Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
I would expect the ninja, samurai, katana, uber-robot, bunny-girl, useless sidekick, and more to all appear in Paizo's Asian campaign setting/rules guide.
Maybe someone could go start a new thread specifically for waging the inane battle over how awesome ninjas and katanas are, given that (a) it's inane and (b) it doesn't really belong here.
I know, I'll start it for you...
Edit: Here you are, a place to discuss the awesomeness till your eyes bleed!
I like what I am hearing. I would prefer to see Archetypes used more so than new classes.Ditto, especially if its SGG's archetype system (which is OSC, by the way ^_^)
It's quite likely to be Paizo's own archetype system introduced just now by the Advanced Player's Guide.
I personally feel that we need more Asian themed material in combat, classes, magic and beasties. I do not believe that calling a Ninja just another Rouge or a Samurai just another fighter is sufficient or appropriate. There are some fundamental differences between them that are not addressed when considering comparisons.
I also do not believe that calling a Katana a bastard sword and using those stats truly give the Katana the uniqueness it richly deserves. I know I make changes in any game I play.
This being said however I think that every one is tired of seeing Asian themed characters that appear to be better then a standard class. I know I am. I also do not believe they need to be foisted into a prestige class. I believe that Both the Samurai and the Ninja need their own base class but I would support a genre restriction to them to be enforced by the GM. If the game does not have Oriental themes then they would be out.
As long as Paizo leaves the Asian flavor in the Ultimate Combat Book I would buy it. I have the core rule book and will get the GM Guide and the APG only because I believe that the three book widen the field which is something I like.
I do not believe that calling a Ninja just another Rouge or a Samurai just another fighter is sufficient or appropriate. There are some fundamental differences between them that are not addressed when considering comparisons.
What would those differences would be? What powers and abilities cannot be replicated through class ability alteration? For the ninja I can think of a few that don't fit completely neatly into a rogue's structure: becoming invisible, shape changing into an animal, various kinds of elemental based powers. For the samurai there seems to be less difference, aside from the cultural refinement you would find in a society elite (which can be offset by adjusting the amount of skill ranks they have, an option which already exists). If there is something I'm missing about either please share, and historical mythical powers is preferable to any modern examples.
Unfortunately I do not have any traditional Japanese Kabuki plays, which will likely be the best source of such information.
Sorry Sebastian, your spin off thread is fun but there are some important things to discuss about the use of archetypes and when an archetype is appropriate and when a full new base class i needed.
Chief Creative Officer, Publisher
|
I wouldn't mind the ninja being presented the same way as the anti-paladin. It's definitely an arch-type with a more martial angle and most likely less of an emphasis on stealing.
We are referring to the anti-paladin as a sub-class in-house, which is to say a fully written up class based on the "skeleton" of an existing class. Sort of a glorified and fully realized archetype.
It may be that Ultimate Magic and Ultimate Combat include some of these "subclasses" (we haven't decided yet). In that case I suspect very popular niches like the ninja and samurai would be good candidates for the "anti-paladin" treatment.
I also want to make it clear that these books will contain a broad variety of concepts from myth, history, and legend, and neither will be an explicitly "Asian" book.
I don't see how you couldn't play a fighter, paladin, or cavalier and, with skill, feat, ability, and RP choices, call yourself a samurai. I don't see how a rogue with some of the new abilities from the APG can't perfectly suit the realist Ninja or a myriad of multiples combos can't replicate a more mythical Ninja.
Again, the question isn't whether it DESERVES to have a base class, but whether it needs it. Creating a base class simply to serve some ridiculous sense of fairness is a waste of resources. You can completely change the flavor of the rogue with just few tweaks. The only thing that would keep you from feeling unique would be a completely misplaced sense of unfairness regarding the word count given in the book to one of the thousands of cultures our world has seen rise and fall over the millennia.
