Samurai is an Alternate Cavalier


Samurai Discussion: Round 1

51 to 68 of 68 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

AFAIK, just like qualifying for Class Level Pre-Req Feats,
Alt Classes still count as being a Class for pretty much everything,
so if you still have a Class Feature, you can swap it out for other Archetypes if you want.
No difference there whether it´s just an Archetype or an Alt.Class.

To me, presentation as an Alt.Class seems mostly about having the pretty picture and presenting a simple one-stop class... Even the MOST simple archetypes are somewhat more complicated since they require flipping back and forth between two sources.


Poor, poor Wayne Reynolds...


Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Darkholme wrote:

I agree with seeker though. The samurai doesn't have that many changes, and doesn't make fundamental changes to make it be like an Alternate Class.

It's an alternate class because it has a full class writeup, but it doesn't have very many changes, and doesn't really need a full class writeup.

If they leave it as an archetype, then it can be freely mix'n'matched with the other cavalier archetypes in the book. And that sounds like a good thing to me.

Huh? If it is an archtype it cant be easily mixed with other archetypes. Where as if it its an alternate class it can take any archetype it still has the class features for. I think the biggest argument for keeping it an alternate class is the fact that it allows it to have it's own archetypes (samurai archetypes) so the concept of the samurai can be expanded on.


Kolokotroni wrote:
Darkholme wrote:

I agree with seeker though. The samurai doesn't have that many changes, and doesn't make fundamental changes to make it be like an Alternate Class.

It's an alternate class because it has a full class writeup, but it doesn't have very many changes, and doesn't really need a full class writeup.

If they leave it as an archetype, then it can be freely mix'n'matched with the other cavalier archetypes in the book. And that sounds like a good thing to me.

Huh? If it is an archtype it cant be easily mixed with other archetypes. Where as if it its an alternate class it can take any archetype it still has the class features for. I think the biggest argument for keeping it an alternate class is the fact that it allows it to have it's own archetypes (samurai archetypes) so the concept of the samurai can be expanded on.

I am going to agree with Seeker for a number of reasons:

1. It does not change enough features (neither the ninja or samurai)

2. Making it an Alternate Class causes confusion and requires the company to do future support of the class. The Antipalladin does not require that kind of attention because almost all its class features are the other side of the palladin's coin (extra smite the feat works, spells are just opposite's, etc). Basically because the palladin is fully worked already, so is the Antipalladin.

3. If they stay alternate classes that requires them to make individual archetypes for the new alternate classes (AFAIK). Which again requires further support in the future for Alternate Classes, when you could just as easily make a one time Archetype (and put the rules in the Ultimate Combat for archetypes so that it takes less page count than the whole write up of both classes) that can be combined with other archetypes in the future.

4. Archetypes are Paizo's thing. They did it well. It's the reason the APG is the most popular book to date. You are making a branch off of Archetypes for "alternate classes" why???? You did amazing with this mechanic and your adding in something new for a needless reason, just because a few people want some new base classes.

By all means if people want new base classes that bad, they can be made. Please do not do it for classes this similiar.

Ninja's are rogues change the Ki pool slightly (so far IMO too good) to activate once per day rogue talents again (ninja tricks go poof).

To me, this seems like a ploy to sucker the people screaming "Yes ninjas!!! they deserve their own class because nothing is more unique! they aren't like monks or rogues at all they are entirely different, archetypes would fail!" which is a very close minded point of view. Playing a ninja is about mindset, not mechanics. An archetype would do fine, in fact it would just be more efficient to do it that way.

Plain and simple.


Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Midnightoker wrote:

I am going to agree with Seeker for a number of reasons:

By all means

Quote:

1. It does not change enough features (neither the ninja or samurai)

I would agree that it is not extensive, though since we only have 1 other 'alternate class', and only 1 product that has contained archetypes the standard of what makes an alternate class vs an archetype is not completely established. Most of the arguments here boil down to preference of new classes vs more archetypes. I'd say none of us have enough basis for comparison.

Quote:

2. Making it an Alternate Class causes confusion and requires the company to do future support of the class. The Antipalladin does not require that kind of attention because almost all its class features are the other side of the palladin's coin (extra smite the feat works, spells are just opposite's, etc). Basically because the palladin is fully worked already, so is the Antipalladin.

Is it so impossible to see this as an actual goal not a problem? What if paizo (and it's fan base) want to be able to apply further support to both the ninja and samurai. An alternate class allows for expansion. Archetypes shut that down completely.

Quote:

3. If they stay alternate classes that requires them to make individual archetypes for the new alternate classes (AFAIK). Which again requires further support in the future for Alternate Classes, when you could just as easily make a one time Archetype (and put the rules in the Ultimate Combat for archetypes so that it takes less page count than the whole write up of both classes) that can be combined with other archetypes in the future.

While I dont think they are actually required to do anything with them, some of the fanbase (myself included) consider additional support such as archetypes for concepts as broad as ninja or samurai to be a good thing. Again making them alternate classes makes them MORE compatable with future archetypes not less. There is no reason why the samurai and ninja cant use future archetypes for cavalier and rogue that they qualify for (have the respective abilities to be replaced by the archetype) same as if they were archetypes, but as alternate classes they can have their own as well.

