So say an archetype that replaces the mount with the katana wakishashi style (basically TWF).Niten ici-ryu is quite a special style. I think the ancestral weapon deal should allow for one or more of the "official" samurai weapons (the ones they tote in the class abilities), the rest, I think, can be achieved by feats.
So an archetype that replaces the mount with the ancestral weapon would work?
Apologies, KaeYoss; I was getting Ancestral Weapon and Bonded Weapon mixed up.
No worries.
I don't know anything about the Magus' magic weapon pool option, but I honestly don't mind giving the Samurai the Paladin's Bonded Weapon.
The magus gets a stronger ability. It's a swift action to activate, the magus gets it at level 1, and it goes up to +5, and it's on top of what the weapon already has. And they can, in theory, use it quite often. It's one option for the Arcane Pool (in fact, the first option they get). It costs 1 point from the pool, and they get 1/2 level (min 1) + int mod.
The Ancestral Weapon mechanic though....I wasn't crazy about that to begin with.
It makes a bit more sense in PF, now that there is no XP cost involved at all, and since wizards can get a bonded weapon already, and enhance it. Whether the fast and possibly cheap creation part is OK would have to be debated, of course.
I was talking about a Samurai specific archetype. One that is designed to replace abilities that the samurai has. So say an archetype that replaces the mount with the katana wakishashi style (basically TWF).Im assuming the capstone, plus other cavalier abilities dealing directly with mounted combat would shift aswell and the samurai doesn't have those abilities.how would it replace abilities that the samurai doesn't have?I brought that up some time ago, it was not a well liked idea. Then again, maybe it was because I was he one who said it.And some time ago I replied that this would replace abilities that the samurai doesn't have and would not work.
Sorry, Seeker feels that its just an archetype, I assumed if you said anything implying it wasn't he would just start typing ARCHETYPE until it was changed.
Im all for archetypes for the samurai specifically that would help support it, and really make it its own class. While still recognizable as a cavalier then it has its own options to go with, and im all for options, thats what pathfinder is all about.
To people saying, its based on cavalier so it needs to be mounted, Why cant it be based on cavalier to use the order ability, the challenge ability, and banner. Those abilities ooze samurai. Mount, there is a place for it, but theres also a place for an unmounted samurai, so why not make it optional? I just don't see the position of no, it doesn't deserve to have an option, because the cavalier doesn't or because historically samurai where mounted, Historically they were mount less as well. Its a fairly simple request to add a short little or clause into the power and change it to samurai bond or something.
To people saying, its based on cavalier so it needs to be mounted, Why cant it be based on cavalier to use the order ability, the challenge ability, and banner. Those abilities ooze samurai.
Why cant it have the order ability, the challenge ability, and banner and NOT be a cavalier archetype? The way both sides seem firmly entrenched it might be better to make the Samurai its own class and free it from the idea that it must be mounted as a Cavalier archetype
Mount, there is a place for it, but theres also a place for an unmounted samurai, so why not make it optional? I just don't see the position of no, it doesn't deserve to have an option, because the cavalier doesn't or because historically samurai where mounted, Historically they were mount less as well. Its a fairly simple request to add a short little or clause into the power and change it to samurai bond or something.
I voiced my opinion why in a previous post
Much like the katana and wakizashi are iconic of samurai to the majority of posters here. The mount is iconic of the knight in shining armor that the cavalier is supposed to represent.A samurai could do without it's other staples like the wooden armor, bow, polearms and mount. So long as he has the two swords people KNOW he is supposed to be a Samurai because of those iconic weapons. In the same way, a person can be dressed in rusty chainmail with a splintered shield and a warped lance, the fact that he's on a horse causes people to IMMEDIATELY recognize him as a Knight.
So, at least in my opinion, variant on the cavalier should be mount centric.
I have no problem with giving the samurai the option to choose between a mount or [other, as yet undecided]. As long time fan of Paladins and mounted combat from 3.5 i just feel that any alt class or variant class, whatever you want to call it, should be mount centered.
The samurai in the pdf fits this bill pretty well, but obviously not everyone is as big of a fan of mounted combat as I am and there is plenty of precedent for a mount less samurai. I just ask, that if the samurai is changed to make the mount optional (something I think probably should be done)then it should not be labeled as a Cavalier archetype/variant class/alt class. I'd rather keep that slot open for a pure mounted warrior of some sort like the Mongolian horse archers or Persian/Byzantine Cataphracts
I'd rather keep that slot open for a pure mounted warrior of some sort like the Mongolian horse archers or Persian/Byzantine Cataphracts
So the alt classes have slots now? It's not as if these things were limited. If there is a limit, it's a limit on what people want.
I'd say that Paizo will give us those classes and concepts and whatever that they think will be fun for most of us. They'll want to do them as good and efficient as possible.
I don't think they'll block a popular idea just because it's "another variant using the cavalier base class."
In this case, I think that there is a lot of demand for a samurai, whether it's a completely new class, a variant class, or an archetype. Another mounted anything? Probably not so much.
I'd rather keep that slot open for a pure mounted warrior of some sort like the Mongolian horse archers or Persian/Byzantine CataphractsSo the alt classes have slots now? It's not as if these things were limited. If there is a limit, it's a limit on what people want.
Slots are just something I assumed, they have a Paladin variant, and prospective Fighter, Rogue and Cavalier variants as well. Pattern shows that no class has more than one prospective variant and that's probably not going to change in the near future 'till all or most of the classes have at least one variant.
Yes its an assumption but I don't think its a wild and baseless one, I'm sure Paizo will implement what they think the majority of people will enjoy and it seems clear to me that a majority of people on these forums want the Samurai mount to be optional.
As you've said yourself mounted combat is not very popular and is in fact a turnoff to many players so its not likely to receive much love from Paizo. They'll be trying to make as many people as possible happy and mounted combat fans aren't very many. I predict probably a single obligatory alt class for the Cavalier (other classes are getting them so why not the Cavalier?) before returning to catering to the majority. I'm fine with that, I just want whatever love Paizo chooses to give to Mounted Combat be something good, namely an Alt class whose focus is on a mount.
