Samurai First impressions


Samurai Discussion: Round 1

51 to 81 of 81 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

Kaiyanwang wrote:


For the credit.. good rule feedback > credit. I Don't care about credit, care about good products but thank you ;)

You're welcome; I understand what you mean, but hey...it's the right thing to do. I know....shocking coming from someone on the internet...lol...but still! You're welcome all the same.


Merlin_47 wrote:
I could see different orders focusing on different styles of combat.

Yeah, this could help trim the stuff like mounted archery off for people who aren't interested in that style of play. An order who prefers archery to swordplay, one that prefers weapons "less honorable" than the katana, an order that banks more on its honor than others (maybe banner-y stuff, I guess). That's just me throwing out whatever comes to mind. I didn't really think about the crunch for any of that.


Foghammer wrote:
Merlin_47 wrote:
I could see different orders focusing on different styles of combat.
Yeah, this could help trim the stuff like mounted archery off for people who aren't interested in that style of play. An order who prefers archery to swordplay, one that prefers weapons "less honorable" than the katana, an order that banks more on its honor than others (maybe banner-y stuff, I guess). That's just me throwing out whatever comes to mind. I didn't really think about the crunch for any of that.

I've actually played three different Oriental Adventures Samurai before. One focused on two-handed weapons, like the Kanabo club (he was an oni slayer). I had one that focused on the Daikyu and became a master archer while my third was the duelist/dual wielder.

I've never been a fan of Mounted Archery to be honest. I understand what Kaiyanwang is saying, and he makes an interesting suggestion (hard as it would be to implement).

I don't know how they would do it, but it'd be nice to see different styles.


First impressions: the samurai class is pretty awesome. I'm so happy it has some horsemanship included.

Scarab Sages

I personally would also like to see the mount as an option for the class & give the other option to be say an ancestral daisho (Katana and/or wakizashi) which can be improved over time

I rarely play a character that needs a mount so having this as a class feature to me is a waste

not all samurai rode horses in combat some were just foot soldiers

samurai also were regularly trained to use both the katana & wakizashi as a two weapon fighting style hence why they regularly carried both. using the katana two handed just gave more power & accuracy over single handed. two weapon was good for defence as well as attacks


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

At first glance the class seems really solid and impressive. Basically everything I wished the Cavalier would be when it came out.


magnuskn wrote:
At first glance the class seems really solid and impressive. Basically everything I wished the Cavalier would be when it came out.

...really? Wow. Just wow.

The Cavalier may not be the best class, but the Samurai is a complete mess that is severely being constrained even further by being applied atop the Cavalier template.


Cartigan wrote:
magnuskn wrote:
At first glance the class seems really solid and impressive. Basically everything I wished the Cavalier would be when it came out.

...really? Wow. Just wow.

The Cavalier may not be the best class, but the Samurai is a complete mess that is severely being constrained even further by being applied atop the Cavalier template.

I've seen in play a cavalier, it's a solid class with more skill than fighter and at least two means to deal damage (or A LOT of damage if these are combined).

Samurai is essentially a Cavalier with less focus on teamwork feats and more on "this roll MUST work".

What's the problem, barring Ronin challenge?


Kaiyanwang wrote:
Cartigan wrote:
magnuskn wrote:
At first glance the class seems really solid and impressive. Basically everything I wished the Cavalier would be when it came out.

...really? Wow. Just wow.

The Cavalier may not be the best class, but the Samurai is a complete mess that is severely being constrained even further by being applied atop the Cavalier template.

I've seen in play a cavalier, it's a solid class with more skill than fighter and at least two means to deal damage (or A LOT of damage if these are combined).

Samurai is essentially a Cavalier with less focus on teamwork feats and more on "this roll MUST work".

What's the problem, barring Ronin challenge?

-Can't decide if it is a mounted or unmounted combatant

-Inconsistent weapon expertise. They get to specialize in a weapon, but then get Mounted Archery even if they don't specialize in archery?

Then there is the whole thing about the only thing the class does is fight one enemy at a time to the death. And its bonuses to doing that aren't very good.

Samurai should split where one half goes mounted and the other half goes unmounted.


The class can get cavalier orders. You can decide to take order of the shield "tankish" options.

For what I've seen, the Cavalier in play is not "in the middle" about mounted or not mounted combat. If is on foot, beat thing in a way, if mounted in another.

