D&D 5E XGTE has the Samurai Subclass

[Azzy]

[MENTION=533]Ranger REG[/MENTION] but then they Need some more "eastern" subclasses.

Sure, but it'd be nice if they didn't just default to Japanese for almost every one of them, like they did for classes and kits in previous editions. There is more to East Asian than just Japan.

 

[Ancalagon]

Just as you can play a "samurai character" with the Champion Fighter class, you can always use the samurai fighter class to represent a different character concept.

An intriguing suggestion. I suspect that you are right, but the range will be far narrower...

Sent from my SM-G930W8 using EN World mobile app

 

[Alexemplar]

D&D "clerics" aren't mere priests, but undead (but strangely, not demon/devil) turning warrior-prophets largely inspired by Van Helsing. It's "paladins" are only slightly less so. D&D's "druids" are best known as shapeshifters (based on the Gallizenae it seems). D&D's "barbarians" are invariably some flavor of (totally not Northern European) berserker. D&D's "bards" are less lorekeepers/poets as they are wandering rogue/warriors with some true-word style spellcasting. It's "monks" are all some variant of Wuxia warrior. It's "rangers" aren't just wardens/scouts/frontier warriors, but also traffic in magic and nature spirits as inspired by Aragon from LotR. So on and so forth. D&D "sorcerers" aren't just spellcasters, but individuals who are part >insert supernarural creature here< and are apparently different from "wizards" who cast magic- not like they do in 99% of fiction- but by preparing every spell they're going to cast that day ahead of time.

Few (if any) of the classes/subclasses in D&D are really what you'd expect them to be based on the historical/casual meanings of their titles. You basically have to unlearn what you knew and come to learn the idiosyncrasies of the D&D version. It helps that so many other fantasy games have been influenced by D&D to the point where we don't bat an eye at things like Paladins calling down rays of holy light, Bards weaving arcane illusions, or druids dressing like Native Americans and turning into bears in order to maul their foes. Not historically accurate at all, but we still roll with it.

Not really surprised that the D&D "samurai" deviates from it's historical roots and is instead based on a rather specific depiction/interpretation. I certainly wouldn't expect anything different from D&D.

 

[Greg K]

Few (if any) of the classes/subclasses in D&D are really what you'd expect them to be based on the historical/casual meanings of their titles. You basically have to unlearn what you knew and come to learn the idiosyncrasies of the D&D version. It helps that so many other fantasy games have been influenced by D&D to the point where we don't bat an eye at things like Paladins calling down rays of holy light, Bards weaving arcane illusions, or druids dressing like Native Americans and turning into bears in order to maul their foes. Not historically accurate at all, but we still .

I don't have to unlearn anything. I have no problem with Bards casting illusions, because it fits Celtic bards. I do have issues with them being jack of all trades among other things, but that is easily house ruled. Clerics, I will continue to house rule them. Paladins calling down rays of holy light? Not in my campaigns. Druids dressing like Native Americans? Again, not in my campaigns (If I want shamans, I will find a good third party Shaman class like I did in 2e and 3e). Hell, I didn't even use the Druid class in 3e and may not in 5e (I am, definitely, not using Circle of the Moon).

 

[Ancalagon]

Sure, but it'd be nice if they didn't just default to Japanese for almost every one of them, like they did for classes and kits in previous editions. There is more to East Asian than just Japan.

And South Asia is barely explored at all... :/ (although see signature)

 

[Connorsrpg]

OMG. How long did it take for ppl to say - you could do this with the Battlemaster.
For s*^t sake - yes, you can do practically any type of warrior with battlemaster and champion from PHB. But the fighter subclasses are rules-based too and a lot of us want alternatives as to how these subclasses can work. (I developed 5 subclasses, some with subsystems and all I got was - "You can do that with Battlemaster"!)
Some people do not want to 'build' their archetypes from the battlemaster suit or use that mechanic.

 

[Eubani]

OMG. How long did it take for ppl to say - you could do this with the Battlemaster.
For s*^t sake - yes, you can do practically any type of warrior with battlemaster and champion from PHB. But the fighter subclasses are rules-based too and a lot of us want alternatives as to how these subclasses can work. (I developed 5 subclasses, some with subsystems and all I got was - "You can do that with Battlemaster"!)
Some people do not want to 'build' their archetypes from the battlemaster suit or use that mechanic.

Battlemaster and Champion are far too broad for what subclasses are meant to be. Yes you can play them as almost anything but they will not have the flavour of that thing let alone compared to something specifically designed for that flavour. I am not alone in feeling this way, the devs have said this and have received feedback saying that as well. It seems that any fighter subclass homebrew or UA has to started with I don't want to hear about BM or Champ.

 

[jrowland]

[MENTION=533]Ranger REG[/MENTION] but then they Need some more "eastern" subclasses.

And "southern" subclasses, too!

'Redneck' would make a fine artificer subclasses in IMHO. Class features like "Git 'er done", "More Power", "Hold my Beer". and of course "MacGyver Rigging" would do well.

 

[Alexemplar]

I don't have to unlearn anything. I have no problem with Bards casting illusions, because it fits Celtic bards. I do have issues with them being jack of all trades among other things, but that is easily house ruled. Clerics, I will continue to house rule them. Paladins calling down rays of holy light? Not in my campaigns. Druids dressing like Native Americans? Again, not in my campaigns (If I want shamans, I will find a good third party Shaman class like I did in 2e and 3e). Hell, I didn't even use the Druid class in 3e and may not in 5e (I am, definitely, not using Circle of the Moon).

Recognizing where and how the D&D classes differ conceptually/mechanically from historical/casual roots is the first step in deciding to modify/replace/ditch them.

 

[Greg K]

Recognizing where and how the D&D classes differ conceptually/mechanically from historical/casual roots is the first step in deciding to modify/replace/ditch them.

Yet, I am still not required to unlearn anything as I, personally, already have the knowledge of what I want conceptually. New players coming into my game...well, that may or not be a different issue.