I'm not even sure why were are arguing. We agree on everything except that I'd prefer not to have the samurai being the one obligatory alt class for cavalier before Paizo forgets about it and goes on to produce classes and variants for more popular themes. That's why I push to have the samurai as a Fighter or Paladin variant instead or be its own base class.
Slots are just something I assumed, they have a Paladin variant, and prospective Fighter, Rogue and Cavalier variants as well. Pattern shows that no class has more than one prospective variant and that's probably not going to change in the near future 'till all or most of the classes have at least one variant.
There's far too little information to get a proper pattern - but human brains are pattern-recognition devices and far too good at their job.
What we actually have is the anti-paladin (something that has been in the game since forever) and are going to get the gunslinger (a firearm-wielding class, something a lot of people were asking for. If you ask me, isn't really a variant fighter, but its own class.), the ninja (incredibly popular shadow warriors that are a lot like rogues but are quite often depicted with supernatural powers) and the samurai (another very popular fantasy icon with a "high-born warrior-poet" theme that fits well to a cavalier - maybe not with the horse, but with the other stuff the class gets.)
The classes they're based on are secondary. The important thing is that people want gunslingers, ninja and samurai, and they're getting them.
From what I've heard, there won't be that many more variants and archetypes - and I can't really think of any mounted warrior that popular and in demand enough to warrant a class variant for it.
it seems clear to me that a majority of people on these forums want the Samurai mount to be optional.
Yes. Besides some people stamping their foot, most of the people are all about options.
Doesn't mean that the rest of the class abilities don't fit the samurai, and that the mount doesn't fit at all.
As you've said: We want it as an option. We don't want it gone, we just want an alternative. And it's not because everyone hates mounted combat. It's because we have far too many inspirations for samurai that aren't known for their horsemanship to have the mount forced down our throat.
As you've said yourself mounted combat is not very popular
I did?
They'll be trying to make as many people as possible happy and mounted combat fans aren't very many. I predict probably a single obligatory alt class for the Cavalier (other classes are getting them so why not the Cavalier?)
Because the alt class isn't obligatory. They're not going to create one alternative for all 18 classes (so far, if you consider the classes from the core rules, the APG, and Ultimate Magic's magus - maybe the gunslinger will be upgraded to full class status and we'll have 19 real actual classes) at all cost just to have a complete set.
And if what you say is true - that mounted characters aren't very popular - the cavalier's chances for one are pretty slim, especially since there are not that many concepts for mounted characters that are popular enough to get a petition going.
And note that even now, the samurai's mount-related abilities are quite slim. They get a mount just like a cavalier, and then they get improved mounted archery ability (and that could as well be turned into a feat).
Also note that nobody is saying that the option should go away. After all, we're for options, not against them. So you'll still have your mounted class. It's just that other people also get what they want.
That's why I push to have the samurai as a Fighter or Paladin variant instead or be its own base class.
Fighter doesn't really fit, since the fighter is all about fighting and doesn't get anything except pure combat. The samurai has other skills. The paladin has magic, something that doesn't fit the usual samurai picture (and, if your logic were correct, the paladin would be out of the picture, since there's already a variant paladin class, the anti-paladin).
While the mount isn't really a focus for the samurai (at least not for most samurai), it's still something that does fit the class. And the other abilities the cavalier gets fit the samurai pretty well. The cavalier isn't just a "fighter on mount". The class has other strengths as well.
So with the probably change of samurai mounts being optional, you'll still have the following options for a mounted warrior:
Alright KaeYoss you've converted me fully :)
Even still though, I think the samurai would be much easier to create as it's own base class. We both agree more options = more better and a popular fix for the samurai I'm seeing is having a particular fighting style be selected at character creation with TWF, THF, polearms, bows, and mounted combat as some of the choices. I kind of favor this option myself but it smacks of the ACFs from the Advanced Players Guide while this was supposed to be an alternate (or variant, not quite sure anymore) class in itself.
Obviously if they do the above "pick a fighting style at character gen" I'd like them to add a bit more on mounted combat than they have currently, particularly with Mounted archery as the Cavalier class cover melee lancers pretty well. In fact I'd like them to do for each of the styles what they did with the cavalier. Sure a fighter can make a competent knight with the right feats but the class features of the cavalier enhance it to make the cavalier a better mounted warrior than any other Pathfinder class to date.
Something similar could be done when people choose fighting styles. After choosing a style you get access to class features to enhance that style and make it more powerful at the appropriate levels. But even the cavalier has to take the mounted combat chain or the abilities mean nothing.
So if a samurai were to choose the TWF style at level 1 they have to get two-weapon fighting, improved version, greater version, etc with normal feat slots. But because they picked TWF style they get class abilities that might say reduce TWF penalties to 0/0 instead of -2/-2 or another feature that allows them to dual wield one handed weapons at -2/-2 and maybe a third that lets allows them to use their strength score in place of dex when qualifying for TWF feats.
Anyway something like that for each style. Also, I'd say the gunslinger seems more like a variant ranger than a variant fighter to me if it wasn't it's own class. I dunno, every time I look at gunslinger I think about the cliche ambush at the canyon pass In Old Westerns. With gunslingers aiming down their Smith & Wesson repeating rifles in a roucky outcropping fighting Injuns and such. It's they way I'd like to play a gunslinger anyway lol
There is exactly one situation in the game where "casting spells" is a class feature which simply doesn't work.
Only one. Like when they are out of spells for the day... or don't know the "right" spell for the situation... or just don't have it memorized... or are in the wrong position / place / situation to use it... or... just one situation? That's a pretty broad situation. I'm sounding a little petulant here, but the idea that there is only one situation in which that ability can't be used is... baffling. Class abilities, even those as central to a character as spells for a caster are not universally useful. Moreso for a class which has multiple more narrowly defined class abilities rather than one central broadly useful pillar. Like the Cavalier or Samurai. My 2 cp.
First of all, I do not have a problem with "options". In this case I'd think a Fighter (or Ranger) with an archtype adopting the challenge mechanic and some other bits (and dumping some fighter abilities / options) would fit the Kurosawa "Seven Samurai" vision of the wondering (unmounted) samurai better than the Samurai class as it exists now. They may choose to do a swap out of mount for "X" with the existing class. I'll live. I just think it could be better done with another method.
