I was getting into this in another thread and felt it would get buried unless it was put in its own thread.
Now Why do samurai, and for that matter cavaliers, only get the option of having a mount. Lets look at druid they get a companion or a domain, paladin They get a Mount or a magic weapon, Ranger companion or give allies favored enemy buff, wizard familiar or item bond. Now given this why do samurai/cavalier get stuck with a mount why don't they have and out if they don't feel like hauling around a horse everywhere.
This is what was started in the other thread and Personally Im liking some of what is coming out of it.
well gosh im at a loss, i cant think of anything the samurai needs or is missing.
Maybe a second expertise?
Thats just the thing, I cant Think of something, To be honest I was hoping someone else would have a suggestion. Maybe One extra use of resolve and the ability to spend 2 uses to give one of his allies the resolve boost. Could be the samurai's resolve is so strong it extends to his allies?
Second expertise could be interesting give him one early and the second lets him become a pretty good switch hitter?
how about a dowry?
The samurai could be married or betrothed, and as such got a huge boost in gold and starting wealth, in lieu of a mount. This would let him get access to a mwk katana and armor at 1st level.
If not dowry, then noble status or inheritance?
(or even a small piece of land, and a household instead of expensive weapons, maybe something that is not only self sufficient but generates some income, like a farm, or a foundry or something.)
Mostly why don't they get the option the other classes with such abilities get?
because the cavalier was made to be a mounted class for all your mounted needs, samurai... i have no idea
As for the Samurai I didn't think it was so bad. As far as I remember nothing really goes with the mount. The Cavalier on the other hand I had been crying to myself that I cant just give the dang thing up and become a straight knight challenging people to honorable combat and just walking everywhere.
I didn't like spirited charge and all the other lance things, and would have rathered that they had options but with the samurai it is looking for a brighter future. I suppose that they could always just write out the mount entirely too for those that really have a problem with it.
because the cavalier was made to be a mounted class for all your mounted needs, samurai... i have no idea
This question is more towards the samurai but the cavalier should be in the discussion Cavalier is easy toss in a archetype that gives its something else then replaces the mounted ability and the chain that goes with it.
Now I do feel that samurai needs something else Because while samurai where great horseman and all I just feel that since every other class has the option why not these two.
Maybe something that helps with the samurai's higher education like they add half their level to knowledge checks and can make them untrained?
I do not in anyway feel that the classes are underpowered or overpowered I just think they should have the same treatment as all other classes.
because the cavalier was made to be a mounted class for all your mounted needs, samurai... i have no idea
The Samurai is, historically and classically speaking, a mounted warrior as well. A bushi (warrior) of the samurai class was, for most of Japanese feudal history, a mounted warrior not unlike a Western European knight in station and function. Mounted combat was what they did really (the yumi or asymetric Japanese long bow, yari - spear, and various polearms -- naginata and nagimaki being the typical weapons). Everything else was secondary. Hence the class being based off the Cavalier. They became less horse oriented as the Muromachi period (warring period) of Japanese history progressed.
There existed other bushi in Japan of course. The ashigaru who were infantry (essentially warriors -- the npc class) equiped with spears (yari) and polearms (naginatas typically) and, later, matchlock firearm as well as short swords (wakizashi) drawing from lower social classes (i.e. peasants). It was the carrying of two swords (the tachi or katana and the wakizashi typically) that was the social sign of the Samurai / bushi.
The Yamabushi, or mountain warriors, were religious warriors from mountain monasteries famed for their use of the Naginata... they were monks, but not in the classic D&D type which is more Chinese (thank you Kung Fu) in style...
Anyway, just off the top of my head. Apologies for any mis spellings / gaffes I may have included... back to the salt mines of grading papers...
my Wording on this may seem a little weird, so im gonna try to clarify. I dont want the mount gone I want them to have the option between a mount or...( the or is what im not sure about)
I have no issues with the mounted combat feature, I understand that Samurai were great mounted warriors hence the pole arms. My questions is more on the options why don't they have the or option other classes have, Its a why not thing, What if you don't want the mount, sure you can choose to not take it but then you are just missing a class ability. why not give them a little option to have some other ability and just buy a horse if they want to do a little mounted combat.