Said this, totally nonmounted options would be welcomed for both versions of the class.


I don't know why, but I find it odd that all three of the "mounted" classes (paladin possibly, cavalier, and the samurai) none of them are shown on their mount. Why?


Kaiyanwang wrote:
The class can get cavalier orders. You can decide to take order of the shield "tankish" options.

Which has nothing to do with what I said.

Quote:
For what I've seen, the Cavalier in play is not "in the middle" about mounted or not mounted combat. If is on foot, beat thing in a way, if mounted in another.

Good thing I'm talking about the Samurai and not the Cavalier.


havoc xiii wrote:
I don't know why, but I find it odd that all three of the "mounted" classes (paladin possibly, cavalier, and the samurai) none of them are shown on their mount. Why?

Because no one but small characters ever use mounts and none of the iconic mounted characters are Halflings.


Cartigan wrote:
Kaiyanwang wrote:
The class can get cavalier orders. You can decide to take order of the shield "tankish" options.

Which has nothing to do with what I said.

Quote:
For what I've seen, the Cavalier in play is not "in the middle" about mounted or not mounted combat. If is on foot, beat thing in a way, if mounted in another.

Good thing I'm talking about the Samurai and not the Cavalier.

Samurai is a Cavalier, Cartigan. Get over it.

Moreover not every campaing is set in tight dungeons. The rocking Cavalier of a player of mine, as an example, it's Human.


Kaiyanwang wrote:


Samurai is a Cavalier, Cartigan. Get over it.

No, it's not. The Samurai is a "Cavalier." It has different class abilities and a different focus.

Quote:
Moreover not every campaing is set in tight dungeons. The rocking Cavalier of a player of mine, as an example, it's Human.

Just the vast, vast majority.


Discuss more is useless.


Having a mount should be an option for the samurai not manditory. I love the whole ancestral weapon idea a lot more than the mount.


ciretose wrote:

I think Cavalier was the right way to go, but I would do what they did with Paladin in regards to mount and give the option of having a special bonded weapon instead.

That seems more Samurai, and since it is the same mechanic as used in the paladin should be fine as far as balance.

I second that


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

I love the "feel" of the Pathfinder Samurai; however, I'm definitely getting the feeling that there is a little more to the Samurai that is "waiting in the wings" (additional orders? maybe a KI power of some type?).

In a random, 5th level "arena style" encounter of my own making (and just myself rolling/strategizing both sides---which, like playing chess against oneself, may tend to skew the results) the samurai destroyed the Gunslinger 4/5 times and held his own 2/5 times against the Ninja. If the samurai could close-in, then a single opponent with no "frontliner" to help him could be in big trouble. Granted, these were not "fair" fights of ability vs ability or hp vs hp (as in comparing rogue v rogue or tank v tank). HOWEVER, as a side note, I was impressed/surprised that the ninja did so well against the Samurai.

TWO BIG CONCERNS:
Alignment: "Any" just does not work at all from a gameplay/roleplaying standpoint for Samurai. Good, Neutral, or Evil he/she *must* be LAWFUL. (Now, the Ronin on the other hand....)

Will Saves: For a class that has such powerful dedication and devotion, the Will Save progression is contradictory at best and unacceptable at worst.

The rest is mostly DITTO but they are comments that I truly hope the design team considers.

Elias Alexander wrote:

...a Little sad that the Samurai didnt get any of the crazy Sword abilities that the warriors were famous for ( IE: using your razor honed blade to cut through another blade)

ciretose wrote:

...I would do what they did with Paladin in regards to mount and give the option of having a special bonded weapon instead.

Merlin_47 wrote:
I could see different orders focusing on different styles of combat. I hope to see something like that in round two of the testing.
slayer_of_gellcor wrote:

...For the Orders, I wonder if there could be different Master types that would confer the different benefits...a Strategist master....A Diplomat master...

Mainly, I would like to see more than 2 options.

Yes! Definitely a way to answer the "different visions" of a Samurai without giving up on any of them. As much as I personally despise the samurai clans from Rokugan, the idea of *individual* samurai being specialized/dedicated in certain "styles" may have some merit.

Nitpicky (and out of thread) Preference Comment:
The "dangly" equipment windchime look of the Gunslinger is just ridiculous. Less is more baby! (Hat, duster, gun, finished.)


Kaiyanwang wrote:


This could be "fixed" with an order maybe. An order more dedicated to find a "true perfection" in the art of war than to be subjected to the rule of a noble.