I feel if could probably be accomplished with an altered list of talents including some of the rogue ones and some new Ninja-only ones, but that's just one man's opinion.
|
|
I don't see how you couldn't play a fighter, paladin, or cavalier and, with skill, feat, ability, and RP choices, call yourself a samurai. I don't see how a rogue with some of the new abilities from the APG can't perfectly suit the realist Ninja or a myriad of multiples combos can't replicate a more mythical Ninja.
Again, the question isn't whether it DESERVES to have a base class, but whether it needs it. Creating a base class simply to serve some ridiculous sense of fairness is a waste of resources. You can completely change the flavor of the rogue with just few tweaks. The only thing that would keep you from feeling unique would be a completely misplaced sense of unfairness regarding the word count given in the book to one of the thousands of cultures our world has seen rise and fall over the millennia.
+1. I took such an idea to its ultimate extreme over here.
|
|
I guess that provides additional justification for the title "Ultimate Magic".
I wonder if there will be any other ultimate books. Ultimate Non-Combat? Ultimate Skills? Ultimate Utility?
However, I must say that I fear the eventual reboot of these books, and therefore think they should actually be called Penultimate Magic, Combat, etc.
Of course, by "Penultimate" you mean, "before the last" or "before the ultimate". Correct?
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
Of course, by "Penultimate" you mean, "before the last" or "before the ultimate". Correct?I guess that provides additional justification for the title "Ultimate Magic".
I wonder if there will be any other ultimate books. Ultimate Non-Combat? Ultimate Skills? Ultimate Utility?
However, I must say that I fear the eventual reboot of these books, and therefore think they should actually be called Penultimate Magic, Combat, etc.
Sorry about that, it's something of an inside joke amongst old-timers here. Immediately prior to the end of Dragon (or was it Dungeon? I can't remember), Paizo printed an issue that said something like "next month, the penultimate issue of Dragon." Someone showed up with a poorly written, barely legible complaint about how that was confusing. I can't remember all the details, but the lengthy thread that erupted was pretty funny.
There's a similar origin story behind the various FAWTL threads.
If I ever get around to it, someday I'll post a FAQ of the truely important things every Paizoian needs to know (e.g., the mystery of the blue guys, the origins of the FAWTL thread, and...uh...wait...is that it? Maybe that's why I've never gotten around to it...)
Of course, by "Penultimate" you mean, "before the last" or "before the ultimate". Correct?I guess that provides additional justification for the title "Ultimate Magic".
I wonder if there will be any other ultimate books. Ultimate Non-Combat? Ultimate Skills? Ultimate Utility?
However, I must say that I fear the eventual reboot of these books, and therefore think they should actually be called Penultimate Magic, Combat, etc.
Sorry about that, it's something of an inside joke amongst old-timers here. Immediately prior to the end of Dragon (or was it Dungeon? I can't remember), Paizo printed an issue that said something like "next month, the penultimate issue of Dragon." Someone showed up with a poorly written, barely legible complaint about how that was confusing. I can't remember all the details, but the lengthy thread that erupted was pretty funny.
There's a similar origin story behind the various FAWTL threads.
If I ever get around to it, someday I'll post a FAQ of the truely important things every Paizoian needs to know (e.g., the mystery of the blue guys, the origins of the FAWTL thread, and...uh...wait...is that it? Maybe that's why I've never gotten around to it...)
Don't forget to also tell people how you became a pony. ~thinks~ Oh. That is right. You don't know. ~thinks again~ I wonder who does know that story.
Well, if it's fully written up, it's not an archetype anymore. It's a full base class. (And I consider the antipaladin to be Paizo's 18th base class, because that's what it is.)
By that logic you would also have to consider the sorcerer and wizard as about a dozen individual base classes each, I think.
Say there's an hypothetical ninja sub-class based on a rogue skeleton. If that's true, both the ninja class and the rogue class are fully written up. So I can multiclass as a ninja/rogue. Which I couldn't do if ninja was just a rogue archetype.
No you can't, because a subclass is a part of it's parent class, and you can't take the same class twice.
