lol yeah martial arts where so op you know you can still see elements of that book that have made it through to today
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.
Ever watch the Seven Samurai? Samurai started as horsemen, but many samurai - particularly the ones that specialised in the sword - fought on foot. Not saying horses were not always important, but a mount as a class feature is not always essential for the samurai.
Ever watch the Seven Samurai? Samurai started as horsemen, but many samurai - particularly the ones that specialised in the sword - fought on foot. Not saying horses were not always important, but a mount as a class feature is not always essential for the samurai.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.
Those were ronin. Samurai who, for one reason or another, had lost their feudal ties and so were unable to support a horse. Being on foot wasn't a choice they made it was a circumstance forced on them.
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
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.
Actually, no, thats not in perspective.
I'm actually a calv (sam is still part of calv.) who wants to remove mount for something "more useful". This is something that should be globally more useful for both of them.
Check out druid.
They can sacrifice natures bond giving them an animal companion for a domain instead. This is something that is more useful for a player who might want to MC and not worry about a pet.
Then you have Rangers..
They can use hunters bond for the party instead of gaining a pet. There is also a few axe-like choices they can make such as picking up the Guide Archtype.
Even the paladin has some things to not have a pet, and "bond" with his weapon, holy symbol or armor.
Its the difference between gaining the ability to summoner monster 1 (and then suffer penalties if the monster dies) and gaining the ability to cast magic weapon.
Being able to cast magic weapon would be infinity more useful than a mount you never use.
And no, I would be losing things by MCing even if mount, and mounted based abilities were removed and replaced with something more useful for non-mounted non-companion based.
Actually I watched samurai seven. They never rode on horses. They just carved gundam like mechas in half with various weapons. They did fly a skyship for a little while, but based on the fact they crashed quickly afterwards I don't think their lack of skyship mounts had anything to due with their broken feudal ties.
Ever watch the Seven Samurai? Samurai started as horsemen, but many samurai - particularly the ones that specialised in the sword - fought on foot. Not saying horses were not always important, but a mount as a class feature is not always essential for the samurai.Those were ronin. Samurai who, for one reason or another, had lost their feudal ties and so were unable to support a horse. Being on foot wasn't a choice they made it was a circumstance forced on them.
I think one was a yamabushi, but let's face it most adventurers would actually be ronin if you want to be strict in your interpretations, so the parallel still applies.
For PC samurai, horses are not necessarily a staple, so why force them to have one?
Heck I know I would take order of the ronin myself..
My Calv right now is order of the cockatrice, which basically has no ties to any lord or anything like that. Its all about making myself better.
Actually, no, thats not in perspective.
I'm actually a calv (sam is still part of calv.) who wants to remove mount for something "more useful". This is something that should be globally more useful for both of them.
Check out druid.
They can sacrifice natures bond giving them an animal companion for a domain instead. This is something that is more useful for a player who might want to MC and not worry about a pet.
Then you have Rangers..
They can use hunters bond for the party instead of gaining a pet. There is also a few axe-like choices they can make such as picking up the Guide Archtype.
Even the paladin has some things to not have a pet, and "bond" with his weapon, holy symbol or armor.
Its the difference between gaining the ability to...
I understand what you're saying. But, the Cavalier (and by extension the Samurai alternate class) are not "core classes" like the other classes that have alternate choices to major abilities. They are more narrowly construed. They are "base classes". While an archtype that removes a major ability and subs another is doable, I suspect your more likely to get archtypes of other (core) classes to fulfill roles that don't relate closely to the original purpose of the base class (Cavalier / Samurai). Simply put, a Paladin is still a holy warrior (his intended role) with or without the mount / bonded item. A cavalier / Samurai is not a mounted warrior (their intended role) without the mount. A lot of people have asked about swapping out the mount ability on the Samurai (and Cavalier) for something else (typically for some form of bonded / heirloom weapon). It will be interesting to see what they do with it.
I think one was a yamabushi, but let's face it most adventurers would actually be ronin if you want to be strict in your interpretations, so the parallel still applies.For PC samurai, horses are not necessarily a staple, so why force them to have one?