Member of the order could select from a very limited list of feats, included the TWF line.

I love this idea. I think that might be the cleanest way.

Continuing brainstorming, it could be a part or replace Weapon Expertise. Instead of choosing a weapon, you choose a combat style. You gain a bonus feat, and also are able to qualify for them (as a fighter of your level, and as if you have the requisite ability score) for the feats in their tree. One could include Quick Draw; another: Mounted Archery; another Two-Weapon Fighting.

That's awkwardly worded, but it could open up the concept without devoting a lot to it. I still think that the order would probably be cleaner, but I'm just still brainstorming.

On a completely different note: I wish we could get away from attacking each other, or getting into competitions to show who knows more about the historic samurai. I know that asking for this in a messageboard is naive bordering on delusion, but it's just not helpful. It's such an incredible opportunity to give feedback on the game we all love, we don't need to bog it down with drama.

Alright, I'm off my soapbox now.


slayer_of_gellcor wrote:


On a completely different note: I wish we could get away from attacking each other, or getting into competitions to show who knows more about the historic samurai. I know that asking for this in a messageboard is naive bordering on delusion, but it's just not helpful. It's such an incredible opportunity to give feedback on the game we all love, we don't need to bog it down with drama.

Alright, I'm off my soapbox now.

No, you're right, slayer. I honestly don't think any of us are trying to do this intentionally, but we all get passionate when talking about something we all happen to love, and that's Pathfinder.

Anyway...now back to our regularly scheduled discussion.


Merlin_47 wrote:
slayer_of_gellcor wrote:


On a completely different note: I wish we could get away from attacking each other, or getting into competitions to show who knows more about the historic samurai. I know that asking for this in a messageboard is naive bordering on delusion, but it's just not helpful. It's such an incredible opportunity to give feedback on the game we all love, we don't need to bog it down with drama.

Alright, I'm off my soapbox now.

No, you're right, slayer. I honestly don't think any of us are trying to do this intentionally, but we all get passionate when talking about something we all happen to love, and that's Pathfinder.

Anyway...now back to our regularly scheduled discussion.

I may be a jerk, but I do love me some Pathfinder.


cranewings wrote:


I may be a jerk, but I do love me some Pathfinder.

I'm sorry, cranewings! I wasn't trying to call anyone a jerk! But yes...I think we can all agree that we love Pathfinder and just want it to be the best system it can be.


Got this from another thread (First thought on Ninja):

Helaman wrote:
Quandary wrote:

I rather like the Samurai. (even if I´m more inclined to use it slightly re-flavored as a Mongol Horse Lord type)

I think the reasons there isn´t as much discussion is:
* It´s REALLY similar to Cavalier, without presenting balance issues like Ninja/Rogue, so most people don´t see too much to discuss.
* No really new mechanics/subsystems at play, like Grit or Ninja Ki Tricks, etc.
* Cavaliers maybe aren´t THE most popular class, and people like to discuss things relevant to their own games.

I definitely think it´s the one class that needs the least work to make it publishable.

I like the Samurai a lot as well and some minor tweaks will see it through, but I keep HAVE to compare apples to apples on these new ALTERNATE classes. The Paladin/Anti-paladin are mirror images. I don't expect these new ones to be so easy but it should be balanced against each other.

Samurai get Bastard Sword above the Cavilier. Remove shield use - it balances and Samurai need two hands anyway for all the iconic style stuff they do, like archery, using Katana two handed, using naginatas or TWF Musashi style.
Class features more or less balance across the board except for the ability to buy fighter feats (weapon spec etc) but with a bit of a tweak again the two classes compare 'Like to like'

Me I'm not hot on any of the new classes, but if people want them fine.

But I agree with Helaman, Remove shield use. Giving it fighter feats is , perhaps, a bit too much.

I also agree with Cartigan.

"-Can't decide if it is a mounted or unmounted combatant
-Inconsistent weapon expertise. They get to specialize in a weapon, but then get Mounted Archery even if they don't specialize in archery?"

Cartigan is right. The vast majority of campains are set in tight dungeons (or buildings or in difficult terrain).

