attributes what you asking. Like what I think Samurai are. I'm talking like traditional Samurai from the times of like Battle of Segikahara and stuff like that. I'm not sure where else that falls under, but I'm going to need a better idea of what you're asking of me before I hand you these 5 main attributes. You talking abilities like DEX, Wis, Str, or something of that nature or what

Battle of Sekigahara you say? If so, main melee weapon should be long spear, both for mounted and foot Samurai. Rank and file warriors of those days were using pike-like very long spears, more than 20-foot long, on battle field. Maunted Higher-ranked samurai, one with much confidence on his combat skill, and who fought indoors were using shorter ones. Even those shorter spears will considered to be long spear in D&D. They wore heavy metal armor. I say equivalent of full-plate. Tachi (longsowrd) and Kodachi (Short Sword or Dagger) were sidearms and for close quarter combats. Odachi (greatsword) and Naginata (Glaive) were already not popular in battle fields.

In that era, muskets were widely used. Some historians say there were more muskets in Japan than in entire Europe those days. But I guess you should ignore that part if you just import Samurai into D&D world instead of actually using historical Japan as a campaign setting. A samurai should be proficient in longbow, too.

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

Battle of Sekigahara you say? If so, main melee weapon should be long spear, both for mounted and foot Samurai. Rank and file warriors of those days were using pike-like very long spears, more than 20-foot long, on battle field. Maunted Higher-ranked samurai, one with much confidence on his combat skill, and who fought indoors were using shorter ones. Even those shorter spears will considered to be long spear in D&D. They wore heavy metal armor. I say equivalent of full-plate. Tachi (longsowrd) and Kodachi (Short Sword or Dagger) were sidearms and for close quarter combats. Odachi (greatsword) and Naginata (Glaive) were already not popular in battle fields.

In that era, muskets were widely used. Some historians say there were more muskets in Japan than in entire Europe those days. But I guess you should ignore that part if you just import Samurai into D&D world instead of actually using historical Japan as a campaign setting. A samurai should be proficient in longbow, too.

Muskets were common on the battlefield in that era, but they were generally used by ashigaru (peasant levies) from what I've heard. For instance, when Oda fought Takeda, his spear-wielders were samurai and his gunmen were commoners. Takeda used samurai cavalry and unfortunately the two sources I read didn't mention any Takeda ashigaru at all.

If the source I read is correct, even though Oda knew his way around a musket, he used a longbow on his last day. I think he might have switched from melee weapons as he had been getting old. Oda as an "archer" warlord makes sense, because he could give bonuses to ashigaru musketmen.

Would heavy samurai armor have counted as plate? I would have thought it would be more like chainmail or scale armor in terms of protective value. It would also make a 4e version easier, as proficiency in plate armor is pretty rare in 4e. (For instance, a warlord would need to spend at least two feats to get such heavy armor.)

 

[Shin Okada]

Muskets were common on the battlefield in that era, but they were generally used by ashigaru (peasant levies) from what I've heard. For instance, when Oda fought Takeda, his spear-wielders were samurai and his gunmen were commoners. Takeda used samurai cavalry and unfortunately the two sources I read didn't mention any Takeda ashigaru at all.

If the source I read is correct, even though Oda knew his way around a musket, he used a longbow on his last day. I think he might have switched from melee weapons as he had been getting old. Oda as an "archer" warlord makes sense, because he could give bonuses to ashigaru musketmen.

Basically, both muskets and longbows were used in mass. So usually, bowmen and musketeers in the battle fields were composed of low-rank samurai (technically, Ashigaru were low-rank samurai). But higher-ranked samurais were known as the use those weapons, too. Afterwords, if higher-ranked samurais don't know how to use them, how they can train lower-ranked ones and newbies?

In case of Oda Nobunaga, I guess it was just that muskets are not always more useful (or ready to use) than longbow.

Would heavy samurai armor have counted as plate? I would have thought it would be more like chainmail or scale armor in terms of protective value. It would also make a 4e version easier, as proficiency in plate armor is pretty rare in 4e. (For instance, a warlord would need to spend at least two feats to get such heavy armor.)

Well, it depends on individual case and of era. In later Sengoku (civil-war) era, armors of higher ranked samurai were required to withstand musket bullets in some degree. Many type of armor were developed those days. Lighter (or cheaper) ones were more like scale armor. Many of the later ones (especially those for higher ranked samurai) were plate-like. Some of the samurai were using cuirass actually imported from Europe. And some of the craftsmen developed even more improved cuirass which can withstand both blades and musket bullets. Japanese Sengoku era was one of the rare cases when both massed-muskets and heavy metal armor were co-existed in large battles.

