I think that the mount should be optional and that an equally benificial option should be able to be picked. Like how the paladin doesn't have to pick one but can pick to enhance his weapon instead.
I have to agree. I don't even know why a Samurai should have to have a mount. I don't know what to replace it with, but mount or nothing should not be the case.
Like the caviler the samurai were horsemen. Except mounted archers in place or chargers with lances. Which makes it a great fit.
I am unsure why everyone wants to take the mount out of the class that was made to be the mount class. Although I am all for archetypes that does this{You should really look at the hound master} but not as a base option.
I agree that the mount should be optional. While historically, they might have been mounted warriors, but many fantastic samurai didn't care one way or the other about horses, and the class should accommodate those versions, too.
I'd say that instead of "mount", they get a "lordly gift" ability that represents a special gift the samurai's lord bestows upon him.
That can be a mount. But it can also be a special weapon or set of special weapons. Especially as a fan of Legend of the Five Rings, I strongly recommend a "daisho" option (though maybe it pertains not just to katana and wakizashi, but also to the daikyu and the naginata, since those weapons seem to be the official Pathfinder Samurai weapons.)
I see this working in several ways:
I agree that the mount should be optional. While historically, they might have been mounted warriors, but many fantastic samurai didn't care one way or the other about horses, and the class should accommodate those versions, too.
I'd say that instead of "mount", they get a "lordly gift" ability that represents a special gift the samurai's lord bestows upon him.
That can be a mount. But it can also be a special weapon or set of special weapons. Especially as a fan of Legend of the Five Rings, I strongly recommend a "daisho" option (though maybe it pertains not just to katana and wakizashi, but also to the daikyu and the naginata, since those weapons seem to be the official Pathfinder Samurai weapons.)
I see this working in several ways:
Similar to a paladin's sacred bond or the magus's magic weapon pool option.
Give masterwork versions of the favoured weapon (or weapons - maybe they have to choose 2, or maybe they get all 4) for free, let them enhance these weapons as if they had the proper feats, and maybe grant one additional boon. Maybe having an effective caster level equal to samurai level +3, so you can make a better weapon than usual. Or the price for these enhancements is lower. Maybe even allow them to do the old ancestral daisho procedure from OA, where you can make an offering of magic items equal to the price you have to pay for the new enhancements, and let them "awaken" their ancestral weapons through a ritual that only takes 8 hours.
That sounds pretty cool
The only way you should remove the mount is for the Ronin. Samurai were first and foremost cavalrymen. The horses they rode were of particular note as they were more similar to the smaller steppe pony of Mongolia than the large charger of Europe. The Ronin option seems more appropriate to the movie and video game samurai many may be more accustom to seeing and as such a mount could feasibly be subbed for something else.
I will offer up a couple of reference documents later when I am not at work, but I believe Stephen Turnbull is the author of a fine book about the warriors of Japan.
The only way you should remove the mount is for the Ronin. Samurai were first and foremost cavalrymen. The horses they rode were of particular note as they were more similar to the smaller steppe pony of Mongolia than the large charger of Europe. The Ronin option seems more appropriate to the movie and video game samurai many may be more accustom to seeing and as such a mount could feasibly be subbed for something else.
I will offer up a couple of reference documents later when I am not at work, but I believe Stephen Turnbull is the author of a fine book about the warriors of Japan.
I would half to disagree. Since this is supposed to be a historically based samurai it should not be limited to just one era of samurai. The later eras that are more referenced as "warrior poets" dealt less and less with horsemanship and more with their sword schools. Dueling became very prevalent and they took great pride in the heritage and prestige of their schools/teachers. They were still great horseman, but that ceased being the focus for a great many of them.
i can see ronin being very attached to their horse, as it is one of the main symbols that represents their self-status above commoners. it´s also a rather good way to get around when you tend to piss off the local big-wigs. i don´t think the mount needs to be messed with in any sense within the core samurai class.
I throw in my support about making the mount an option. I always liked the wandering samurai motif, walking from town to town righting wrongs and killing bad guys. Other than that I'm very pleased with the rest of the Samurai class.
Now unless you allow the riding of strange monsters than I'll totally be a Seanchan warrior in a heartbeat.
Yeah, I'll add my support for making the mount optional. An heirloom weapon as replacement would be nice, giving the Samurai the option to keep his family blade throughout the game.