Or as DrowVampyre put (it in the " First thought on Ninja"-thread):

DrowVampyre wrote:
[...] I do think some sort of alternate non-mounted ability would be really welcome as an option instead of the mount. Throughout every incarnation of 3e rules (and now Pathfinder) I think I've only ever seen one mounted combat focused character played, and that for only a session or two - it's just too restrictive for any campaign that isn't largely going to be played in wide open areas (not just outdoors, but outdoors in usually non-difficult-terrain).

I don't like the Cavalier so Samurai is not for me. That said I do think "it´s the one class that needs the least work to make it publishable."


Maybe someone has already made this point, but one of the nice things about the 3.0 Oriental Adventures book was that it made a difference between Samurai the game class and the social class. Any character born into the right family and who carried the swords was a Samurai, irregardless of game class.

So a Crab clan ranger, a Unicorn clan Barbarian, and an Lion clan Samurai would all be considered a Samurai in game.


Sorry for the slight detour, putting this in an active post

where on earth can you find the samurai, gunslinger, and ninja downloads? I feel like a mouse thats run around the maze 6 times and i'd like my cheese now.


BigNorseWolf wrote:

Sorry for the slight detour, putting this in an active post

where on earth can you find the samurai, gunslinger, and ninja downloads? I feel like a mouse thats run around the maze 6 times and i'd like my cheese now.

If you go to the blog there is a link there that will take you to a product screen. You'll click the button to add the playtest to your downloads then go to your downloads and... download it.

tell you what I'll save you time and give you the direct link to the page you want:
download PDF here


Thanks!


Firest wrote:

Maybe someone has already made this point, but one of the nice things about the 3.0 Oriental Adventures book was that it made a difference between Samurai the game class and the social class. Any character born into the right family and who carried the swords was a Samurai, irregardless of game class.

So a Crab clan ranger, a Unicorn clan Barbarian, and an Lion clan Samurai would all be considered a Samurai in game.

I don´t see any conflict there with what Paizo has done. Class Type isn´t a 100% obvious thing, and social conventions are most relevant to most NPCs perceptions. Cavalier class suggests trappings of nobility (though there´s no reason to not have a barbarian tribe Cavalier), but a given noble family will likely have mostly non-combatants as members, and their combatants may well be Fighters, Paladins, etc, as well as Cavaliers. Cavaliers are probably going to have higher CHA, but this may not be treated as much different than a higher CHA Fighter/Bard.


Zark wrote:

Got this from another thread (First thought on Ninja):

Helaman wrote:
Quandary wrote:

I rather like the Samurai. (even if I´m more inclined to use it slightly re-flavored as a Mongol Horse Lord type)

I think the reasons there isn´t as much discussion is:
* It´s REALLY similar to Cavalier, without presenting balance issues like Ninja/Rogue, so most people don´t see too much to discuss.
* No really new mechanics/subsystems at play, like Grit or Ninja Ki Tricks, etc.
* Cavaliers maybe aren´t THE most popular class, and people like to discuss things relevant to their own games.

I definitely think it´s the one class that needs the least work to make it publishable.

I like the Samurai a lot as well and some minor tweaks will see it through, but I keep HAVE to compare apples to apples on these new ALTERNATE classes. The Paladin/Anti-paladin are mirror images. I don't expect these new ones to be so easy but it should be balanced against each other.

Samurai get Bastard Sword above the Cavilier. Remove shield use - it balances and Samurai need two hands anyway for all the iconic style stuff they do, like archery, using Katana two handed, using naginatas or TWF Musashi style.
Class features more or less balance across the board except for the ability to buy fighter feats (weapon spec etc) but with a bit of a tweak again the two classes compare 'Like to like'

Me I'm not hot on any of the new classes, but if people want them fine.

But I agree with Helaman, Remove shield use. Giving it fighter feats is , perhaps, a bit too much.

I also agree with Cartigan.

"-Can't decide if it is a mounted or unmounted combatant
-Inconsistent weapon expertise. They get to specialize in a weapon, but then get Mounted Archery even if they don't specialize in archery?"

Cartigan is right. The vast majority of campains are set in tight dungeons (or buildings or in difficult terrain).

Or as DrowVampyre put (it in the " First thought on Ninja"-thread):

DrowVampyre wrote:
[...] I do
...

Funny I hardly ever run dungeon crawls...

51 to 81 of 81 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Archive / Pathfinder / Playtests & Prerelease Discussions / Ultimate Combat Playtest / Samurai Discussion: Round 1 / Samurai First impressions All Messageboards
Recent threads in Samurai Discussion: Round 1