Avoiding silliness like that is why I'd much rather see ninjas and whatnot as archetypes than fully written up base classes. Besides, the entire archetype concept is wasted if you throw it every time you stat up a particularly popular fantasy archetype.
Thank much is true, though.
|
Well, if it's fully written up, it's not an archetype anymore. It's a full base class. (And I consider the antipaladin to be Paizo's 18th base class, because that's what it is.)By that logic you would also have to consider the sorcerer and wizard as about a dozen individual base classes each, I think.
Say there's an hypothetical ninja sub-class based on a rogue skeleton. If that's true, both the ninja class and the rogue class are fully written up. So I can multiclass as a ninja/rogue. Which I couldn't do if ninja was just a rogue archetype.No you can't, because a subclass is a part of it's parent class, and you can't take the same class twice.
Avoiding silliness like that is why I'd much rather see ninjas and whatnot as archetypes than fully written up base classes. Besides, the entire archetype concept is wasted if you throw it every time you stat up a particularly popular fantasy archetype.Thank much is true, though.
Damn, there goes my Celestial Dread Zombie Swashbuckler/Ninja idea ...
My two cents on Ultimate Magic, Ultimate Combat, etc.: I hope Paizo doesn't get "rulebook fatigue". I already have my suspicions that books like "Orcs of Golarion" and "Halflings of Golarion" are scraping the bottom of the barrel a little when it comes to campaign books.
I hope so too. I'm excited for the people who are excited for these books, if that makes any sense. But I'm overwhelmed--joyously, mind--by all the extra new stuff to learn in the APG. And I'm personally happy to stop there. It provides extra options... but once I feel like I "need" to consult more than a couple books to create one character, I'm done. Note that need is in quotes, and I realize these books are not mandatory. And I know I'm in the minority here, but I feel I need to share my pov.
I hope the books will not be considered core--or if material from these books does show up in things like APs and modules, etc. that alternatives will be provided for the people who do not have the Ultimate books.
But as far as supplements go (playing devil's advocate with myself I guess), it makes sense to have a big book o' casty and a big book of hacky. If it goes further than that, that's when I'm really going to wonder if Paizo decided to renege on its "no crazy rules bloat" policy I thought I recalled some of the staff (unofficially) stating.
|
|
Paizo staff did state that any time a non-core thing appears in the AP, the relevant mechanics will be given.
Personally, since the APs assume that you have the Bestiary, and since everything is open content, I wouldn't mind some APG/UM/UC content in APs, even without the crunch and just a reference to the books.
|
|
Well, if it's fully written up, it's not an archetype anymore. It's a full base class. (And I consider the antipaladin to be Paizo's 18th base class, because that's what it is.)By that logic you would also have to consider the sorcerer and wizard as about a dozen individual base classes each, I think.
Please! Maybe Paizo will reconsider the classes in Pathfinder II or something.
I have done a lot of research and immersion into Asian culture, having lived there for a few years and even married into the culture. Then, I wrote a game book for it. I didn't feel there was enough material out there for it. I still feel that way.
If Pathfinder is adding Asian material to Golarian, then I am pretty excited. As far as all the core class/archetype arguements about ninjas and samurais and whatnot, I would have to side on the archetype side of things after reading up on the Advanced Players Guide.
Character classes are basic game mechanic structures and character concepts created to fill certain roles in the game and in the story. Once you have a fighting soldier niche filled, you shouldn't have to create another just because you have a different culture that has that role in the game. Just change the dressing and give it a few tweaks and it will work fine, while having a flavor all its own.
Incidentally, I think prestige classes should remain prestigious and not create a glut of character ideas that end up not being so prestigious any more. Fighting styles shouldn't have to be a prestige class; you should have that fighting style you want from level 1. Besides, what is really so prestigious about a common archer or spear fighter?