Like the caviler the samurai were horsemen. Except mounted archers in place or chargers with lances. Which makes it a great fit.
I am unsure why everyone wants to take the mount out of the class that was made to be the mount class. Although I am all for archetypes that does this{You should really look at the hound master} but not as a base option.
I agree it fits but most people do not like mount cause 25-40% of time you can not use it. It just sits eat your gold share as the PC and alot of time you just can not use it.
The samurai only gets two low level mount related abilities: Mount (level 1) and mounted archer (level 4).Mounted arched is very circumstancial and closely related to the training of the samurai. I wouldn't touch it because it isn't worth much.
Changing Mount to something similar to Paladin's Divine Bond seems ok, but it would need some playtesting.
Because of the only two mount related abilities, It wouldn't even need to be a huge boost, maybe just something minor.
Some people are suggesting an heirloom weapon, I'm not a fan of that, I don't feel they need that.
The biggest thing is that people will wanna play the wandering samurai style character. Having a horse tagging along doesn't fit that all the time.
Because they can only see classes in terms of 10 foot hallway dungeons and want a benie in place of a class feature they'll never see signifcant use of.To be fair, there has been no significant amount mounted combat in any PFS scenario nor AP that I'm aware of.
Any such change to the Samurai should be made to the cavalier, but then it is stated plain and simple that these classes are based on being mounted.
Actually my party very rarely dungeon crawls, not fans of "Hey look another ancient crypt with its own self sustaining eco system, oh and a million traps."
The point is Rangers animal or allies, Paladin mount or weapon boon, Wizard familiar or bonded item, Druid animal or domain. I've convinced myself that cavalier will get an archetype in UC to give them the option, the problem is said archetype will not fit in with the samurai, so why not just throw some option on just so that they can have the same option as all the other classes that get it.
As long as it trades things the samurai has not touched it will stack. As for why not make it default....the class was built to be the mounted class, that whole the whole point of the class. It is like asking, why does not caster have a non spell option.
The class has always screamed Samurai, from the banner to the challenge it was one I pushed for. I also pushed for keeping the mount as I am tired of the super anime warriors and wanted a more historical samurai.
Sure you may not use the mount much, but when you do it does not die in one hit.Replacing the mount would be a fine archetype. But should not be a class option.
I think it would be handled best really as two archetypes, samurai and a ronin. The first as we have now and the second mount less.
Flavor-wise an elite Samurai is always trained to be a horseman, the only samurai that isn't a horseman is one that isn't elite or has fallen in disgrace.
"You say I'm not elite? You insult my honour, I demand a duel. I'll be wielding the tetsubo I'll taken off a dead ogre I killed with my bare hands. You can use one of those children's toys you more cissy samurai insist are proper weapons.
I am Hida Kimura, the Steel Crab. I have crushed more Shadowlands monsters than you have run away from. I stand at the carpenter's wall and holding back the tide of darkness. My armour weighs more than your ridiculous house with all its paper walls, something you can only afford to live in because me and my fellow clansment give our life and even purity every day to defend the Empire from death and corruption. And the only horse that could carry me into battle would be one of those unicorn steeds, and they can keep their foreign ways!"
I am tired of the super anime warriors
Probably not half as tired as I am of condescending jerks that insult everyone with an opinion different than their own.
"They don't agree with my view of the samurai, so they must be anime fanboys". This is pathetic. Bring actual arguments or don't bother to post.
And screw history. Paizo's stance on this is the same. They might get some influence, but they don't let themselves be limited by it.
It doesn't matter at all what you think a samurai must look like, because a lot of people look at it differently, and they're not all fans of anime, no matter what you might want to think just to feel better about yourself. And even if they were, so what?
So bring the options. Make the class fit the image of "super anime warriors". Make the class fit Rokugani samurai. Make it fit as many samurai as possible. And since all this requires is changing one class option or two here, it's very possible.
As long as it trades things the samurai has not touched it will stack. As for why not make it default....the class was built to be the mounted class, that whole the whole point of the class. It is like asking, why does not caster have a non spell option.
Agreed. I feel the mount is mandatory if you base this class off of the Cavalier.
If the mount is to be removed, the Samurai should be based on a different class.
I know next to nothing about Samurai, so I am not for or against a mount.