You're right, most adventurers would. And if I was an evil DM I'd just say "suck it down, you can't afford a horse" with an evil grin. As it is, if they started out as regular Samurai, lost their lord at some point, ended up broke and could't afford a horses upkeep this would be tough. Adventurers are supposed to do difficult things aren't they? It's not like they can't fight on foot. It's not like they could't defend the village against the bandits in "The Seven Samurai" any more than the Gunslingers could't have in "The Magnificent Seven". So, anyway, what happens if they lose their "heirloom" weapon? They find another? They adventure to recover it? If it's just a "bonded" weapon they can probably bond with another at some point. Would't they be without a vital ability for awhile? You can train another mount when your fortunes get better too.
I understand what you're saying. But, the Cavalier (and by extension the Samurai alternate class) are not "core classes" like the other classes that have alternate choices to major abilities. They are more narrowly construed. They are "base classes". While an archtype that removes a major ability and subs another is doable, I suspect your more likely to get archtypes of other (core) classes to fulfill roles that don't relate closely to the original purpose of the base class (Cavalier / Samurai). Simply put, a Paladin is still a holy warrior (his intended role) with or without the mount / bonded item. A cavalier / Samurai is not a mounted warrior (their intended role) without the mount. A lot of people have asked about swapping out the mount ability on the Samurai (and Cavalier) for something else (typically for some form of bonded / heirloom weapon). It will be interesting to see what they do with it.Actually, no, thats not in perspective.
I'm actually a calv (sam is still part of calv.) who wants to remove mount for something "more useful". This is something that should be globally more useful for both of them.
Check out druid.
They can sacrifice natures bond giving them an animal companion for a domain instead. This is something that is more useful for a player who might want to MC and not worry about a pet.
Then you have Rangers..
They can use hunters bond for the party instead of gaining a pet. There is also a few axe-like choices they can make such as picking up the Guide Archtype.
Even the paladin has some things to not have a pet, and "bond" with his weapon, holy symbol or armor.
Its the difference between gaining the ability to...
Just because they weren't lucky enough to be released in the first book doesn't mean anything, other than they weren't released in the first book. If support for classes is subserviently denied on the premise that it isn't core, we will end up with WoTC classes that appear in one book and are never discussed again.
Their role is not simply limited to the assumption that because historically a Cav/Sam tended to be on a mount that they are only mounted warriors.
The Cav especially fills in a Leadership role. This is further enforced with the PrC Battle Herald, a Prc that combines Cav and Bard together for an utmost leader.
The Sam to a lesser extend is also under this same clause, but their second half is far more scattered. Ultimately though it is focused on being capable of fighting a challenged opponent in a "duel."
Sam actually even has less of a mounted combat than the cav. Only gaining a mount/mounted archery. The fighter archtype "Rogue Rider" is more mounted combat than the sam is. The sam is actually all about the challange and then being a master with his weapon.
You're right, most adventurers would. And if I was an evil DM I'd just say "suck it down, you can't afford a horse" with an evil grin. As it is, if they started out as regular Samurai, lost their lord at some point, ended up broke and could't afford a horses upkeep this would be tough. Adventurers are supposed to do difficult things aren't they? It's not like they can't fight on foot. It's not like they could't defend the village against the bandits in "The Seven Samurai" any more than the Gunslingers could't have in "The Magnificent Seven". So, anyway, what happens if they lose their "heirloom" weapon? They find another? They adventure to recover it? If it's just a "bonded" weapon they can probably bond with another at some point. Would't they be without a vital ability for awhile? You can train another mount when your fortunes get better too.
Actually even if you trained the horse, you wouldn't be fully bonded with it until you gained another level, of presumably, samurai/cav.
For the heirloom weapon-Yes they could adventure to find it or possibly even repair it again. Sure, if they loose it that sucks. But trying to use a level 5 horse to fight a level 20 dragon.. :/
Just because they weren't lucky enough to be released in the first book doesn't mean anything, other than they weren't released in the first book. If support for classes is subserviently denied on the premise that it isn't core, we will end up with WoTC classes that appear in one book and are never discussed again.