I was in favor of new base classes or (even better) replacement level mechanics before the advent of the archetypes. But, since seeing the archetypes, I am in favor of them. A samurai is still going to want most of the stuff a fighter has with some new stuff after getting rid of a few things anyway. The same thing goes for a ninja and a rogue. I don't believe a ninja is a exactly a rogue and I don't think a samurai is exactly a fighter, but there are a lot of similarities to take into consieration.
Also, archetypes take up less room, while giving you what you want without much inconveniencing those who don't want what you want. This frees up space for other material that more folks might want out of the product.
|
Prestige classes always seemed to me to be the point of multiclassing. A mechanical and sociological reason why you would be both part fighter and part mage, or a Cleric who studies being a Rogue. While they don't have the capstone abilitles of lvl 20 pure class builds, they often get middle range powers that make up for this.
I don't think Paizo should concern themselves with trying to copy the old WotC Ninja but to emulate the real ninja or ninja myth. That can be done with an Archetype.
But the game is a FANTASY game and my players want to play FANTASY Ninja and be as badass as the Ninja in japanese anime and Ninja Assassin. Not crazy DBZ stuff like in Naruto, but it can't work with JUST a rogue. It'd have to be a Rogue/Monk combo, but without multiclassing, since you can't entirely emulate a core ninja with a Rogue/Monk mix due to the lack of abilities from multiclassing.
As for a Fantasy Samurai, that one is simple. Fantasy Samurai should not just be a Fighter with a different cultural outfit and title. They should have access to ki powers, enhancing their strength and sword techniques. Using WotC's model, I'd say the best Samurai would be a mixture between Rokugan's Samurai class (for the daisho, bonus feats, skill set and points, and saving throws) and the Swordsage from Tome of Battle. If you want more ideas from a video game standpoint, please refer to the Samurai Job in both Final Fantasy Tactics and Final Fantasy XI.
|
|
It's quite likely to be Paizo's own archetype system introduced just now by the Advanced Player's Guide.I like what I am hearing. I would prefer to see Archetypes used more so than new classes.Ditto, especially if its SGG's archetype system (which is OSC, by the way ^_^)
I love it... maybe every archetype is not perfectly balanced with each other (or the core classes), but I think it's the best way to add "variant" versions of each class (a more coherent and evolved version of 3E's substitution levels... or whatever they were called).
[off-topic] If I could make a wish, I hope there will be a book of new hazards and afflictions -- new traps, haunts, curses, diseases and poisons! Well, at least the first three on that list would deserve a book of their own... :) [/off-topic]
|
|
I have done a lot of research and immersion into Asian culture, having lived there for a few years and even married into the culture. Then, I wrote a game book for it. I didn't feel there was enough material out there for it. I still feel that way.
If Pathfinder is adding Asian material to Golarian, then I am pretty excited. As far as all the core class/archetype arguements about ninjas and samurais and whatnot, I would have to side on the archetype side of things after reading up on the Advanced Players Guide.
Character classes are basic game mechanic structures and character concepts created to fill certain roles in the game and in the story. Once you have a fighting soldier niche filled, you shouldn't have to create another just because you have a different culture that has that role in the game. Just change the dressing and give it a few tweaks and it will work fine, while having a flavor all its own.
Incidentally, I think prestige classes should remain prestigious and not create a glut of character ideas that end up not being so prestigious any more. Fighting styles shouldn't have to be a prestige class; you should have that fighting style you want from level 1. Besides, what is really so prestigious about a common archer or spear fighter?
I was in favor of new base classes or (even better) replacement level mechanics before the advent of the archetypes. But, since seeing the archetypes, I am in favor of them. A samurai is still going to want most of the stuff a fighter has with some new stuff after getting rid of a few things anyway. The same thing goes for a ninja and a rogue. I don't believe a ninja is a exactly a rogue and I don't think a samurai is exactly a fighter, but there are a lot of similarities to take into consieration.
Also, archetypes take up less room, while giving you what you want without much inconveniencing those who don't want what you want. This frees up space for other material that more folks might want out of the product.