All it gets is the mount and one ability for the mount. That's not mount-centric any more than a druid is animal-companion-centric. And they get to replace it.
The only reason people aren't saying the Druid is "animal companion centric" is because it does have the option. Maybe a non-mount option will get some people off their crusade against horses :) Besides, the Samurai may have more mount related abilities in it's final form. Especially given people's complaints that it's not deep enough in mount related abilities. Some people want an option, they may get it or they may get the class more wedded to it's horse. No jokes about beastiality please. I know you were thinking of it KaeYoss. There should be more mount related abilities or feats anyway, related to archery / horse archery and the use of weapons like the Naginata and Nagimaki from horseback. Think of being "clotheslined" by a large blade... nasty. Thinking about it, this could be done with a couple of feats now, but not with the brutal effciency against large numbers of infantry the samurai displayed.
The samurai is a variant, not an archetype. It doesn't need the same focus (after all, if it were the same class with but minor changes, it would not need to be a variant).
See my comments above on this... anything is possible at this point and it could certainly be accomplished in a number of ways.
And since too many sources depict samurai that are on foot, the mount needs to be optional. An ancestral weapons option would make sense since many sources show samurai with swords (and sometimes other weapons) that are handed down from father to son.
The mount could be optional or an archtype could be applied to other classes. Either would work. I prefer an archtype (of another class) over an option for the Samurai class.
Longbow (apparently there won't be a variant bow, though that would make sense) is one of the weapons. Spear is not. Maybe the naginata is supposed to replace it (depending on how they'll stat that up)
The Yari isn't just a longbow, it's an assymetrical bow with the grip being positioned on the lower part of the bow (about a third of the way up from the bottom). It's what allows such a large weapon to be wielded from horseback. The Naginata is a signature Japanese weapon. They couldn't leave it out. Sojutsu / Yarijutsu (the art of the spear) was a major combat art in Japan. Not sure why they left it out. Balance maybe? Or an oversight. Who knows. Well, they do, but not me.
The question is, of course: Why go a mile if you can get there with a yard? Instead of having another archetype (using the much less evocative and popular term "bushi" no less) with the extra work and space required, they just offer an option of mount and weapon (or something else, though ancestral weapon comes to mind most readily) and solve the problem much more efficiently.
To a lot of people "bushi" *is* the evocative term. Samurai is a social class from which the upper tier of Japanese bushi were drawn. I know the term was picked up in the west to refer to a typical Japanese warrior, but it's not overly accurate. I'll admit that it is the more popular term, but I mentioned using "bushi" as a way to differentiate between the mounted upper class Samurai and the lower class foot types. The practitioners of the bujutsu in Japan were a diverse lot and, at different times, the social origins of the warriors varied.
Archtypes don't really seem to take up that much space anyway. Probably not much more than explaining another option for the existing class. And hey, you said "mount AND weapon". Next thing you know you'll have people wanting both :D
Only one. Like when they are out of spells for the day... or don't know the "right" spell for the situation... or just don't have it memorized... or are in the wrong position / place / situation to use it... or... just one situation? That's a pretty broad situation. I'm sounding a little petulant here, but the idea that there is only one situation in which that ability can't be used is... baffling. Class abilities, even those as central to a character as spells for a caster are not universally useful. Moreso for a class which has multiple more narrowly defined class abilities rather than one central broadly useful pillar. Like the Cavalier or Samurai. My 2 cp.
There is exactly one situation in the game where "casting spells" is a class feature which simply doesn't work.
You still can always cast spells, called cantrips. Even if the situation doesn't warrant it. :p
Alright KaeYoss you've converted me fully :)
Great! I'm getting the hang of it. The Speaker in the Depths will be very pleased.
By the way: Can I persuade you to support the ultimate destruction of all reality to return Everything into the state of supreme Chaos and Potential that is the natural state of things?
Even still though, I think the samurai would be much easier to create as it's own base class. We both agree more options = more better and a popular fix for the samurai I'm seeing is having a particular fighting style be selected at character creation with TWF, THF, polearms, bows, and mounted combat as some of the choices. I kind of favor this option myself but it smacks of the ACFs from the Advanced Players Guide while this was supposed to be an alternate (or variant, not quite sure anymore) class in itself.
Personally, I don't care too much one way or another as long as the end result is flexible enough to accommodate all kinds of samurai. And I think the variant class can pull that off. If they can do a new class without too much stress and effort, though, I'd be for that, too.
The only reason people aren't saying the Druid is "animal companion centric" is because it does have the option. Maybe a non-mount option will get some people off their crusade against horses :)
There is no crusade or witch hunt or lynch mob or anything against horses. People just like their choices.
Some people want an option, they may get it or they may get the class more wedded to it's horse. No jokes about beastiality please. I know you were thinking of it KaeYoss.
Pffft. That one's too easy. Jokes about paladins "mounting" their horses and their "bond" have been along for so long that I just don't get XP for making them any more, like a level 20 character killing a goblin commoner 1.
The Yari isn't just a longbow, it's an assymetrical bow with the grip being positioned on the lower part of the bow (about a third of the way up from the bottom). It's what allows such a large weapon to be wielded from horseback. The Naginata is a signature Japanese weapon. They couldn't leave it out. Sojutsu / Yarijutsu (the art of the spear) was a major combat art in Japan. Not sure why they left it out. Balance maybe? Or an oversight. Who knows. Well, they do, but not me.
I know that those japanese bows aren't quite the same as normal. Yari and daikyu and all that. I do know a bit about the stuff (being an expert having played Legend of the Five Rings for a bit ;-))
Still, so far, they've limited samurai weapons to katana, wakizashi, naginata and longbow.
They did give samurai an ability to better shoot from horseback. It seems that they want to do samurai kyodo (the -jutsu suffix is frowned upon, or so I hear) with that rather than making a separate horsebow.
You might want to check out this thread for a suggested homebrew archetype.
Erm, Yari was a spear, not a longbow.
The asymmetrically recurved bow was called a daiyuku (a form of yumi)
Erm, Yari was a spear, not a longbow.