According to Paizo, it does mean something. They discussed the difference between "Core" and "Base" classes. Core are intended to be broadly useful and used in pretty much every game. Base classes that are not "core" are more specialized and limited in usage. My paraphrase on that, but I'm sure others here could confirm that. If I have the time to search / locate it, I will.
Their role is not simply limited to the assumption that because historically a Cav/Sam tended to be on a mount that they are only mounted warriors.
Well, actually, that is their role. If it was a simple matter they would have used an archtype of Fighter imo.
The Cav especially fills in a Leadership role. This is further enforced with the PrC Battle Herald, a Prc that combines Cav and Bard together for an utmost leader.The Sam to a lesser extend is also under this same clause, but their second half is far more scattered. Ultimately though it is focused on being capable of fighting a challenged opponent in a "duel."
Sam actually even has less of a mounted combat than the cav. Only gaining a mount/mounted archery. The fighter archtype "Rogue Rider" is more mounted combat than the sam is. The sam is actually all about the challange and then being a master with his weapon.
The social elite in a leadership role. No surprise there, is it? Anybody can be a leader though, whatever the class / prestige class. And he can't be a "master" of his weapon because? He doesn't have an heirloom / bonded weapon, he has a mount? OK. He can take feats like anybody else I suspect.
I suspect the disconnect between us has to do with the types of games we play / run. I run a long term sandbox campaign. Player characters do any number of things over the course of years. They aren't "specialized" for a specific AP and do not expect every ability to be useful at once / all the time. I've had Paladins "defrocked" and go for several levels before finding redemption (and had one who chose not to). I've had players adventure in settings for which their characters weren't optimal (in the old days Druids in a dungeon or city were a joke as were theives in the wilderness), because they wanted to, had to, or just went with their friends. Characters live in a sandbox, not just do the adventure in front of them. I may be wrong of course, you may consider a weapon to be more useful in all circumstances but that's a matter of opinion. Anyway, I thought I'd run this idea out there and see.
You're right, most adventurers would. And if I was an evil DM I'd just say "suck it down, you can't afford a horse" with an evil grin. As it is, if they started out as regular Samurai, lost their lord at some point, ended up broke and could't afford a horses upkeep this would be tough. Adventurers are supposed to do difficult things aren't they? It's not like they can't fight on foot. It's not like they could't defend the village against the bandits in "The Seven Samurai" any more than the Gunslingers could't have in "The Magnificent Seven". So, anyway, what happens if they lose their "heirloom" weapon? They find another? They adventure to recover it? If it's just a "bonded" weapon they can probably bond with another at some point. Would't they be without a vital ability for awhile? You can train another mount when your fortunes get better too.
Who said it had to be a bonded weapon? Although that makes some sense, it needn't be. All I am saying is there should be an alternative to the mount - not what it should be, at this stage.
Who said it had to be a bonded weapon? Although that makes some sense, it needn't be. All I am saying is there should be an alternative to the mount - not what it should be, at this stage.
Sorry, most people who want an alternative talked up a bonded / heirloom weapon. I must have mentally, and lazily, tossed you into that group. So, what type of alternative(s) are you thinking of?
Just because they weren't lucky enough to be released in the first book doesn't mean anything, other than they weren't released in the first book. If support for classes is subserviently denied on the premise that it isn't core, we will end up with WoTC classes that appear in one book and are never discussed again.
According to Paizo, it does mean something. They discussed the difference between "Core" and "Base" classes. Core are intended to be broadly useful and used in pretty much every game. Base classes that are not "core" are more specialized and limited in usage. My paraphrase on that, but I'm sure others here could confirm that. If I have the time to search / locate it, I will.
Their role is not simply limited to the assumption that because historically a Cav/Sam tended to be on a mount that they are only mounted warriors.
Well, actually, that is their role. If it was a simple matter they would have used an archtype of Fighter imo.