It goes back to the original post Why do pally's, druids, rangers, and wizards get options but the samurai dosen't?
As far as the Cavalier goes have you checked out the Hound Master Archetype that Cody Coffelt drew up for RPGSuperstar? Good stuff, not published but maybe you could talk your DM into letting you playtest it?
http://paizo.com/rpgsuperstar/round2/houndMasterCavalier
As far as the Samurai go maybe you could adapt it to fit, using the Akita Inu?
As far as the Cavalier goes have you checked out the Hound Master Archetype that Cody Coffelt drew up for RPGSuperstar? Good stuff, not published but maybe you could talk your DM into letting you playtest it?
http://paizo.com/rpgsuperstar/round2/houndMasterCavalier
As far as the Samurai go maybe you could adapt it to fit, using the Akita Inu?
While after Reading that I really like it, It is still a critter you need to stat up and what not, and all the classes listed above have a critter, Or this easy cop out thing that is still useful but, probably less useful than the critter you could get.
What if you could take the mount, or an early weapon expertise, and get another at 3rd level, you could basically get quick draw for another weapon, and the ability to take weapon specific feats which isn't great but still could be good.
Or maybe, you could take the mount, or add a skill to your class skill list and get an extra skill point each level.
Or maybe, you could have the mount, or you could get an extra daily use of your resolve, and spend to uses to give the benefit to one of your allies.
It just feels weird that all the other classes get the option but samurai doesn't.
Because then we can have an archetype fill that role by swapping out the mount related items. I think they said that they were going to do some archetypes for these classes in the book.
Any Cavalier archetype would be inapplicable to the Samurai.
|
Because then we can have an archetype fill that role by swapping out the mount related items. I think they said that they were going to do some archetypes for these classes in the book.Any Cavalier archetype would be inapplicable to the Samurai.
Not true in the slightest. Samurai are a cavalier variant - if the samurai has the necessary class feature (i.e., the archetype doesn't require the Tactician ability, for instance), they can take it.
Not true in the slightest. Samurai are a cavalier variant - if the samurai has the necessary class feature (i.e., the archetype doesn't require the Tactician ability, for instance), they can take it.Because then we can have an archetype fill that role by swapping out the mount related items. I think they said that they were going to do some archetypes for these classes in the book.Any Cavalier archetype would be inapplicable to the Samurai.
Ding, ding, there's your problem. The archetype would have to almost explicitly be tailored in such a way that the Samurai could take it.
|
|
Ding, ding, there's your problem. The archetype would have to almost explicitly be tailored in such a way that the Samurai could take it.Not true in the slightest. Samurai are a cavalier variant - if the samurai has the necessary class feature (i.e., the archetype doesn't require the Tactician ability, for instance), they can take it.Because then we can have an archetype fill that role by swapping out the mount related items. I think they said that they were going to do some archetypes for these classes in the book.Any Cavalier archetype would be inapplicable to the Samurai.
If the purpose of the archetype is to replace the mount, I don't think it would require "explicit tailoring." It might, in fact, just target the mount.
In historic Japan, Samurai is basically a mounted archer first and foremost. They didn't wield polearms, not while mounted, polearms are for infantry in order to dismount a rider.
The samurai as an alternate class based on Cavalier is pretty close to a Hatamoto, a Shogun's banner man. Of course this shouldn't be the only kind of samurai, since samurai (buke) is a social caste not so much a class. There are other classes that belong to this caste. The quintessential samurai is a mounted archer, however.
Who ever said a mount has to be a horse? This is fantasy right, why not a Kirin, or Dragon, or any other of a half million possible options.
I am building a Buke Bushi (samurai warrior) that is not a mounted archer, however, more a noble warrior and little else, with some ki powers.
In historic Japan, Samurai is basically a mounted archer first and foremost. They didn't wield polearms, not while mounted, polearms are for infantry in order to dismount a rider.