The asymmetrically recurved bow was called a daiyuku (a form of yumi)
Daikyu. Daiyuku is in Taiwan, apparently.
Erm, Yari was a spear, not a longbow.
The asymmetrically recurved bow was called a daiyuku (a form of yumi)
Daikyu. Daiyuku is in Taiwan, apparently.
arabic spelling if a japaneese character, semantics semantics
Edit :maybe its the the town of longbow??
Erm, Yari was a spear, not a longbow.
The asymmetrically recurved bow was called a daiyuku (a form of yumi)
Daikyu. Daiyuku is in Taiwan, apparently.
arabic spelling if a japaneese character, semantics semantics
Edit :maybe its the the town of longbow??
That's a long shot!
Pffft. That one's too easy. Jokes about paladins "mounting" their horses and their "bond" have been along for so long that I just don't get XP for making them any more, like a level 20 character killing a goblin commoner 1.
To be completely pedantic, you'd get 200 XP for that. If I'm reading all the rules right, adding one commoner NPC class level should increase the base creature's CR by two "steps" below 1, which is 1/3. Since a goblin is already 1/3, that should result with a CR of 1/2, or 200 XP, regardless of the level of the killer.
Not that I know exactly what you mean. No, not at all. <Grin>
Pffft. That one's too easy. Jokes about paladins "mounting" their horses and their "bond" have been along for so long that I just don't get XP for making them any more, like a level 20 character killing a goblin commoner 1.To be completely pedantic, you'd get 200 XP for that. If I'm reading all the rules right, adding one commoner NPC class level should increase the base creature's CR by two "steps" below 1, which is 1/3. Since a goblin is already 1/3, that should result with a CR of 1/2, or 200 XP, regardless of the level of the killer.
Not that I know exactly what you mean. No, not at all. <Grin>
To be completely pedantic, a bestiary goblin is a 1st level warrior. A 1st level commoner has the same CR as the bestiary goblin, granting 135 XP.
Erm, Yari was a spear, not a longbow.
The asymmetrically recurved bow was called a daiyuku (a form of yumi)
We were discussing spears, bows, etc. I popped the wrong name in. Sorry if it was confusing, but it was late at night and my mind was wondering. It's not age, Really. Just exhaustion :D
We were discussing spears, bows, etc. I popped the wrong name in. Sorry if it was confusing, but it was late at night and my mind was wondering. It's not age, Really. Just exhaustion :DErm, Yari was a spear, not a longbow.
The asymmetrically recurved bow was called a daiyuku (a form of yumi)
yari, yumi, yummy.... Isnt this why we all just say bastard sword and longbow to begin with?
Pffft. That one's too easy. Jokes about paladins "mounting" their horses and their "bond" have been along for so long that I just don't get XP for making them any more, like a level 20 character killing a goblin commoner 1.To be completely pedantic, you'd get 200 XP for that.
"you should never bother awarding XP for challenges that have a CR of 10 or more lower than the APL"
That's from the PRD.
Personally, I don't care too much one way or another as long as the end result is flexible enough to accommodate all kinds of samurai. And I think the variant class can pull that off. If they can do a new class without too much stress and effort, though, I'd be for that, too.
Maybe something along the lines of what is suggested at the end of the OP in this thread then?
Varieties of Samurai: The best way I can illustrate this is by saying: Watch the Seven Samurai. Not only is it an excellent film, it will give you an idea about the various types of Samurai that made their way into the modern mythos. I would go so far as to argue that, in Pathfinder terms, you could have a different samurai for every primary statistic.
Strength - The rough and tumble bruiser type, commonly seen with a sake bottle.
Dexterity - The iaijutsu wielder who cuts you twice before you know he's there.
Constitution - The samurai who just won't die, guided by a higher purpose.
Intelligence - The brilliant tactician, guiding his warriors to effective victory.
Wisdom - The meditative warrior-monk.
Charisma - The samurai with the ability to unite the lands.I'm effectively pulling all those archtypes off the top of my head. You don't have to go digging very far through media to find an example for all of them. Here are some places to start: Seven Samurai (movie), Way of the Samurai 1-3 (PS2, PS3 video game franchise), Musashi (novel), Samurai Seven (anime adaptation of the aforementioned movie).
It cuts to the question of "What is a Samurai?" The answer: Many things. I actually think the varieties can be adaquately addressed with the various orders which, in hindsight, was a pretty damn good idea on how to tackle this. Again I would probably rename them for the samurai as 'Lords' or 'Dojos' but the idea remains the same. The only question beyond that comes with what constitutes the core of the Samurai, and what can be added later with Order abilities?
I really need to wrap this up, so let me just end on a somewhat personal note. I love the dexterity-based samurai who tears things up with iaijutsu. To that end I present you with this Order:
Order of the Wind
The way of the wind emphasizes courage in the face of oppression, grace, respect, and a reverence to the natural world. Warriors who follow this code are expected to challenge tyrannical figures of authority, act with poise and deference, and not bring undue harm to the world around them. Samurai who follow the order of the wind build a reputation for being polite yet silent drifters who oppose cruelty wherever they go.
Edicts: The samurai must be ready to give his life for the sake of saving personal freedoms, especially to repressed individuals. He must be polite and respectful to all he meets. When passing any shrine dedicated to the natural world, he must stop and pay his respects.
Challenge: Whenever an order of the wind samurai declares a challenge, he receives a +1 dodge bonus to his AC against his challenge target. This AC bonus increases by +1 for every four levels the samurai possesses.
Skills: An order of the wind samurai adds Acrobatics and Stealth to his list of class skills.
Order Abilities: A samurai who belongs to the order of the warrior gains the following abilities as he increases in level.Move Like the Wind (Ex): At 2nd level the samurai learns how to move as graceful as the wind itself. He gains a +20 permanent bonus to his land speed and does not apply his armor check penalty to his stealth or acrobatics checks. In addition, he may use one daily use of resolve under the resolute ability to reroll a reflex save that he just made as an immediate action. He must decide to use this ability before he rolls the saving throw.