Sure, if you ignore the Rough Rider, the Mounted combat archtype of fighter.
Ranger, well he has Horse Lord.
Barbarian has somethings to do with horses, but not really an archtype I think.
Paladin, Shininging knight.
I think, but not certian, that the druid also has somethings with mounted warfare as well.
Right there, I know for sure, 3 mounted combat archtypes of the "core" classes. 2 of which gain a mount. The other two gain more bonuses than the Sam's mounted combat ability. (seriously.. combat archery as a class feature?)
The Cav especially fills in a Leadership role. This is further enforced with the PrC Battle Herald, a Prc that combines Cav and Bard together for an utmost leader.The Sam to a lesser extend is also under this same clause, but their second half is far more scattered. Ultimately though it is focused on being capable of fighting a challenged opponent in a "duel."
Sam actually even has less of a mounted combat than the cav. Only gaining a mount/mounted archery. The fighter archtype "Rogue Rider" is more mounted combat than the sam is. The sam is actually all about the challange and then being a master with his weapon.
The social elite in a leadership role. No surprise there, is it? Anybody can be a leader though, whatever the class / prestige class. And he can't be a "master" of his weapon because? He doesn't have an heirloom / bonded weapon, he has a mount? OK. He can take feats like anybody else I suspect.
No, a fighter cannot be the "leadership" role in the same way that a Cav can. Cav are leaders in the way you refer to a person as a tank. While they are not actually a "tank" they do have the ability to soak up damage.
The Sam, becomes more of a master of his weapon, far more than he becomes a master of mounted combat. His skills and abilities point further into doing battle with his challanged target more than anything. He is a master of the Challange.
I susspect the biggest disconnect between us really is our view. I view the powers and abilities, and see that there is lots of stuff in Cav that are kinda similar to a bard (another leadership class) I see that the sam only has a mount feature and combat archery at level 4. Thus I conclude that Cav is half mounted combat and half leader, while the sam is mostly based in challange and a handful of other oddball skills.
Our group and I don't build with the AP in mind usually. Usually we come up with something odd, and those who come in later or have to recreate characters build with the party in mind.
Its not so much the power needs to be useful all the time, but be useful most of the time. A levl 5 mount with penalties on death at level 20 isn't really useful at all. A level 1 mount you can just buy from a vendor, or if you find some rare exotic monster out there that you tame, you can ride that as well. There is even things like stone horses and the like that become even more useful than your bonded mount.
Sorry, most people who want an alternative talked up a bonded / heirloom weapon. I must have mentally, and lazily, tossed you into that group. So, what type of alternative(s) are you thinking of?
Who said it had to be a bonded weapon? Although that makes some sense, it needn't be. All I am saying is there should be an alternative to the mount - not what it should be, at this stage.
Yeah, I've never been that much into bondage either.
I was personally thinking of a little bit of Order specific replacements, but that would be too complicated. For my cav for example, replacing all mounted combat with Sneak Attack would support his style as he is a very dirty combatant.
A little more generically though, Possibly the ability to have flagbearer instead of mount for cav. Or various other feats that support the leadership role of Cav.
For Sam, I don't really know myself. Perhaps some special class features to emulate musashi, or perhaps promote the multi-class of ninja/sam as hanzo did.
Sorry, most people who want an alternative talked up a bonded / heirloom weapon. I must have mentally, and lazily, tossed you into that group. So, what type of alternative(s) are you thinking of?
Who said it had to be a bonded weapon? Although that makes some sense, it needn't be. All I am saying is there should be an alternative to the mount - not what it should be, at this stage.
There are a lot of possible options; something like the Combat Training of the fighter is a possibility perhaps in line with a 'favoured weapon', or a low-level of ki-based abilities if you want them more monk-like, or something based on iajitsu if you want another flavour, or even a few bonus combat feats. A bonded weapon is possible, but I don't like the idea myself. It works for the Paladin, but I agree with you I don't think it's appropriate for the samurai - it's just a horse isn't that much more appropriate.