The samurai as an alternate class based on Cavalier is pretty close to a Hatamoto, a Shogun's banner man. Of course this shouldn't be the only kind of samurai, since samurai (buke) is a social caste not so much a class. There are other classes that belong to this caste. The quintessential samurai is a mounted archer, however.
Who ever said a mount has to be a horse? This is fantasy right, why not a Kirin, or Dragon, or any other of a half million possible options.
I am building a Buke Bushi (samurai warrior) that is not a mounted archer, however, more a noble warrior and little else, with some ki powers.
I understand all this but, Because every other class gets the option why shouldn't the samurai/cavalier, there needs to be an option for those who don't wanna bring a mount along, and feed it. Some bonus you can get that isn't a critter that you need to take care of.
|
|
It seems odd that the Cavalier does not give an option to opt out of having a companion, whereas each base class with companions were given a choice.
I agree. As a Pathfinder Coordinator at our FLGS, I have yet to see a Cavalier PC in our games... and the mount is the main reason why. How many dungeon crawls/tombs can you ride a horse in? This is a spot begging for an alternate class ability!
I agree with the OP. It seems odd that the Cavalier does not give an option to opt out of having a companion, whereas each base class with companions were given a choice. Hopefully Ultimate Combat will have an archetype or whatever that provides a fun alternative to a mount.
Probably because the Cavalier, and Samurai, are fairly specialized classes optimized for their role as mounted warriors. The Fighter is flexible. The mounted types less so. There's no reason that you wouldn't find fighters in a pseudo-oriental setting. Maybe fulfilling the iconic ronin role, wondering the land on foot... or maybe there's room for a ronin archtype for the Samurai. Swapping out the mount for things related to the role of the "wave-man" / masterless bushi (who generally couldn't afford to keep a mount)... I can see some possibilities related to that.
It seems odd that the Cavalier does not give an option to opt out of having a companion, whereas each base class with companions were given a choice.I agree. As a Pathfinder Coordinator at our FLGS, I have yet to see a Cavalier PC in our games... and the mount is the main reason why. How many dungeon crawls/tombs can you ride a horse in? This is a spot begging for an alternate class ability!
Leave the horse at a stable. They are still very effective fighters. Not every ability is useful in every setting. Disadvantaged in a dungeon delve, but advantaged in the overland adventure. Ymmv.
Leave the horse at a stable. They are still very effective fighters. Not every ability is useful in every setting. Disadvantaged in a dungeon delve, but advantaged in the overland adventure. Ymmv.It seems odd that the Cavalier does not give an option to opt out of having a companion, whereas each base class with companions were given a choice.I agree. As a Pathfinder Coordinator at our FLGS, I have yet to see a Cavalier PC in our games... and the mount is the main reason why. How many dungeon crawls/tombs can you ride a horse in? This is a spot begging for an alternate class ability!
But still, Why don't they have the option of gaining a different ability?
|
I understand why they have the ability - both the cavalier and the samurai are, historically/romantically/whatever mounted figures. However, I do agree that it would have been nice if they had other options.
For the cavalier in my campaign I came up with a weapon focus similar to (abet weaker than) that of the paladin's. I just replaced most of the mount/riding bonuses by level with weapon bonuses. This seems to be working and my player is much happier.
I do think that the mount ability has great potential for swaps with archetypes and look forward to seeing what happens with that.
But still, Why don't they have the option of gaining a different ability?
Because making a mounted pc was the whole point of the class?
But still, Why don't they have the option of gaining a different ability?Leave the horse at a stable. They are still very effective fighters. Not every ability is useful in every setting. Disadvantaged in a dungeon delve, but advantaged in the overland adventure. Ymmv.It seems odd that the Cavalier does not give an option to opt out of having a companion, whereas each base class with companions were given a choice.I agree. As a Pathfinder Coordinator at our FLGS, I have yet to see a Cavalier PC in our games... and the mount is the main reason why. How many dungeon crawls/tombs can you ride a horse in? This is a spot begging for an alternate class ability!