+1.
|
|
Forums ate my damn post.
On APG Archetypes:
Most archetypes were good. the swashbuckler was terrible.
Rogue is a poor fit for most swashbuckler types. Sneak attack doesn't fit most of them. Nor does the emphasis on stealthiness the rogue usually receives. If those had been replaced with something with a better fit, I could see maybeb a swashbuckler, but that wasn't the way it happened.
Swashbuckler is more of a frontline fighter than a rogue is.
Any of the following would have worked better for the base of the archetype, IMO.
Cavalier (Easiest Fit)
-Remove med/hvy armor proficiency. add a weakened dodge ac like a monk. Make ref the good save.
-Ditch the reliance on a mount. Allow another ability to replace it. Alternatively, allow the mount to be replaced by an animal companion or familiar of some other kind. Monkeys, Hawks, Parrots, Ravens, Crows, Weasels, Foxes, and maybe Badgers, seem like a good fit.
-Give something that makes armor prohibitive, such as a couple bonuses that only work when in light armor. the dodge bonus, and maybe Barbarian move speed seem like good fits for this.
Monk
The monk is a great skeleton for it, but it would need to be a subclass, like the antipaladin was for the paladin due to the number of things to change.
- Drop the alignment restrictions.
- Replace the weapon list with something more becoming of a Swashbuckler.
- Monk unarmed damage for improvised items (use it as the minimum damage if the improvised weapon is crappier). Replace the unarmed strike bonus feat with a catch-off-guard/throw anything/improvised weapon mastery thing. OR something that raises the damage when using swashbuckler-ey type melee weapons.
(Keep Flurry as is, but use with the new list.)
Things that could go and be replaced with things that fit better:
Stunning fist
Ki Pool re-fluffing.
Purity of Body
Wholeness of Body (maybe)
Diamond Body - Doesnt apply to alcohol.
Abundant Step
Diamond Soul.
Quivering Palm: Change the attack type so it's not for unarmed, but for a rapier or something.
Tongue of the Sun and Moon
Empty Body
Fighter
-Remove med/hvy armor proficiency. add a weakened dodge ac like a monk. Make ref the good save.
-Give something that makes armor prohibitive, such as a couple bonuses that only work when in light armor. the dodge bonus, and maybe Barbarian move speed seem like good fits for this.
Paladin (Worst Fit)
- Remove med/hvy armor proficiency. add a weakened dodge ac like a monk. Make ref the good save.
- Alternate Paladin Code that is more 3 musketeersy or swashbuckley in nature.
For the record: The best way to make a swashbuckler with the rules as-is (paizo only, no houserules) is a Skirmisher Ranger. You can add the Urban archetype to that, or take favored terrain: urban or water(unless water doesn't include being on a boat). Take 2 weapon fighting, crossbow, 2 handed, or weapon and shield.
The UA Ranger Variant with Favored Organizations would make a good fit for the Swashbuckler archetype as well, or even rangers in general, and I was surprised to not see it in the APG.
I'd like to see a decently done set of firearms rules and feats (and combat style), but I haven't seen one of those since 3.0's OGL Steampunk by mongoose(The firearm rules and some of the corresponding feats are the only part of the book worth using though).
Ashanderai, well said indeed. You've made the point quite well.
I don't think Paizo should concern themselves with trying to copy the old WotC Ninja but to emulate the real ninja or ninja myth. That can be done with an Archetype.But the game is a FANTASY game and my players want to play FANTASY Ninja and be as badass as the Ninja in japanese anime and Ninja Assassin. Not crazy DBZ stuff like in Naruto, but it can't work with JUST a rogue. It'd have to be a Rogue/Monk combo, but without multiclassing, since you can't entirely emulate a core ninja with a Rogue/Monk mix due to the lack of abilities from multiclassing.