As long as it trades things the samurai has not touched it will stack. As for why not make it default....the class was built to be the mounted class, that whole the whole point of the class. It is like asking, why does not caster have a non spell option.Agreed. I feel the mount is mandatory if you base this class off of the Cavalier.
If the mount is to be removed, the Samurai should be based on a different class.
I know next to nothing about Samurai, so I am not for or against a mount.
Its not like we don't want the samurai to not have a mount, It should just be an option thing like say The rangers companion bond.
Then you want another class. The caviler is made to be the mounted class. That was the whole point of the class.
Then you want another class. The caviler is made to be the mounted class. That was the whole point of the class.
Yes the cavalier is a mounted class, Samurai Not so much, only one class ability is directly related to mounted combat, so why not give them an option?
Because no archetype does this? They swap powers, which this has done. It is a very solid samurai. You guys are wanting to add powers to the base class.
It is a caviler archetype and like the caviler the samurai was a mounted warrior. This is a historical based class and one that I think they did a fine job on. Mounted archery was the classic Samurai mounted tactic. It is simply part of what they are.
You guys are wanting it to be something it is not and was never intended to be.
You make the same point in two threads and I want to make sure I understand you correctly. It has to do with the definition of alt classes verses archetypes. To my knowledge there is only the anit-paladin as an alt class, and a plethora of archetypes. Where has Paizo defined what makes one something and not something else. To the same extent, they have made the definitions, and catagorized them according to these, that is what I am making my statements based on.
Because no archetype does this? They swap powers, which this has done. It is a very solid samurai. You guys are wanting to add powers to the base class.
It is a caviler archetype and like the caviler the samurai was a mounted warrior. This is a historical based class and one that I think they did a fine job on. Mounted archery was the classic Samurai mounted tactic. It is simply part of what they are.
You guys are wanting it to be something it is not and was never intended to be.
Since when is it an archetype? Its an alt-class, Its using a defining feature of a base class to give a different result, IMO The feature of cavalier they use challenge, and the orders, This class has one mounted ability built in to use the mount, so why should one get stuck with it. Historically samurai didn't have super horses they had normal everyday horses so why do they need a special mount to accomplish this. Why not give them some options instead of pigeon holing it as a mounted class, and saying here have this horse, oh and good luck maneuvering it through all those dungeons, well I guess it can sit in the stable and eat up your precious money.
Because no archetype does this? They swap powers, which this has done. It is a very solid samurai. You guys are wanting to add powers to the base class.
It is a caviler archetype and like the caviler the samurai was a mounted warrior. This is a historical based class and one that I think they did a fine job on. Mounted archery was the classic Samurai mounted tactic. It is simply part of what they are.
You guys are wanting it to be something it is not and was never intended to be.
This is not an archetype but an alternative class. Big difference, as can be seen with the Gunslinger. I think a substitute heirloom weapon for the mount is a good idea.
He thinks that anything Asian automatically = must be better.
No but you and Paizo seem to{see ninja}. I feel they got it right on this one, it works why must it be changed? Because some of you feel like it must be as different from the parent class as you can make it, based off it having an Asian theme.
The samurai is a caviler, so yeah he gets mounted stuff, you want to play an unmounted samurai use the fighter. At it's core they are both mounted classes. They already removed most of the mounted stuff, but unlike the paladin or the ranger who have 1 mounted feature the caviler is built to be the mounted guy.
I happen to like it just how it is, I pushed hard for it to be a caviler archetype and I wanted it to be a more historical mounted samurai not something else.
Which I way I am arguing as I like it as it is and do not want to see it pushed and changed to justify it being called something it is not.
And this is why I should have pushed more vocally for having getting Archetypes on multiple classes! Quite frankly it would been much less painful all around to Archetype Samurai to both Fighter, Cavalier, and possibly Paladin (for the uber-honor-warrior). This would have made it much clearer that different classes can still bring unique takes to the same "flavor" archetype.
He thinks that anything Asian automatically = must be better.
No but you and Paizo seem to{see ninja}. I feel they got it right on this one, it works why must it be changed? Because some of you feel like it must be as different from the parent class as you can make it, based off it having an Asian theme.
The samurai is a caviler, so yeah he gets mounted stuff, you want to play an unmounted samurai use the fighter. At it's core they are both mounted classes. They already removed most of the mounted stuff, but unlike the paladin or the ranger who have 1 mounted feature the caviler is built to be the mounted guy.