Iaijutsu Charge (Ex): At 8th level the samurai is able to make a charge attack that strikes multiple foes as a standard action. Using this action he may move up to twice his move speed in one direction, making a single attack roll that resolves against every foe he threatens along his path. He does not suffer attacks of opportunity for this movement. Roll a single attack roll and apply damage as applicable for every target he hits. Precision and critical hit based damage applies to only one target along the path of the charge, but extra damage from weapon abilities (such as bane, flaming, etc) apply as normal. The samurai can use this ability once per day, plus one additional use per day for every 3 levels beyond 8th.
Bladestorm (Ex): At 15th level the samurai can use his affinity with nature and supernatural speed to create a field of lightning-quick slashes all around him. Using this ability is a full-round action that does not provoke an attack of opportunity. Every creature within 30 feet of the samurai takes damage as if he struck them with his melee weapon (the samurai may not use power attack with this ability, but bonus damage for his challenge target applies as normal). Precision based damage applies as normal if the samurai has it, but since no attack roll is made no critical hit may occur. He may not use any other ability that would garuntee him a critical hit in conjunction with this ability. He may choose to leave a number of creatures up to his dexterity modifier out of this field. This ability can be used as often as the samurai wishes, but using it takes two points of resolve.
...
Personally, I don't care too much one way or another as long as the end result is flexible enough to accommodate all kinds of samurai. And I think the variant class can pull that off. If they can do a new class without too much stress and effort, though, I'd be for that, too.Maybe something along the lines of what is suggested at the end of the OP in this thread then?
** spoiler omitted **
I think the samurai should remain a single class. Sure, samurai was a social caste as much as a specific type of fighter, but it's not as if Pathfinder doesn't have something like this already:
Barbarian
That word can mean so much an yet in Pathfinder rules, it's a specific sort of warrior class.
So you can have barbarians that are actually fighters, druids, rangers, bards etc. because they're more barbarians in the "Nomadic, tribal society" sense of the word. In other cases, you have barbarians (i.e. characters with barbarian levels) that would never refer to themselves as barbarians, and would be offended if you called them that. They consider themselves berserkers or just warriors.
The Samurai is sort of the same:
You will have characters that have the right to call themselves samurai (i.e. be part of the caste) but will actually be fighters or bards or clerics etc. On the other hand, you'll have characters with samurai levels that will call themselves knight or something else.
You can even have samurai barbarians. Both ways. Though the ones that belong to the samurai caste will probably call themselves berserkers, since calling someone barbarian is a grave insult... :)
I thought a little bit of barbarian dip for the ronin would be interesting just to get some rage, maybe some fast move, uncanny dodge etc.
Yea worrying about different types of character classes inside a Samurai caste isnt what its about. You could 'knight' a sorceror too if something like that happened in your campaign, but its campaign specific.
So the way I see it is make the samurai the option of weapon or mount
gives more options options are good. good for everyone. i don't see how giving more options can be bad its like someone said hey EVERYONE gets a choclate chip cookie then some people are like "I don't like chocolate chip cookies I like gingersnaps" well ok some people can have one some people can have the other. Then for some reason someones goes NO WAIT we should all have to have choclate chip DARN IT!
secondly alternate classes for the samurai could cater to diffrent era samurai or the fantasy varietys as well. so give a iajutsu master alternate class, a book of five rings alternate. kensai could even be alternate although id prefer seeing that as a prestige class. so then you could replace whatever abilitys would be apropriate maybe when it comes out i might try and make one myself
really I can see samurai on mount no problem but a special mount that levels up doesn't fit as well for them as a cavelier or paladin, a samurai could easily just get mounts the old fashioned way... you know buying them or training them and if they need stronger go out and find a stronger animal without it even needing to be a class feature. in 1st edition if we wanted a better mount we found a animal like a griffin and broke him in the hard way. giving them a supernatural bond to an animal seems out of place to me but w/e have to give some leeway for a fantasy genre and mechanically it helps to have it.
So the way I see it is make the samurai the option of weapon or mount
gives more options options are good. good for everyone. i don't see how giving more options can be bad its like someone said hey EVERYONE gets a choclate chip cookie then some people are like "I don't like chocolate chip cookies I like gingersnaps" well ok some people can have one some people can have the other. Then for some reason someones goes NO WAIT we should all have to have choclate chip DARN IT!
I think the difference between the classic mounted Samurai and the Ronin wanderer on foot is probably best done with a Cavalier based Samurai and a Fighter based archtype - call it a Bushi or something. You get your choices that way without trying to rebalance / rebuild a class which is centered around the mount.
secondly alternate classes for the samurai could cater to diffrent era samurai or the fantasy varietys as well. so give a iajutsu master alternate class, a book of five rings alternate. kensai could even be alternate although id prefer seeing that as a prestige class. so then you could replace whatever abilitys would be apropriate maybe when it comes out i might try and make one myselfreally I can see samurai on mount no problem but a special mount that levels up doesn't fit as well for them as a cavelier or paladin, a samurai could easily just get mounts the old fashioned way... you know buying them or training them and if they need stronger go out and find a stronger animal without it even needing to be a class feature. in 1st edition if we wanted a better mount we found a animal like a griffin and broke him in the hard way. giving them a supernatural bond to an animal seems out of place to me but w/e have to give some leeway for a fantasy genre and mechanically it helps to have it.
Really, the only reason you get Samurai wandering around on foot as Ronin is simple -- they were too poor to keep the horse without the support of the feudal system they had lost their connection with. They fulfilled the same spot as the western Knight and trained for mounted warfare as religiously as their western counterparts. It wasn't a matter of choice. Mounted combat was the classic Samurai bit. They trained for it, hoped for it, wanted it. There was a lot of bitterness about the status and privileges they lost. They (Ronin) resented the Samurai who still had it and the Samurai looked down on the masterless warriors (and maybe envied them a bit). A complex and potentially violent relationship.
sooo your saying in order to become a ronin a samurai must loss his mount class feature.
and if not the other thought would be why would he get a free mount then if a samurai had to have money to buy a mount then why have the class be designed to give him one for free. make the blighter buy one then hey look bam guy has a horse.
thirdly i don't need my DND of PF in this case to be historically accurate cause we all know back then wizards fought t-rexs on a daily basis and theres all those fossils of orcs and dwarfs...
sooo your saying in order to become a ronin a samurai must loss his mount class feature.
and if not the other thought would be why would he get a free mount then if a samurai had to have money to buy a mount then why have the class be designed to give him one for free. make the blighter buy one then hey look bam guy has a horse.
thirdly i don't need my DND of PF in this case to be historically accurate cause we all know back then wizards fought t-rexs on a daily basis and theres all those fossils of orcs and dwarfs...
