Samurai Reception

[Merlin_47]

Mok wrote:

Yeah, I have to admit that the Samurai isn't really doing anything for me. It took several days for me to get around reading the class because I just saw "mount" and realized it was just a variation of the Cavalier, a class that likewise holds only minimal interest.

This is pretty much what I'm expecting to happen when I introduce it today to my players. My fear is that I'm going to have to bribe them to get someone to test it out.

[Uriel393]

Realmwalker wrote:

Kaiyanwang wrote:

I think that

1) Seems well done, not too powerful or too weak

2) it does not deviates too much from the Cavalier

So people have less to say, barring asking for alternatives to mount for him and the Western counterpart.

My only complaint is my Goblin Samurai should be able to choose Goblin Dog as his mount...:(

I played Confrontation, and have many Goblin Samurai (Samurats, they called them) figures, as well as Goblin Ninjas.

Come to think of it, there are a lot of Goblins with firearms in Confrontation as well. I had been thinking of converting Aarklash to HARP, but maybe pathfinder would be an easier fit.

-Uriel

[Uriel393]

Realmwalker wrote:

Kaiyanwang wrote:

I think that

1) Seems well done, not too powerful or too weak

2) it does not deviates too much from the Cavalier

So people have less to say, barring asking for alternatives to mount for him and the Western counterpart.

My only complaint is my Goblin Samurai should be able to choose Goblin Dog as his mount...:(

I played Confrontation, and have many Goblin Samurai (Samurats, they called them) figures, as well as Goblin Ninjas.

Come to think of it, there are a lot of Goblins with firearms in Confrontation as well. I had been thinking of converting Aarklash to HARP, but maybe pathfinder would be an easier fit.

Not my paint-jobs, but an example of the Figs...

Goblin Samurai
http://www.coolminiornot.com/157504

Goblin Cavaliers
http://www.coolminiornot.com/208258

-Uriel

[Kaiyanwang]

Merlin_47 wrote:

Mok wrote:

Yeah, I have to admit that the Samurai isn't really doing anything for me. It took several days for me to get around reading the class because I just saw "mount" and realized it was just a variation of the Cavalier, a class that likewise holds only minimal interest.

This is pretty much what I'm expecting to happen when I introduce it today to my players. My fear is that I'm going to have to bribe them to get someone to test it out.

Frankly, I think that consider Cavalier equals mounted combat means do not understand fully the Cavalier class.

YMMV, of course.

[Pendagast]

we've been playing cavalier quite a bit, we have a 7th level one in our serpents skull AP.

He's taken his horse everywhere, there hasnt been anything really keeping the horse out yet.

That being said, he hasnt used the horse in every combat.

There is a certain feel to him, however of a biker riding his harley into buildings and such. but it's fun.

So there is plenty a cavalier can do without his horse, just like the paladin doesn't have to have his horse.

[Mok]

Kaiyanwang wrote:

Frankly, I think that consider Cavalier equals mounted combat means do not understand fully the Cavalier class.

YMMV, of course.

The problem I have is that the Cavalier, as the "mounted class" is far too specific to be able to handle the wide variety of ways you could have a mounted character. By making a huge amount of the power of the class invested in the animal companion model, and then draping the other half in the knightly offerings, it makes it hard to utilize the mounted mechanics in other ways.

I guess I would have just really liked a more generic mounted character class, and then let either archetypes or these alternative classes to flesh out the more thematic elements.

Rather than using the mount as a direct part of the offensive model of the game, having it accumulate a lot of stats and offensive power in and of itself, it needs mechanics that making more of the mobile platform that the rider is using. That way you can have a mounted character that keeps moving over the battlefield, rather than getting stuck in the traditional OGL quagmire of full attacks.

Right now, putting aside an opening lance attack, the system encourages the mount and rider to plop themselves down into a stationary position and wack away like anyone else.

The key thing that needed to happen with the Cavalier class was to rework the rules so that you basically got pounce due to being mounted. Being a dedicated class to mounted warfare, you should be able to move about freely with the mount while melee full attacking, and that would be the key distinguishing element to base the class around.

To help balance things out, the mount would just get hit points and save increases, but that's about it. Just enough to keep the thing standing underneath you, but not really providing a slew of extra attacks that scale up with level.

Once that chassis is made, then the rest of the flavor can get draped on depending on the concept desired. If you want to have knightly orders and lots of honor and rules, that can be worked in. If you want to play a Mongol who doesn't follow any rules and just wants to run circles around their enemies then that's fine also.

By stripping the mount down further, it would also allow you to add features to the mount that could then be balanced with the rest of the character. If you want the mount to fly, so you can have a griffon or dragon rider class, then that is doable. You just strip away some of the rider's potency.

Give me my vetted, playtested toolbox!

[Kaiyanwang]

Mok wrote:

The problem I have is that the Cavalier, as the "mounted class" is far too specific to be able to handle the wide variety of ways you could have a mounted character. By making a huge amount of the power of the class invested in the animal companion model, and then draping the other half in the knightly offerings, it makes it hard to utilize the mounted mechanics in other ways.