Quote:

4. Archetypes are Paizo's thing. They did it well. It's the reason the APG is the most popular book to date. You are making a branch off of Archetypes for "alternate classes" why???? You did amazing with this mechanic and your adding in something new for a needless reason, just because a few people want some new base classes.

That is a pretty massive leap dont you think? There is a TON of stuff in the APG, and I am confident that archetypes are not the lone reason it sold so well. They also introduced their first alternate class, as well as tons of feats, 6 new base classes, lots of new spells, new subdomains, new specializations, bloodlines, and alot of other stuff. It wasnt the Archetypes Players guide. I like archetypes, but they are not the end all be all of everything paizo should ever do again.

Quote:

By all means if people want new base classes that bad, they can be made. Please do not do it for classes this similiar.

Ninja's are rogues change the Ki pool slightly (so far IMO too good) to activate once per day rogue talents again (ninja tricks go poof).

To me, this seems like a ploy to sucker the people screaming "Yes ninjas!!! they deserve their own class because nothing is more unique! they aren't like monks or rogues at all they are entirely different, archetypes would fail!" which is a very close minded point of view. Playing a ninja is about mindset, not mechanics. An archetype would do fine, in fact it would just be more efficient to do it that way.

Plain and simple.

I think it is you who are being close minded. When one states ones opinion as fact and then says 'plain and simple' its pretty much the definition of close minded. It is neither plain nor simple. For many mechanics are as important as mindset. The feel of the mechanics of a character can be very important. In my opinion for a concept as deeply rooted in lore, literature, the history of the game and in peoples minds as ninja or samurai, the limited scope of an archetype is not sufficient. It limits potetial creativity on the part of the developers and it eliminates the possibility to expand on it since archetypes are more or less one and done elements for the game.

Given that there is a definite plan on paizo's part to expand their Asian themed location in Golarion, leaving room for expansion is probably part of their plan. It also leaves it open for 3rd party groups to add more to the concept of a ninja and a samurai mechanically. And given how much background there is in history, literature, and general lore, there are alot of place that the expansion of the two can go. Where as an archetype halts all potential expansion.


Please explain what making an Alternate Class does that an archetype cannot do?

I would argue nothing. It does nothing more than what an archetype already does. The Developers even call it an over-glorified archetype.

so my question is WHY would you make a two page archetype that limits options when an archetype can that without? Archetypes literally limit nothing.

Lastly I would also argue that Archetypes are what made the APG the APG, YMMV.

This is not snarky, I want a genuine answer. I do not see one, it seems like a ploy to get people to buy the books by making an archetype, an over-glorified archetype for the people that wanted a named ninja class. Please tell me how that is not the case and why this is a positive thing as opposed to an archetype.

EDIT: Your arguement seems to be that Alternate classes CAN have archetypes applied to them (I do not know) and that a ninja and samurai Archetype would somehow make archetype combinations impossible? that is a farse. If it replaces an ability the ninja has, then it is usable. If you are going to replace the abilities the ninja gets with another archetype... why not another rogue archetype that does exactly what you want? or combining the ninja archetype with the scout archetype? etc. Alternate classes require more work, archetypes just fit the puzzle piece hole where MORE compatible archetypes that mesh well with the ninja can be added.


Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Midnightoker wrote:


EDIT: Your arguement seems to be that Alternate classes CAN have archetypes applied to them (I do not know) and that a ninja and samurai Archetype would somehow make archetype combinations impossible? that is a farse. If it replaces an ability the ninja has, then it is usable. If you are going to replace the abilities the ninja gets with another archetype... why not another rogue archetype that does exactly what you want? or combining the ninja archetype with the scout archetype? etc. Alternate classes require more work, archetypes just fit the puzzle piece hole where MORE compatible archetypes that mesh well with the ninja can be added.

They can be combined is one archetype doesnt change anything the other does. But they can also have their OWN ARCHETYPES, allowing the devs or 3rd party publishers to expand on the existing ninja and samurai directly. So if you want to expand on the concept of the ronin, you can create a samurai archetype. If samurai was an archetype itself you couldn't do that. It would have to be a new cavalier archetype and it couldnt work with what the samurai already had. Like say if you wanted your ronin to be like the samurai, but replace the banner, resolve, and honorable stand abilities, with a modified challenge. This theoretical archetype then replaces both items in the original cavalier class and things the samurai changed.

To make this a direct cavalier archetype in a new product, you would have to reprint the abilities the samurai replaced and those that the new ronin archetype replaces, and add additional explanation saying this is an expansion of the samurai concept with the additional flavor. You would have to explain more then if the samurai is an alternate class and Ronin is an archetype of that class.

You can also make feats, traits or items that are samurai specific which you cannot do if it is an archetype. Like I said, it leaves more room for expansion.


"Kolokotroni But they can also have their OWN ARCHETYPES, allowing the devs or 3rd party publishers to expand on the existing ninja and samurai directly.[/quote wrote:

Um how is giving them an archetype of "their own" different from making an archetype that can be combined with it? You want a Samurai that gives up mount? make an archetype for the cavalier that gives up mount. Works both ways.