As for a Fantasy Samurai, that one is simple. Fantasy Samurai should not just be a Fighter with a different cultural outfit and title. They should have access to ki powers, enhancing their strength and sword techniques. Using WotC's model, I'd say the best Samurai would be a mixture between Rokugan's Samurai class (for the daisho, bonus feats, skill set and points, and saving throws) and the Swordsage from Tome of Battle. If you want more ideas from a video game standpoint, please refer to the Samurai Job in both Final Fantasy Tactics and Final Fantasy XI.
You can do that with the rogue. Calling a Rogue Archetype "just a rogue" speaks to a misunderstanding regarding the idea of using Archetypes and the Paizo approach to making the core classes so general in the first place.
In that same vein, the person who posted that the Rogue isn't a good fit for the swashbuckler... I think you're really confused about how truly varied the rogue class can manifest itself from character to character.
I'd personally make a Samurai a character option for the cavalier class. Redo some of the benefits (change the bonus feat list and the charging bonuses to say.....mounted archery or something) and add in a few orders exclusively for a samurai build.
I am so glad someone else thought this. Everyone seems to forget Samurai were mounted warroirs with bows first, a polearm second the the sword as a last ditch effort weapon, until the tail end of the Samurai era
|
The ridiculous insistence that ninja and samurai concepts are somehow not supported by the current rules options is a pet peeve of mine (as people who have read any of my previous posts on the topic should know by now). Long story short: Ninjas are rogues, samurai are fighters or rangers. Done!
Longer explanation: The idea that "foreigners are different" is backhandedly racist without actually capturing any of the things that make foreign cultures interesting. The reason that ninja are so captivating to the Western mind (and the Japanese mind, for that matter) is because of the legend and myth that has accreted around the concept for the last several hundred years, not because their methods or gear is actually all that different from their counterparts in other lands. Just like the dervishes and hashishim of Arabian lore are fascinating culturally, ninja and samurai offer the Western mind a perspective that is quite different from our normal expectations.
Ultimately, though, at its core the "ninja" is just a spy, thief, and assassin. Attribution of mystical powers can be more accurate in a fantasy milieu, but in Pathfinder, rogues can get spells as class abilities. Amazing martial arts prowess is also part of some legends--which can be represented by taking the monk class with some rogue skills. The "samurai" is a literate fighter, knowledgeable about his family's past glories, and skilled with archery, horseback riding, and swordsmanship, all of which can be duplicated with one of the existing martial classes.
Ask yourself this: Would you be okay with a separate "Indian Brave" base class? Or a separate "Sikh Warrior"? Or a separate "Zulu Spearman"? Because those are all cultural constructs with a very different idea of what it means to be a warrior than the Western armor-and-sword mercenary that is the default representation of the fighter class--as different from that and each other as the samurai is from them. But all of them could easily be built with the rules-as-written using that class.
You don't need new classes--you just need to look at the existing classes with new eyes.
Jeremy Puckett
Amen, my brotha!
@Jeremny: Here here, except samurai are more cavaliers, their basically just knights with katana instead of broadswords.
I'd much rather more historical than fantastic ninja and samurai. And please don't illustrate ninja in a black jumpsuit.
Longer explanation: The idea that "foreigners are different" is backhandedly racist...
|
|
@Jeremny: Here here, except samurai are more cavaliers, their basically just knights with katana instead of broadswords.
Actually, I agree with this, but I've been trying to limit myself to corebook examples, since I'm not sure how familiar everyone is with the APG stuff yet. I'm pretty sure at this point that the people who want samurai and ninja to be separate base classes are the same people that think all Japanese swords are either katana or ninja-to, and that the ninja-to ever actually existed historically. (Protip: It didn't.) =3
Jeremy Puckett
|
|
Longer explanation: The idea that "foreigners are different" is backhandedly racist...
Your link doesn't do anything except show a picture about how you need to visit a site to see the picture.