Cavalier takes Teamwork feats to grant and three interesting powers of his order. Of the 6 orders in the AP, only 1 has these powers related to mounted combat.

Cavalier gets challenge, full BAB and combat feats. I don't get it.

Quote:

I guess I would have just really liked a more generic mounted character class, and then let either archetypes or these alternative classes to flesh out the more thematic elements.

Archetypes exist for mounted class other than Cavalier. Fihter, Paladin, Ranger and Barbarian can be great mounted warriors.

Quote:

Right now, putting aside an opening lance attack, the system encourages the mount and rider to plop themselves down into a stationary position and wack away like anyone else.

The key thing that needed to happen with the Cavalier class was to rework the rules so that you basically got pounce due to being mounted. Being a dedicated class to mounted warfare, you should be able to move about freely with the mount while melee full attacking, and that would be the key distinguishing element to base the class around.

Mounted Skirmisher (Combat)

You are adept at attacking from upon a swift moving steed.

Prerequisites: Ride rank 14, Mounted Combat, Trick Riding.

Benefit: If your mount moves its speed or less, you can still take a full-attack action.

Normal: If your mount moves more than 5 feet, you can only take an attack action.

Quote:

To help balance things out, the mount would just get hit points and save increases, but that's about it. Just enough to keep the thing standing underneath you, but not really providing a slew of extra attacks that scale up with level.

from mini bestiary:

"A character with the Leadership feat can take a dragonne as a mount using the animal companion rules. Such characters must have an effective druid level of 10th."

I guess one can adapt this to every suitable mount.

[Mok]

Kaiyanwang wrote:

Cavalier takes Teamwork feats to grant and three interesting powers of his order. Of the 6 orders in the AP, only 1 has these powers related to mounted combat.

Cavalier gets challenge, full BAB and combat feats. I don't get it.

I guess the point I'm trying to make is that you're getting stuff, some which is good, but because the class is already molded to being a knight, you're also stuck with other elements, such as orders that might not fit with what you want to do with the character. You end up "paying" for features that don't fit with your character concept.

Kaiyanwang wrote:

Archetypes exist for mounted class other than Cavalier. Fihter, Paladin, Ranger and Barbarian can be great mounted warriors.

True, but they are all problematic. The Fighter's Roughrider merely gives a lot of small bonuses over the course of the fighter's career. It doesn't solve the problem that after level 2 or so your mount is going to easy get shot out from beneath you since it's hit dice aren't scaling at all with your level.

Barbarian's Mounted Fury and Ranger's Horse Lord are a slight step up in that they get mounts that do scale with level, however they both start out at higher levels and then have their mounts be at -4 and -3 effective levels. Thus, while better than the fighter, they still suffer the problem of it being all too easy for their mounts to get shot out from underneath them as they go up in levels. The mount's hit dice just doesn't compete with the APL.

The Paladin is the only one that stays on par, but it starts at 5th level and is saddled with all of the concepts of being a Paladin.

Kaiyanwang wrote:

Mounted Skirmisher (Combat)

You are adept at attacking from upon a swift moving steed.

Prerequisites: Ride rank 14, Mounted Combat, Trick Riding.

Benefit: If your mount moves its speed or less, you can still take a full-attack action.

Normal: If your mount moves more than 5 feet, you can only take an attack action.

The feat is great, but it's a 14th level feat, which basically rules out it's use for the bulk of all Pathfinder games.

Overall, what I'm getting at is that there ought to have been a generic mounted class, that has the modularity of a fighter, but which is anchored in the idea of having a mount class feature. The whole point of the mount is to remain survivable, but not really be a fellow combatant. The class framework could build those features in, but at it's minimum it just provides the hit dice and save bonuses to scale with the warrior's level. That way it can do it's job of moving the warrior about and letting the warrior fight effectively from the mount.

From that skeleton you could have a bunch of archetypes that could be fleshed out with all sorts of themes.

And as for the leadership feat, another great option, save that it's too high of a level. The core assumption is that this has to be available at level 1, the thing that Cavalier got right, and allow the benefits of full attacks to start right then and there.

[Kaiyanwang]

The feat mounted skirmisher is high level because every move + full attack option in the APG is high level.

See Beast Totem Barbarian, Tiger aspect of the Four Wind Monk, the obility Fighter, and so on. You just don't get move + full attack until high level.

For the fihter mount, use leadersip.

Regarding stuff cavalier takes, is because of role. Shield is pure tank, Dragon is tactical leader/tank, sword is mounted DPR, Cockatrice is teamwork DPR, lion is bard-ish leader/tank, and so on.

Pick up the right cavalier for what you want. BTW, Samurai is a DPR (fighter-ish feats, rerolls for damage) paired with resistance utilities (ignore critical and stuff). Is more or less designed to be a Tank/DPR less likely to be taken out of combat.