Samurai in the core rules

[BryonD]

Be sure to play a reasonable code.

If a samurai took four wounds for his lord and then runs from combat he is still a samurai, and doesn't have to kill himself.

If a samurai arranged a duel and then ambushed the duelist from a hiding spot, killing his opponent without actually dueling him, he's still a samurai and doesn't have to kill himself.

Samurai were real-life people with real-life motivations.

Completely true.

However, there is also nothing wrong with using the overblow romanticized codes in D&D either.
The important thing is to make certain that the DM and player have some agreement.

So, are Samurai MORE or LESS free to kill baby orcs than Paladins are?

 

[Dark Jezter]

If a player in my campaign insisted on playing a Samurai, I'd just have them play a lawful fighter who adheres to a code. If they insisted that samurai should be courtly and artistic, I'd let them exchange the fighter's level 1 bonus feat for Diplomacy and Perform being considered class skills.

Snapshot from many gaming tables (originally posted on the WotC d20 Fantasy board)...

PC: "I wanna play a samurai!"
GM: "Okay, well, that's basically a lawful-aligned fighter."
PC: "No, no! Samurai were the greatest warriors ever! Better than the standard fighter! I made up this new core class..."
GM: "He's a fighter. Use the bonus feats to create your idea of the ideal samurai."
PC: "But he should have more skill points! He's courtly!"
GM: "So was a European knight. Go to the library and check out a book about John of Gaunt. Now roll up your fighter."
PC: "But a samurai has a code!"
GM: "So does a paladin. Just write it down for me and roleplay it as your fighter."
PC: (fumes for a moment) "I think I'll be a ninja instead."
GM: "Okay, well, that's a rogue."
PC: "No, no! Ninja were the greatest assassins ever!..."

Having gamed with a few Japanophiles in my day, I can safely say that's a pretty accurate depiction, although you forgot to mention this bit...

PC: "I want my character to have a katana."
GM: "Okay. It's functionally a masterwork bastard sword."
PC: "What? Katanas were the greatest swords ever made. It should do 2d6 damage and have a threat range of 16-20."

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

Completely true.

However, there is also nothing wrong with using the overblow romanticized codes in D&D either.

Actually, there is. Too strict a code is disruptive to the group of players. Reminds me of why players police paladin players.

 

[BryonD]

Actually, there is. Too strict a code is disruptive to the group of players. Reminds me of why players police paladin players.

Fair enough.

I still say it is doable. But I'll agree that the other players need to be in agreement as well, not just the one player and DM. And in some group configurations, it probably just won't work.

But the over the top bushido is such a well established archetype (too well really) that it would be a shame to write it off out of hand.

 

[Squire James]

Completely true.

However, there is also nothing wrong with using the overblow romanticized codes in D&D either.
The important thing is to make certain that the DM and player have some agreement.

So, are Samurai MORE or LESS free to kill baby orcs than Paladins are?

Orcs are probably considered eta, so I'd say orc babies are spared for later use as target practice...

 

[Viktyr Gehrig]

I use the Gestalt rules variant from Unearthed Arcana in almost every game, and for Samurai or other Knightly characters, I typically recommend Fighter/Aristocrat.

Using standard rules, I'd recommend one level of Aristocrat, followed by Fighter. One point of BAB is well-compensated for: +2 to Will saves, and a broad base in courtly skills at first level. You can use cross-class skills to keep advancing your social skills (after all, you'd need an above-average Intelligence to be truly valuable at court), and take additional levels of Aristocrat if you feel you're not courtly enough.

There are a few proposals floating around to improve the Aristocrat's abilities to put them on par with the PC classes. Personally, I'm in favor of simply giving them 6 skill points per level and letting the RP aspects make up for it-- but again, I use Gestalt rules and a single weak class can easily be compensated for.

 

[BSF]

Yeah, a samurai could (and perhaps should) be a fighter or paladin, possibly with some bard or even ranger levels.

On the other hand, there's nothing wrong with using a more specific core class if you want to. I play a samurai in my Friday night game, and we use a slightly modified Complete Warrior samurai (droped the two weapon stuff, replaced it with two handed weapon stuff for my nagamaki). However, not all samurai have levels in that class, it's just a more specific class for those who like the idea. Really, I think the core classes are all you need, but that doesn't mean you can't use extra base classes if you like them. My samurai could just be a fighter, and really he wouldn't be that different, but by opting for the samurai class I get some cool intimidate stuff and a few other things that I think make for an interesting character.

Indeed! Macbeth's PC build isn't even the only type of Samurai in the game world. He's just the only Samurai in the party.

Using Core material only? Fighter, mostly. Though, I would be tempted to give a DM conniptions and multiclass a little with Rogue. As mentioned above. Paladin would be fine as well. I like the OA Samurai, and the CW Samurai, but for completely different reasons. Really though, if the PC is following the Code of Bushido, then I consider the PC a Samurai.