Well, as I mentioned in the post above the one you quoted, I can see a ronin archtype as a possibility. On the other hand if you want different options, there are different classes. I'd imagine there will be some archtypes at some point... maybe with the mount swapped out. Just not yet. The playtest being early on in the development of the class (Samurai) and the Cavalier being pretty new as well. Sigh. I don't know but the Cavalier in particular without the mount... is not a Cavalier. I can see the ronin role for the Samurai, but it would be work to pin down the "swap in" for the mount... I'd be binging on Japanese movies starting with Kurosawa and history / popular literature before I made that decision...
Archetype would be cool but hard as well the samurai is an archetype now, so ya have to watch what ya swap. But swapping the mount would be easy enough, but past there ya need to watch and make sure what you swap has not already be changed.
Well the samurai has only two class abilities with the mount (1, 4), while the cavalier has five class abilities related to your mount (1, 3, 4, 11, 20), and considering that the mount evolves along with the samurai class, as well as a druid/ranger/paladin, the class ability would be fighting style as Kenjutsu/Kyujutsu/Iaijutsu, related to Order/Dojo/Family to which he belongs.
Or something like martial arts, as shown WotC book "Tome of Battle" special combat maneuvers related to the attack in addition to the already discussed (grapple, trip, etc. ...), but can not replace feats.
The best form would be to implement martial fighting styles that are evolving along with the character when he reaches new levels. That enhance the combat capabilities of the samurai, as small benefits, depending on of character's fighting stance.
If you were to run with martial arts techniques it might be advisable to use a "ki" mechanic. It has worked out well with limiting how much pain the monk and ninja can create. I played the Tomb of Battle swordsage and that was a horribly, albeit fun, class to play. My buddy and I were beginning to work on this concept.
For my Kaidan: a Japanese Ghost Story setting, with its first adventure due out in February, I have an expanded list of Ki powers and advanced Ki. I also have a Ki Potential Trait, that all classes in Kaidan may take, plus at 4th level Activate Ki feat which creates of ki pool of 2 points only (does not progress), though you can still take Extra Ki for a total of 3 ki points.
I am also introducing 3 martial arts feat chains, one emulating Judo based off the Ki Throw feat in the APG, one emulating Karate with Unarmed Combat as a prerequisite, and an Aikido feat chain for pins, weapon traps, sundering and temporary paralysis.
While the samurai and yojimbo classes both of the samurai caste may take these feats, I will also be introducing a Heimin Bushi (commoner caste fighter - martial arts specialist) as a fighter archetype.
All this is Pathfinder compatible though requires both the Core and APG.
GP
The Yamabushi, or mountain warriors, were religious warriors from mountain monasteries famed for their use of the Naginata... they were monks, but not in the classic D&D type which is more Chinese (thank you Kung Fu) in style...
Ah, yamabushi are not 'mountain warriors', this is a misconception based on 'yama' meaning 'mountain' and 'bushi' meaning warriors. You'll notice yamabushi is one word. The Kanji icon that represents 'yamabushi' and those that represent 'yama' and 'bushi' are different. Japanese is full of homophones - words that sound alike. However if you could read Japanese kanji it would be obvious that yamabushi aren't mountain warriors.
Really, the concept of Shugenja, is a yamabushi. Though Shugenja is also a word taken out of context. Shugenja is any person (a child or NPC farmer) who follows the path of Shugendo (a religion). Priests of Shugendo are yamabushi. Yes, yamabushi were skilled fighters especially with naginata, however, throughout Japanese history, yamabushi and Shugendo was an illegal and heretical religion in oppostion to the empire. To old Japan, yamabushi are mostly heretics and considered criminals - today they are culturally accepted.
Shugenja is to Shugendo as Christian is to Christianity. Shugenja were not priest monks, only the followers. Yamabushi were the ascetic monk-priests who often dwelled in the mountains, but were not mountain warriors. Yamabushi were exorcists.
Gary E. Gygax made the mistake first, but then at the time there weren't good research on this, so how could he know? However, by the time AEG got into the picture, they could very well check their facts, but were lazy and did not.