In regard to chainmail, it was not quite popular and mainly used as undercoat or complement to plate armors. One of the reason is that, in Japan, chainmail were developed AFTER plate armor. It is mainly because the difference in the development of metallurgy. In Japan, the way to make steel wires were developed much after the way to make steel plates.

 

[pemerton]

Actually I liked the way the old Bushido game handled it.

<snip>

While the system is IMHO pretty much crap,

Outrageous!

(Actually, I never played Bushido. The rule look pretty cumbersome, though - a lot of derived attributes. But I did use bits of a Bushido module, plus elements from its monster section - with appropriate conversions - in my long-running OA Rolemaster game.)

IIRC there WAS a Kensai class however, which had its own rather different rules. In fact Bushido's take on oriental classes was a LOT different from that of OA and hence pretty much all of D&D that has followed from it.

<snip>

its a useful one to go back and reference in terms of alternate ways of imagining Japanese 16th Century cultural RP concepts.

The classes are two sorts of spell caster (shugenja - wizards - and gakusho - priests, either Buddhist or Shinto), two sorts of thief (yakuza, who get a bonus in sumo wrestling, and ninjas) and two sorts of fighter (bushi and budoka - the latter are martial artists). So if there was ever a kensei, it was in a supplement.

To be honest I'm not sure it's that diffrent from OA: shugenja = wu jen, gakusho = shukenja, bushi = fighter/samurai/kensei, yakuza and ninja are self-explanatory. There is no barbarian or sohei, though, and the budoka is different from the monk because not a mystical class.

 

[MwaO]

Actually, I never played Bushido. The rule look pretty cumbersome, though - a lot of derived attributes. But I did use bits of a Bushido module, plus elements from its monster section - with appropriate conversions - in my long-running OA Rolemaster game.)

We played it a while in high school. The rules aren't particularly great, but on the other hand, remember the competition was AD&D at that time.

It was a fun campaign - there was an Oni with a magic sword that was a lich-style phylactery. We killed him and took it. And it took a while for us to figure out that was why he kept coming back to life and trying to kill us again…

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Outrageous!

(Actually, I never played Bushido. The rule look pretty cumbersome, though - a lot of derived attributes. But I did use bits of a Bushido module, plus elements from its monster section - with appropriate conversions - in my long-running OA Rolemaster game.)

The classes are two sorts of spell caster (shugenja - wizards - and gakusho - priests, either Buddhist or Shinto), two sorts of thief (yakuza, who get a bonus in sumo wrestling, and ninjas) and two sorts of fighter (bushi and budoka - the latter are martial artists). So if there was ever a kensei, it was in a supplement.

To be honest I'm not sure it's that diffrent from OA: shugenja = wu jen, gakusho = shukenja, bushi = fighter/samurai/kensei, yakuza and ninja are self-explanatory. There is no barbarian or sohei, though, and the budoka is different from the monk because not a mystical class.

Shugenja are SORT OF 'wizards', but they are also somewhat 'priest-like' in their own right in some respects. Then gakusho, IIRC come in a Buddhist and a Shinto flavor, which are somewhat different. I think Budoka covers both what OA would call 'monks' and 'sohei', all of which are simply religiously affiliated martial characters (really the monk in the 'Shaolin' sort of martial-artist style never existed in Japan). The secondary dimension of social rank is what removed the need for other classes, a basic peasant bushi has the same class mechanics as a samurai, but they will have a completely different game experience, much different skills (the game has a rather elaborate system of skills).

Anyway, you're right in your assessment of the system. There are at least a dozen derived attributes, all of which work in arbitrarily complex ways and each requiring mastery of several pages of subsystem. There are THREE kinds of 'honor', personal, public, and then your social rank is essentially another form, plus you also have 'karma'. Then bushi have a complex system where they calculate their 'awesomeness' (I forget the name of the attribute), which determines how many times they can attack per round. The flavor was awesome, but the rules sucked. I doubt anyone in their right mind ever used more than 1/3 of the actual rules as written. ANY interaction you made by RAW would require adjustments and consultation of at least 3-5 attributes!

I have always thought though that a more faithful reworking in a modern system would be a pretty good game. The author clearly was attempting to produce a game that spoke to actual 15th-16th Century Japanese cultural and folk-lore themes. I'm not expert enough to know how well that succeeded, but it SEEMED pretty cool at the time. The guy who ran our games lived in Japan for quite a stretch and at least had some clues about the culture, so it was an interesting play. I'd never attempt to actually run it today though.

 

[pemerton]

bushi have a complex system where they calculate their 'awesomeness' (I forget the name of the attribute)

It starts with "z", I think.