I happen to like it just how it is, I pushed hard for it to be a caviler archetype and I wanted it to be a more historical mounted samurai not something else.
Which I way I am arguing as I like it as it is and do not want to see it pushed and changed to justify it being called something it is not.
Why should it matter if it got a choice in abilities like some of the other classes.
It could be Samurai's bond: Pick mount or weapon.
simple and done not a big change to the class. Who cares if the caviler is a mounted class or not because the samurai heavily uses its other abilities.
I think a lot of people are thinking of the samurai who came about after the Tokugawa clan unified Japan in turn clamped down hard on all the daimyo. The samurai mentioned in the Seven Samurai wore no armor also. Should the wandering samurai type be unable to wear armor? Sounds silly doesn't? So why take a warrior group who devoted themselves as much to horseman ship as the knights of Europe and then try to take that aspect away because fantasy did not see fit to include this in some of the stories?
A knight is not always mounted, but this is where they were best from. The same is true of samurai. Lowly people termed, ashigaru, were the foot soldiers,not the samurai. Only the poor samurai would be on foot with the farmer/soldiers. I do not disagree that the popular image of the samurai in his civilian attire and dual swords is cool and very important part of the fantasy world, but the wandering samurai is as much a samurai as is the fighter is a knight.
Watch the movie Heaven and Earth for a better version of the samurai than the one's offered in The Seven Samurai.The Seven Samurai are actually Ronin. I urge you look to history first then fantasy.
|
Flavor-wise an elite Samurai is always trained to be a horseman, the only samurai that isn't a horseman is one that isn't elite or has fallen in disgrace."You say I'm not elite? You insult my honour, I demand a duel. I'll be wielding the tetsubo I'll taken off a dead ogre I killed with my bare hands. You can use one of those children's toys you more cissy samurai insist are proper weapons.
I am Hida Kimura, the Steel Crab. I have crushed more Shadowlands monsters than you have run away from. I stand at the carpenter's wall and holding back the tide of darkness. My armour weighs more than your ridiculous house with all its paper walls, something you can only afford to live in because me and my fellow clansment give our life and even purity every day to defend the Empire from death and corruption. And the only horse that could carry me into battle would be one of those unicorn steeds, and they can keep their foreign ways!"
'I am Yoritomo Yanjiro, the Verdant Sting. I have warred against your folk, as well as beside them. I have seen how the mighty Tetsubo crushes many Katana, the legs of many horses, the heads of many Goblins and Oni.
However, today,I have also feathered you with a half-dozen arrows as you were posturing for the silly man on the historically accurate 'small steppe pony'. I shall pray the Kami bring you swiftly to Paradise, and light an incense for you at the base of your great Wall.'A little fun, backing up your claim that there is more than one way to present a Samurai (And I got to shoot your guy dead as well ;) ).
Anybody wanting full historical realism should have been screaming about a few other things before now, like... Druids, and Inquisitors, not to mention...er, a whole host of minor issues with naming of weapons, damages, how many arrows can be shot in 6 seconds... Ahem.
-Uriel
PS:I like the Crab as well, they were fun to ally with, back when I played L5R (Until 200o or so).
Um... hello, fantasy game. The whole D&D genre isn't based on anything resembling accurate history.
My recommendation is to not get caught up in historical details and instead ask "what is good for gameplay?" Locking (yet another) class/alternate to mounted focus is a mistake.
Um... hello, fantasy game. The whole D&D genre isn't based on anything resembling accurate history.
My recommendation is to not get caught up in historical details and instead ask "what is good for gameplay?" Locking (yet another) class/alternate to mounted focus is a mistake.
Yep. Fixed mounted characters are quite unliked and with good reason. Since this is an alternate class, it should be no problem to give it more options.
Yeah one of my playtesters that ran the samurai said he would want to play one if they didnt have a mount
Yep. Fixed mounted characters are quite unliked and with good reason. Since this is an alternate class, it should be no problem to give it more options.
There are other classes which aren't "mounted classes". I like both the Cavalier and the Samurai becasue they are mount focused. It's opening up a new path for martial characters, making the mount and mounted combat viable (wihtout being a Paladin). I'm not wholly against other options, but the "mount hate" bit is a tad annoying. Doesn't anybody out there run something besides dungeon crawls? I do, and my characters are looking forward to having mounts that don't keel over and die when something looks at them...