To expound more fully: Cross-culturalism teaches us to quantify how various cultures are different and how they're the same. Saying broadly and vaguely, "They're different from us" is a form of racism, which is made most manifest in the strong tendency of "Orientalization" that Americans particularly give into. More specifically, in the context of role-playing games, saying "They have different character classes than us" draws an arbitrary and nonsensical line between "the standard" and "the foreign."
It would take an entire course on culture studies to explain it fully, but the short version is that when you put Asia into a box, you forget that Asia--even the most ostensibly isolationist parts of it, like Japan--has had extensive cultural contact with Europe and Africa for centuries. There have been guns in Japan since the 1300s. China had regular trade with the Middle East before Mohammed showed up. Malaysian sailors found Australia long before the Europeans did. I could go on, but the point should be clear now: Drawing lines around other cultures and pretending their influence stops at the border is silly.
The cultural clutter that builds up around a given region's methods and means is a paint-job on top of something that could just as easily have come from another region given the correct circumstances. More than one author has commented on the high levels of similarity between the Japanese indigenous Ainu peoples and Native Americans--both culturally and in the manner in which they were treated by later settlers.
Are samurai cool? Yes, but that coolness has nothing to do with their statistical build (which is that of a horse-riding archer with skill in polearms and swords, and a higher level of literacy than average), and everything to do with the ephemera of their cultural construct.
Jeremy Puckett
See, and that's a pet peeve of mine Hida_jiremi. People who say they want accuracy in their D&D/PF.
If you want historical accuracy, I've got a class for you. Take a warrior class, max it at 1hit die, take away all supernatural and extraordinary abilities. Give it one skill point per level. Remove all feats. Start play at 14. Every 5 years make a fort save to avoid plague, cancer, malnutrition. After each wound taken that doesn't kill them, make a fort save (DC 20) to avoid gangrene, infections, and other complications.
Every core class is a romanticized characature of reality. Clerics spells, fighter's feats, ranger's animal companions, rogues sneak attack. Every single core class is just a highly romanticized character archetype based off nothing but myths and legends. I guarantee you wouldn't want to meet a real historical barbarian (ala Atilla the Hun).
It's nice you'd like to keep cultural 'purity', but even the culture you're trying to protect is busy mixing in all sorts of western mythos into their culture. Just take a look at any modern anime, you'll find paladins, rangers, dark elves and elves, kings and queens (as opposed to emperors).
Saying that someone is wrong for wanting ninja and samurai to be romanticized because it's somehow more morally superior to want them to be realistic, when the thing you're comparing them to is a romanticized version of a myth is a bit of a stretch to say the least.
Now, having done with my rant on the subject, I personally would like to see the Ninja and Samurai done up as a set of archtypes, but very detailed archetypes. That is, I don't want a Ninja to be one archetype of rogue. I want an archetype for Rogue, one for Ranger, one for Sorcerer, one for Witch, one for Alchemist, one for Fighter, and one for Monk. That way I can have different flavors of Ninja, but all with some theme in common. I don't think that with the plethora of myths to base your ninja on that one single archetype can do it.
Same with samurai, one archetype for fighter, another for cavalier, possibly one for rogue. Again, similar themes, but with slightly different abilities to enable the various samurai myths to be handled.
I should also point out that this is not a western conceit, the romanticizing of samurai and ninja. The very cultures that spawned them started the trend of romanticizing them (for example, Zatoshi the Blind Swordsman, the Seven Samurai, and modern anime as well).
What a great response, Jeremy.
Well there goees another $40.+1! ~grins~ I love it. Between the APG, the UM, and the UC, most character options will be covered. Now, if only they would do something for the poor rogues out there.
Poor rogues?!? I'll have ye know that those 'poor rogues' out there are richer than the Queen of Bloody England!
Alright everyone, lets not get into arguments right now over class options in a book that is just under 1 year away. There will be a time and place for these sorts of discussions and this is not it.
That means we get to have a Ninja/Samurai playtest, right?
I think the Ninja fans are just cringing at the thought of being the same class as Pirates (swashbucklers). LOL.