No. You wanted a choice of features, mount or weapon wasn't it? I suggested one way to deal with it. I'm fine with the current mount based Samurai myself.
Anyway, the first generation of Ronin would be Samurai without the mount itself (but not without the feature). Not much fun there. The right to bear the Daisho was passed down though, but without the economic basis for horses the mounted training would not have been continued. In periods of peace the neccesity of mounted combat was reduced as well. Maybe more emphasis on the sword / dismounted combat then.
Sorry if connecting a historically based class to history bothers you... well, no I'm not sorry actually. The "it's fantasy" bit is as overused as the "realism" bit. What side you come down on depends on individual preference.
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.
What is this hound master you speak of?
I personally would like to drop mount from my calv, as ultimately it gives me a negative to my cohort and I'm only taking 5 or so levels of calv. Not really worth it if I can't level it up. (Oddly in a class that requires that I have mounted combat as a pre-req.)
I'd be better off just buying a new horse every time My current one died.
im not opposed to samurai having a mount i think that fits with the classic.
i don't see how having a special bond mount that progresses as you do fits but its something you do mechanically to make things work i suspose.
your idea of making the fighter be the alternate samurai isn't bad its just the resolve ability + challenge+ order and to a lesser extent banner all fit really well so it seems like if your going to give those to a fighter it would be simplier just to change the one mount ability+ mounted archer (which btw is the only two mount related abilitys i can find for the class) for the variant. This would be done to get the mythological samurai more so.
besides a class doesn't need the mount class feature to ride a mount theres a ton of mounted feats that can make you a mounted combatant and you can get mounts from elsewhere.
i realize the samurai is a variant of the cav and i always thought that fits even their (idealistic but not necesarily as storngly followed as portrayed) morale code where somewhat similar. i think the big difference is every cav lived on horseback did everything from the back of a steed there formal challenges where on horseback etc. but for samurai in big wars horseback was great but for 1 on 1 formal you hear more about 2 men faceing each other on foot. im sure there were fair amount that would do this on horseback as well. never the less the option of playing one without a animal companion mount would be nice you could still have a mount just buy one. i see the animal companion mount being like the lone rangers horse comes when whistled and all that stuff but to say every single samurai have a horse like that doesn't seem "historically accurate"
really they should probably be mounted archers more then anything and that is thought of in the class. The class as is is very representational of the MYTHOLOGICAL samurai with some realism thrown in as well. so ill give you guys that.
so expalin to me why changing the mounted part in a variant would be harder then to just grab a diffrent class (like figther) and make it a variant by giving it all those abiltys above^^^.
im not opposed to samurai having a mount i think that fits with the classic. i don't see how having a special bond mount that progresses as you do fits but its something you do mechanically to make things work i suspose. your idea of making the fighter be the alternate samurai isn't bad its just the resolve ability + challenge+ order and to a lesser extent banner all fit really well so it seems like if your going to give those to a fighter it would be simplier just to change the one mount ability+ mounted archer (which btw is the only two mount related abilitys i can find for the class) for the variant. This would be done to get the mythological samurai more so.
Hmmm... grading papers so I'm going to reply to your post over several posts. The Cavalier and Samurai are built around the mount. It isn't just the abilities of the Samurai that are at stake -- the mount goes up in hit dice, BAB, AC, saves, ability scores, skills, tricks, feats, and special abilities of it's own. In short, it's more than just another horse / mount. Look at the Druid Animal Companion chart and material on page 52 in the Core book. You're mount will outclass any ordinary, and most fantastic, animal by midlevels and up. I'll get back to you on other points as my grade stack allows :)
see thats kind of one of my points though why would a samurai's mounts increase in HD and etc. I mean a 20hd horse is SCARY but doesn't make much since to me. I can see it for the paladin as i've heard it refferred to as a Celestial charger magic is defenetly involved there. and it only makes since to me that a cavvy who is the most mount centric class of them all should have one as well. althought I would of preferred it to be more of a secrue and train a better mount type like oh my horse died cause well it doesn't have the hp to stick with me so Ill grab a griffon next time, but i don't put it past a cavelier to train their horse to be stronger. the bond would have to be a mystical nature in itself otherwise.
So i suspose its just as justified for a samurai to have that as a cavelier since they both where heavy mounted combatants. But i don't think every single samurai should have a Truly exceptional uber horse.
Im not saying they should have the 3rd Daisho (aka starting out with MW katanna etc.) I kind of liked the ancestral spirit method like the paladins option. Say my ancestors blessings can manifest in a weapon or mount (or maybe even in some other way) internally perhaps (stat boost or something) or what have you. i don't think that every samurai not having a mount takes away from the traditional samurai. after all they can still be mounted just they won't have UBER STEED, but if their ancestors took form in a INT and loyal horse then hey works for me. but id like to see other ways as well.
so with your idea you would replace the mount class feature in an archtype with bushi like abilitys to represent the non mount samurai? i do kind of like that idea. you could cater top alot of people that way. hmm i wonder if kensei could be done that way or if its best left to be done as a prC that way multiple classes could take it.
see thats kind of one of my points though why would a samurais mounts increase in HD and etc. i mean a 20hd horse is SCARY but doesn't make much since to me. i can see it for the paladin as ive heard it refferred to Celestial steed magic is defenetly involved there. and it only makes since to me that a cavvy who is the most mount centric class of them all. althought i would of preferred it to be more of a secrue and train a better mount type like oh my horse died cause well it doesn't have the hp to stick with me so ill grab a griffon next time. but i don't put it past a cavelier to train their horse to be stronger. the bond would have to be a mystical nature in itself.