My setting intends to correct all these mistakes and misconceptions, as there is no reason not to use the correct terms even in fantasy Japan. So my setting is more historically accurate.
Ah, yamabushi are not 'mountain warriors', this is a misconception based on 'yama' meaning 'mountain' and 'bushi' meaning warriors. You'll notice yamabushi is one word. The Kanji icon that represents 'yamabushi' and those that represent 'yama' and 'bushi' are different. Japanese is full of homophones - words that sound alike. However if you could read Japanese kanji it would be obvious that yamabushi aren't mountain warriors.
I usually refer to Ratti and Westbrooks "Secrets of the Samurai". It's not new but was very well researched. Their reference to the militant clergy includes the terms tera bushi (temple guards), yamahoshi and yamabushi translated by them as "mountain warriors". They include a commentary on the development of Shugendo as well as delving into the various healer / magical roles of various mountain hermits.
Really, the concept of Shugenja, is a yamabushi. Though Shugenja is also a word taken out of context. Shugenja is any person (a child or NPC farmer) who follows the path of Shugendo (a religion). Priests of Shugendo are yamabushi. Yes, yamabushi were skilled fighters especially with naginata, however, throughout Japanese history, yamabushi and Shugendo was an illegal and heretical religion in oppostion to the empire. To old Japan, yamabushi are mostly heretics and considered criminals - today they are culturally accepted.Shugenja is to Shugendo as Christian is to Christianity. Shugenja were not priest monks, only the followers. Yamabushi were the ascetic monk-priests who often dwelled in the mountains, but were not mountain warriors. Yamabushi were exorcists.
It's been awhile since I looked into Japanese history and my sources are a bit dated. Any new ones you would suggest? Western medieval history is my main interest, Japanese feudal history was a comparative sideline.
Any Cavalier archetype would be inapplicable to the Samurai.Who said anything about a Cavalier archetype? Samurai is an alternate class and not just an archetype. Why couldn't it have its own archetypes as well as those of Cavalier?
An interesting proposition. We could open the same door for the anit-paladin too...
An interesting proposition. We could open the same door for the anit-paladin too...Any Cavalier archetype would be inapplicable to the Samurai.Who said anything about a Cavalier archetype? Samurai is an alternate class and not just an archetype. Why couldn't it have its own archetypes as well as those of Cavalier?
I believe I did here something along the lines of alt classes and archetypes in the same sentence.
Any Cavalier archetype would be inapplicable to the Samurai.Who said anything about a Cavalier archetype? Samurai is an alternate class and not just an archetype. Why couldn't it have its own archetypes as well as those of Cavalier?
No mechanically it is an archetype not an alt class. It changes 6 things, that is less then some archetypes we do have and no where near the total rewrite of every single power the sub class we have does. They can call it something else based off the name they gave it, but it is what it is.
No mechanically it is an archetype not an alt class. It changes 6 things, that is less then some archetypes we do have and no where near the total rewrite of every single power the sub class we have does. They can call it something else based off the name they gave it, but it is what it is.Any Cavalier archetype would be inapplicable to the Samurai.Who said anything about a Cavalier archetype? Samurai is an alternate class and not just an archetype. Why couldn't it have its own archetypes as well as those of Cavalier?
Alt class= more overhauled version of a base class more variation than an archetype and used to get some different results so why shouldn't it get an option mount or.....(somthing else.)
|
No mechanically it is an archetype not an alt class. It changes 6 things, that is less then some archetypes we do have and no where near the total rewrite of every single power the sub class we have does. They can call it something else based off the name they gave it, but it is what it is.Any Cavalier archetype would be inapplicable to the Samurai.Who said anything about a Cavalier archetype? Samurai is an alternate class and not just an archetype. Why couldn't it have its own archetypes as well as those of Cavalier?
"The samurai is an alternate class for the cavalier base class."
The last sentence of the Role section, the emphasis is mine. So, regardless of how much of the class has changed, it is labeled by Paizo as such and could probably be treated with archetypes just as a normal class is.