What? People are still arguing that samurai should be forced to get a horse, even though there are lots and lots of fictional Samurai who considered horses to be nothing more but an incidental means of transportation (which does not fit into a class feature) AND the fact that the mounted samurai might have been the standard at times, but not always?
As alternative, a bond with certain weapons would make a lot of sense, since historical samurai also were quite attached to their weapons at times, and again there are a lot of samurai in fiction that identified very strongly with their sword (usually the sword, though limiting this to just the katana wouldn't be a good move, either). Then add the fact that the samurai already gets some class abilities that are tied to certain weapons, and that a bond with certain weapons has been a staple in samurai classes all over 3e.
That would be two options. Pathfinder is full of classes that get their choice of either an animal companion of sorts or one alternative, so that would make a lot of sense.
However, I'm always open to alternatives. Maybe a bond to one's lord. That could strengthen the order class feature somehow.
The only thing I'm absolutely not open is for someone to force their limited view of the character concept onto the class, especially since that view isn't even correct/complete. Pathfinder is all about options, not restrictions.
kaeyoss actually nicely stated my opening better then i did. options are nice but im ok if those options take the form of a samurai archtype instead of the initial class haveing the option either way id be happy. (i still think ancestreal bond is a better way of describing it then weapon bond to)
i think thats what me and r_chance kind of agreed upon.
so even if the base samurai has exactly what we have all seen. as long as theres an archtype that replaces mount for something else cool i see no problems.
What? People are still arguing that samurai should be forced to get a horse, even though there are lots and lots of fictional Samurai who considered horses to be nothing more but an incidental means of transportation (which does not fit into a class feature) AND the fact that the mounted samurai might have been the standard at times, but not always?
What amazes me is that people think all "samurai" have to be one (alternate) class. A variety of archtypes drawing on different classes makes more sense to me. Why not have a "Samurai" (mounted Cavalier alternate class), a "Bushi" (Fighter archtype - foot), etc. I don't think everyone from an entire culture / area has to fit in the same tight class. Different classes (whether "alternate" classes or archtypes of existing classes - Fighter, Ranger, Barbarian) seem reasonable to me. Ymmv.
As alternative, a bond with certain weapons would make a lot of sense, since historical samurai also were quite attached to their weapons at times, and again there are a lot of samurai in fiction that identified very strongly with their sword (usually the sword, though limiting this to just the katana wouldn't be a good move, either). Then add the fact that the samurai already gets some class abilities that are tied to certain weapons, and that a bond with certain weapons has been a staple in samurai classes all over 3e.
Back in the dark ages of 1E Oriental Adventures I recall a "Kensai" class. Weapon masters - you chose your weapon (a sword or other). I've seen prestige classes that filled this bill as well.
That would be two options. Pathfinder is full of classes that get their choice of either an animal companion of sorts or one alternative, so that would make a lot of sense.
True enough, although they are more broadly construed "core" classes as opposed to more specialized / limited base classes (ot alternates to those).
However, I'm always open to alternatives. Maybe a bond to one's lord. That could strengthen the order class feature somehow.The only thing I'm absolutely not open is for someone to force their limited view of the character concept onto the class, especially since that view isn't even correct/complete. Pathfinder is all about options, not restrictions.
The only thing limiting the character concept is, imo, forcing them all into one class to start with. A "good" (meaning "complete") oriental setting should have access to numerous classes / alt classes / archtypes / prestige classes to fill it out. No need to put all your eggs into one basket, in short.
you guys are good at this way better at argueing then me. fair point both ways i think im finnally tired and i think ill just wait and see what they do. i have to say theys done well so far so i don't think ill be disapointed. and i can always call rule 0
you guys are good at this way better at argueing then me. fair point both ways i think im finnally tired and i think ill just wait and see what they do. i have to say theys done well so far so i don't think ill be disapointed. and i can always call rule 0
Not sure who's better at arguing, but I think you hit it on the head on the rest.
Put me down as definitely in favor of a No Mount option.
As someone who want's to play a more media inspired Samurai as opposed to a historically accurate one, I just don't have any use for a Class-based mount.