So i suspose its just as justified for a samurai to have that as a cavelier since they both where heavy mounted combatants. But i don't think every single samurai should have a Truly exceptional uber horse.
im not saying they should have the 3rd Daisho (aka starting out wiht MW) i kind of liked the ancestral spirit method like the paladins option. say my ancestors blessings cna manifest is in weapon or mount (or maybe even in some other way) internally perhaps (stat boost or something) or what have you. i don't think that every samurai not having a mount takes away form the traditional samurai. after all they can still be mounted just they won't have UBER STEED, but if their ancestors took form in a INT and loyal horse then hey works for me. but id like to see other ways as well.
Think of it as more of a recognition of the real world lethality of a trained war horse. The western knight and the Japanese Samurai were incredibly lethal combatants. They were highly trained and skilled killers... and the first tactical goal of thier opponents generally was to seperate them from their horses, who were every bit as dangerous as the men on them. The whole knight / Samurai on horseback as the master of the battlefield schtick never really worked in D&D because of the relative fragility of the horse. One good whack and the horse was down and the knight / Samurai was just another infantryman. Not exactly the dominant master of the battlefield. The crunch of the class works to justify the historic and fictional fluff of mounted chivalric might. The mount gains experience and the partnership between the master and the mount grows with time, making them a more lethal combination. In short, the Cavalier / Samurai classes bring the mounted warrior into line with his historical counterpart for the first time in the game. Makes some of us a little giddy :D
For me, there is a different... feel to the wandering weapons master travelling on foot accross the country to test his skill / make a living / find his new place in society (or reclaim his old one). Hence my suggestion of a fighter based archtype (Bushi) to take up that mantle. The feat rich fighter seems like a better base for this idea. Trim a few things out, give them the challenge ability (and / or an ancestral weapon bit) and presto, Ronin / Bushi. The Banner bit is a feudal / reputation based thing more in line with Samurai with intact feudal ties (imo).
*edit* Yeah, I think you caught it in that last part of your post. I didn't see it when I started my reply (an edit?).
I think i understand what your saying now. In previous additions i found myself armoring my steed (magic barding for the win) or getting a bigger horse (heh elephants are fun). but adding to the survivabilty of the horse to make the idea of the knight work logical.
I still wanna lean to the samurai for the "bushi" idea honestly resolve, and challenge, are such large parts of the samurai and there what i think of when i think of the wanderers as well as the samurai in oyuri armor with banners and bows. The order abilitys as well but maybe diffrent orders well even some of the excisting ones would work still.
lets say i want a iajutsu master
they tended to be unarmorerd and relied on the quick draw (kind of like cowboys in old west with there pistols who drew first won) say we replaced armor profs etc. with the monk unarmored abilitys, we would (in this case) want to drop the mounted combat for abilitys fitting maybe grab a few of the ideas form OA for them 1 strike 2 cuts strike without thought etc. and then i think with the challenge resolve etc. you would have them down with minimal alterations.
i think that would work better then giving the fighter a bunch of abilitys and maybe even be able to portray diffrent oriental figures with minimal effort. now i could see a bushi being just a fighter in fact i think in OA thats what they were essentially.
(yeah last minute edit i noticed grammar mistakes and that bothered me and then i thought about your post and added that last part)
so ill give you credit i think you kind of changed my mind about the whole mounted samurai however i would still like other options with archtypes that replaced the mount.
you know only thing is i never really had that hard of a time with mount survivability. things like mounted combat to ride check negate a hit. the ride by attack to keep me from ever being in full attack area and avoiding attacks all together (readied action polearms suck but those are suspose to take down mounted characters). and ofcourse the fact that a lance is gonna kill you in the face alot when it hits you. i would think it would be even easier to keep your mount alive with a samurai who is basically an archer so shoot and run. i suspose you have to worry about other archers and i guess the problems occurs at high levels? another archer anihilating your steed no problem perhaps? mages i could see being a problem fireball sure your ok but now your hoofin it.
I agree. Please make the mount an option and the other option a "ancestral daisho" ability (that works for TWO weapons, like in the OA book).
Then all is fine.
Now to see if Paizo heeds our calls and does the right thing :D
you know only thing is i never really had that hard of a time with mount survivability. things like mounted combat to ride check negate a hit. the ride by attack to keep me from ever being in full attack area and avoiding attacks all together (readied action polearms suck but those are suspose to take down mounted characters). and ofcourse the fact that a lance is gonna kill you in the face alot when it hits you. i would think it would be even easier to keep your mount alive with a samurai who is basically an archer so shoot and run. i suspose you have to worry about other archers and i guess the problems occurs at high levels? another archer anihilating your steed no problem perhaps? mages i could see being a problem fireball sure your ok but now your hoofin it.
I think you're hitting the problem at the end there. You spent your time trying to hide your horse from harm rather than fighting at your full ability. And, yeah, magic... essentially mounted charcaters were mounted infantry. You rode to the fight, dismounted voluntarily or otherwise (dead horse) and fought on foot for the rest of the battle. Now you can ride into a fight... and fight. The horse is a bonus, not a fragile liability. The warhorse was a feared "weapon", historically and in the chivalric tales that help form the image of the mounted warrior in our minds.
you know only thing is i never really had that hard of a time with mount survivability. things like mounted combat to ride check negate a hit. the ride by attack to keep me from ever being in full attack area and avoiding attacks all together (readied action polearms suck but those are suspose to take down mounted characters). and ofcourse the fact that a lance is gonna kill you in the face alot when it hits you. i would think it would be even easier to keep your mount alive with a samurai who is basically an archer so shoot and run. i suspose you have to worry about other archers and i guess the problems occurs at high levels? another archer anihilating your steed no problem perhaps? mages i could see being a problem fireball sure your ok but now your hoofin it.I think you're hitting the problem at the end there. You spent your time trying to hide your horse from harm rather than fighting at your full ability. And, yeah, magic... essentially mounted charcaters were mounted infantry. You rode to the fight, dismounted voluntarily or otherwise (dead horse) and fought on foot for the rest of the battle. Now you can ride into a fight... and fight. The horse is a bonus, not a fragile liability. The warhorse was a feared "weapon", historically and in the chivalric tales that help form the image of the mounted warrior in our minds.
Cept when you get into a dungeon.