Lets see
Alt class: The one we have changes every single power at every level and the spell list. That is well over 20 changes
The sam here changes 6 or so, which is less then a some in the APG and prob less word count. It isn;t a big change at all , just looks it written up that way is all.
Yeah mechanically it is an archetype.
Lets see
Alt class: The one we have changes every single power at every level and the spell list. That is well over 20 changes
The sam here changes 6 or so, which is less then a some in the APG and prob less word count. It isn;t a big change at all , just looks it written up that way is all.
Yeah mechanically it is an archetype.
But they state its an alt class, therefore according to what you are saying it needs more change. We are simply suggesting another change.
I do not think it needs any. It is a fine archetype. We do need more orders however. Some inspired by other Asian cultures would be cool.
What about a wondering samurai or ronin archetype that replaces the mount and mounted archery? You can take more then one archetype after all.
The anti-paladin doesn't actually change as much as you say. It takes the "positive" aspects and repolerizes them to the negative spectrum. Just like the channel positive and channel negative energy abilities of the cleric (which it got changed). I admit that the mount vs fiend is a bit different, but the changes weren't as big as you made them out to be. They just got a nice big write up.
Umm dude, switching and rewriting the power is a change, sure it is just one side to the other but it is a change. And changing every one his a much larger on then we have here.
As I said, Archetypes in the AGP are bigger changes then we have here.
I do not think it needs any. It is a fine archetype. We do need more orders however. Some inspired by other Asian cultures would be cool.
What about a wondering samurai or ronin archetype that replaces the mount and mounted archery? You can take more then one archetype after all.
First ALTERNATE CLASS, Is it really that hard?
Second Ronin is an order so I highly doubt we would see an archetype for it.
Third, What would a Wondering samurai do? Walk around thinking hmm What would I do in this situation?(I kid, I kid) But a wandering samurai archetype? Could be interesting but it would only replace the mount, and maybe mounted archery. So why bother even making it an archetype when you could just toss it on to the samurai?
Umm dude, switching and rewriting the power is a change, sure it is just one side to the other but it is a change. And changing every one his a much larger on then we have here.
As I said, Archetypes in the AGP are bigger changes then we have here.
They also said that if they were doing the APG today they would have Classified some of the archetypes as alt classes.
It is a matter of perspective only, and we both have ours. The cleric does it in short order, the anti-paladin took a bit more to say "all healing is harming, all bonuses are penalties, all cures inflict the conditions instead, sacred becomes profane". That was seventeen words. Leaves a lot of characters.
But they stated their perspective, which is listed as alt-class. We all are adamant and convinced of our perspective, so I don't think that (as much as I'd like to see it) much more constructive things will come of this.
Archetype, is it really that hard to see? {even James said they are just big archetypes, except they are smaller then archetypes we have, go fig}
The Roinin order is a mess and not a great Idea for an order really. And many archetypes just replace 2 or 3 things.
Those classes you keep bring up have nothing else that are built off of that mount, nothing not a single class feature that builds off of that.
Might be cool to have a few that replace those, foot samuri, pole fighters, ronin, wonding swordsmen. { I know all these had names but do not know them}
|
|
Lets see
Alt class: The one we have changes every single power at every level and the spell list. That is well over 20 changes
The sam here changes 6 or so, which is less then a some in the APG and prob less word count. It isn;t a big change at all , just looks it written up that way is all.
Yeah mechanically it is an archetype.
All alt classes are mechanically archetypes. The difference is that an alt class gets the full writeup where an archetype gets a list of change-outs. Tada.
Actually, I'm pretty sure that's the point of doing the alt class writeup is so that it's easier to apply archetypes to what is already an archetype. This allows you to keep the archetypes related directly to it more in theme with the alt class you're messing with as well as keep the door open for any archetypes from the base class that might also match up.
I'm not sure why it being "mechanically an archetype" means you can't have archetypes for it or why you're rebelling against that concept so much. It's going to be in the book, so they might as well support it. If it was meant to be yet another archetype, it would be written up as one. It's meant to be an alt class and it should be supported as such.