Besides, how many people actually dislike the mount (who haven't posted that) vs. those who do? Seen any polls on it? Somebody should shake Kor's tree and see if he's still doing polls :)
*edit* It reminds me of people talking about the Ranger and Druid back in 0E beinf useless because they weren't optimized for a dungeon setting...
I imagine if they include the right action in an upcoming AP / module or two people will be OK with the mount...
Yep. Fixed mounted characters are quite unliked and with good reason. Since this is an alternate class, it should be no problem to give it more options.
There are other classes which aren't "mounted classes". I like both the Cavalier and the Samurai becasue they are mount focused. It's opening up a new path for martial characters, making the mount and mounted combat viable (wihtout being a Paladin). I'm not wholly against other options, but the "mount hate" bit is a tad annoying. Doesn't anybody out there run something besides dungeon crawls? I do, and my characters are looking forward to having mounts that don't keel over and die when something looks at them...
Besides, how many people actually dislike the mount (who haven't posted that) vs. those who do? Seen any polls on it? Somebody should shake Kor's tree and see if he's still doing polls :)
*edit* It reminds me of people talking about the Ranger and Druid back in 0E beinf useless because they weren't optimized for a dungeon setting...
I imagine if they include the right action in an upcoming AP / module or two people will be OK with the mount...
This still isn't giving a reason why all other classes get an option and samurai doesn't. Its justifiable that people should be able to have an option, rather than having the mount and thats final.
Also, don't assume that people just dungeon crawl, do you no how often My groups campaigns go into dungeons, actual dungeons probably once a campaign.
Because mount options are for those classes with a single animal companion feature. The cavalier has many, they took all but two out and if you take them all there is no point in making this an caviler archetype at all.
As the cavalier screams samurai, and the historical mounted samurai was the target, they are spot on where they meant to put it.
I think it should stay how it is. You guys are wanting it to be something it was never meant to be.
Because mount options are for those classes with a single animal companion feature. The cavalier has many, they took all but two out and if you take them all there is no point in making this an caviler archetype at all.
As the cavalier screams samurai, and the historical mounted samurai was the target, they are spot on where they meant to put it.
I think it should stay how it is. You guys are wanting it to be something it was never meant to be.
Challenges? orders? your saying that that isn't truly what samurai is about? because that was my reasoning behind the class being a cavalier archetype. You said it yourself before, The only alternate class we have modifies every ability, and now you are saying the complete opposite.
No, I am saying what I said before. It is good as is and it is kinda silly to keep changing it just so you can call it an alt class.I just do not feel it needs changed into something else when it is pretty good as is.
Um... hello, fantasy game. The whole D&D genre isn't based on anything resembling accurate history.
My recommendation is to not get caught up in historical details and instead ask "what is good for gameplay?" Locking (yet another) class/alternate to mounted focus is a mistake.
Ya I agree this is fantasy and not history so history shouldn't lock everything in.
I don't see why everyone is fighting over offering an option. Whats wrong with having an option built in. People who want the mount and want to play a historical samurai can play one and those who want to play the wandering (horseless) samurai could do that too. Its really just a very small change to the class.
This still isn't giving a reason why all other classes get an option and samurai doesn't. Its justifiable that people should be able to have an option, rather than having the mount and thats final.
Also, don't assume that people just dungeon crawl, do you no how often My groups campaigns go into dungeons, actual dungeons probably once a campaign.
The Cavalier, and by extension the Samurai, are more narrowly focused. They are "niche" classes. Note they aren't a "core class" even though they are a "base class". I think there are other classes that fill the other martiial niches, with the Cavalier / Samurai filling the feudal mounted warrior with an honor code niche. And, out of curiosity, if you're players are hanging around above ground, not dungeon crawling. and they don't like mounts, where the heck are they? Cities? Mountains? Give me some flat ground and a mounted Samurai with his Yumi and I'd be happy...
Ya I agree this is fantasy and not history so history shouldn't lock everything in.I don't see why everyone is fighting over offering an option. Whats wrong with having an option built in. People who want the mount and want to play a historical samurai can play one and those who want to play the wandering (horseless) samurai could do that too. Its really just a very small change to the class.
*shrug* It's a class based on a historical model and popular cultural references. I'm not 100% against a mount alternative for the Samurai, but a Fighter archtype "Bushi" would probably be better for the foot troops...