Anyways.. I wish they would make an unmounted option for both sams and calvs. I like the palidin-esc attitude of the class but would like to be able to do battle on foot.
yeah i think a non mounted alternate class would work well for samurai like the drunken monk (well ok not a drunken samurai thats just weird) but seems harder to seperate the horse from the cavelier since a good portion of it is mounted but the houndmaster concept handled it well could be some cool archtypes (or whatever the kids are callin em these days)
Cept when you get into a dungeon.Anyways.. I wish they would make an unmounted option for both sams and calvs. I like the palidin-esc attitude of the class but would like to be able to do battle on foot.
I didn't know they were nailed to the saddle. You get off the bloody horse and fight.
Any number of classes have one or more abilities that are not useful 100% of the time. Many other classes have abilities that are situational. What's new about class abilities that are not universally used / useful?
I remember the discussions of this over the Cavalier. Paizo, or others, may create archtypes of these classes that don't involve the mount, but if you're cutting the central feature out of the class, why not just start with a different "chasis". like the Fighter?
yeah i kind of agree cavelier = mounted combatant no question there and they seem to be useing the orders as a way of customizeing them similar to the sorcerer how there useing bloodlines to make the class feel more uniqute to each player. i don't see a problem with a cavelier ever so often getting off his horse and fitting into a dungeon. ive seen players get real creative with getting those horses into tight spaces to. you wanna see limited dungeon crawlin i played a giant (fortunatly the dm didn't make me always stay outside and watch the hoses) giving large scale dungeons or outside dungeons or my favorite leading some monsters outside to be very very surprised. I suspose it would be a good ideal to ask yoru dm if its going to be a game of the ONE BIG DUNGEON CRAWL.
i think what your talking about is the knight (which i always thought was the same thing as a cavvy for the most part) they mounted up and jousted too. i have a harder time seeing the cavvy without mount then the samurai i blame the mass media. but seems like a cav without the mount would be the fighter.
i still say diffrent archtypes for the samurai that replace the mount however.
yeah i kind of agree cavelier = mounted combatant no question there and they seem to be useing the orders as a way of customizeing them similar to the sorcerer how there useing bloodlines to make the class feel more uniqute to each player. i don't see a problem with a cavelier ever so often getting off his horse and fitting into a dungeon. ive seen players get real creative with getting those horses into tight spaces to. you wanna see limited dungeon crawlin i played a giant (fortunatly the dm didn't make me always stay outside and watch the hoses) giving large scale dungeons or outside dungeons or my favorite leading some monsters outside to be very very surprised. I suspose it would be a good ideal to ask yoru dm if its going to be a game of the ONE BIG DUNGEON CRAWL.
i think what your talking about is the knight (which i always thought was the same thing as a cavvy for the most part) they mounted up and jousted too. i have a harder time seeing the cavvy without mount then the samurai i blame the mass media. but seems like a cav without the mount would be the fighter.i still say diffrent archtypes for the samurai that replace the mount however.
I can see wanting different types of warriors in an Asian themed setting - no doubt about it. I just think more than one class can be used. We have the Fighter, Ranger, Barbarian, Cavalier, and Paladin representing western warriors. I could see Asian themed archtypes/versions of any of these, and more beside. I just don't see using one basic class (the Cavalier/Samurai) for so many different possible themes.
Cept when you get into a dungeon.Anyways.. I wish they would make an unmounted option for both sams and calvs. I like the palidin-esc attitude of the class but would like to be able to do battle on foot.
I didn't know they were nailed to the saddle. You get off the bloody horse and fight.
Any number of classes have one or more abilities that are not useful 100% of the time. Many other classes have abilities that are situational. What's new about class abilities that are not universally used / useful?
I remember the discussions of this over the Cavalier. Paizo, or others, may create archtypes of these classes that don't involve the mount, but if you're cutting the central feature out of the class, why not just start with a different "chasis". like the Fighter?
Fighters do not get challenge, order abilities, Banner, or tactician abilities.
Paladin can now form his bond with his weapon, armor, or holy symbol. Not just a mount.
That's what an archtype is for. If I can replace mount, and the charge skills with something usable on foot, I'll be happy. For it increases my leadership score for my cohort.
And no, nothing is "new" it just would be nice as a Sam or Cav, to be able to replace mount with something that is a bit more useful, especially when you are multiclassing into things like battle herald and thus do not get to increase the level of your mount.
yeah i agree with the fighter bushi idea, barbarians can cover mongels (really they already have that archtype with the monted barbarian one)
i think someone made a ranger yojimbo archtype class on another thread. for guys that challenge and have an order hey man go cavvys.
i don't know about asain paladins though... hmm samurai is kind of like asain pallys strong order and convictions although not as good. hmm im sure theyll probably have a ton of archtypes for all of them can't wait for the book
Fighters do not get challenge, order abilities, Banner, or tactician abilities.Paladin can now form his bond with his weapon, armor, or holy symbol. Not just a mount.
That's what an archtype is for. If I can replace mount, and the charge skills with something usable on foot, I'll be happy. For it increases my leadership score for my cohort.
And no, nothing is "new" it just would be nice as a Sam or Cav, to be able to replace mount with something that is a bit more useful, especially when you are multiclassing into things like battle herald and thus do not get to increase the level of your mount.
So, to put this in perspective, you want all of the Samurai's other abilities (all except mount and charge) and something you consider "more useful" in the place of those abilities. I'm not sure exactly what you want for a "heirloom weapon" (or whatever) so it's hard to say if it's "more useful" or not. I gather you wouldn't be losing anything by multi-classing either given your comment on the mount. Other than your capstone ability I guess. I'd say if you want something you should give something equal up. So, what's on the chopping block besides things you don't find useful? :D
yeah i agree with the fighter bushi idea, barbarians can cover mongels (really they already have that archtype with the monted barbarian one)
i think someone made a ranger yojimbo archtype class on another thread. for guys that challenge and have an order hey man go cavvys.
i don't know about asain paladins though... hmm samurai is kind of like asain pallys strong order and convictions although not as good. hmm im sure theyll probably have a ton of archtypes for all of them can't wait for the book
It's going to be interesting to see where they take this. Reminds me of the Dark Ages when I picked up the original AD&D Oriental Adventures.