Basically you are saying they should be their own class and the cavalier shouldn't get access to what the Samurai has, which in my opinion has no grounds, doesn't make sense and isn't fair at all to the cavalier. Heck they are even able to share orders, restricting archetypes is a silly way to only give "asian themed stuff" to one side of the class.

Quote:
you would have to reprint the abilities the samurai replaced and those that the new ronin archetype replaces

so your arguement is that a simple ability shouldnt be reprinted because you want to limit it specifically to the samurai, which will require everyone to buy that book to use the new archetype along with the cavalier one basically AND then reprint everything for the Samurai indefinitely?

Quote:


You can also make feats, traits or items that are samurai specific which you cannot do if it is an archetype. Like I said, it leaves more room for expansion.

There aren't feats that are specific to classes! (nigh the Fighter which is only because his schtick IS feats) only based on prerequisite abilities, which multiple classes could have. Traits are never class specific. Items are also RARELY class specific.

Again this closes the door to other classes and only expands on the samurai.

Why? Why do you think the samurai deserves such specialization when he is an over glorified archetype that only replaces a few abilities and all the above things I listed are just as feasible, save paper and confusion, AND opens doors to combinations with other cavalier archetypes?


Kolokotroni wrote:
Midnightoker wrote:


EDIT: Your arguement seems to be that Alternate classes CAN have archetypes applied to them (I do not know) and that a ninja and samurai Archetype would somehow make archetype combinations impossible? that is a farse. If it replaces an ability the ninja has, then it is usable. If you are going to replace the abilities the ninja gets with another archetype... why not another rogue archetype that does exactly what you want? or combining the ninja archetype with the scout archetype? etc. Alternate classes require more work, archetypes just fit the puzzle piece hole where MORE compatible archetypes that mesh well with the ninja can be added.

They can be combined is one archetype doesnt change anything the other does. But they can also have their OWN ARCHETYPES, allowing the devs or 3rd party publishers to expand on the existing ninja and samurai directly. So if you want to expand on the concept of the ronin, you can create a samurai archetype. If samurai was an archetype itself you couldn't do that. It would have to be a new cavalier archetype and it couldnt work with what the samurai already had. Like say if you wanted your ronin to be like the samurai, but replace the banner, resolve, and honorable stand abilities, with a modified challenge. This theoretical archetype then replaces both items in the original cavalier class and things the samurai changed.

To make this a direct cavalier archetype in a new product, you would have to reprint the abilities the samurai replaced and those that the new ronin archetype replaces, and add additional explanation saying this is an expansion of the samurai concept with the additional flavor. You would have to explain more then if the samurai is an alternate class and Ronin is an archetype of that class.

You can also make feats, traits or items that are samurai specific which you cannot do if it is an archetype. Like I said, it leaves more room for expansion.

Actually the APG has the "deep drinker" feet which not only requires "monk 11" but also the "drunken Ki" class feature. Not only is it a class restricted but also an archetype restricted feat.


Ronin Pi wrote:
Actually the APG has the "deep drinker"

well I believe this means Game Set Match. this means archetypes can still be expanded with feats if need be.

Glad I was slightly wrong in that aspect.


Justin Franklin wrote:
Matthew Trent wrote:
seekerofshadowlight wrote:


To me the current archetype is a samurai. There is no need for a new class when an archetype fits both mechanically and conceptually.
What about those poor sad souls who don't have an APG? I think leaving it as is allows those people to play without being told hey, go buy this third supplement to use these rules.
In fairness it is in the PRD for free so you don't have to have the APG.

And it is a $10.00 pdf. Stop being freakin' cheap asses and buy the damned thing,good grief.


I understand that a fantasy world allows for the complete rejection of history, but a Samurai evolved into what it was because of a variety of factors limiting its equipment, including but not limited to weather, raw materials, craftsmen, and cultural values. Unlike the knights of Western civilization, the Samurai had significantly less metals to work with, and the metal they had was not of the same quality. Consequently, they had to make do with what they were given. Efficiency was more important than power, hence the development of disciplines like Iajutsu, and defines the way a Samurai approached combat and training.

I know the Samurai emerged roughly around the same time the rest of the world was spawning their "tank units" (equestrian warriors), so I can just create a Samurai using the Chevalier as my base class, with little changes to flavor. There is no incentive to use Samurai, except that it capitalizes on my demographics obsession with asian culture.

My suggestion: don't fall into the same trap D&D did; don't make the Samurai a variant to another martial class. Take the time to consider what makes the Samurai a unique warrior (at the expense of much potential booing and naysaying: Iaijustu is a good referencing point). If I can create the same feel of this class from a product I've already purchased, then you're wasting your time and my money and the book's space. I've really enjoyed that the classes you've created thus far have always felt novel, don't ruin the trust and faith I've put into your product to capitalize on the word "Samurai".


Fepriest wrote:

I understand that a fantasy world allows for the complete rejection of history, but a Samurai evolved into what it was because of a variety of factors limiting its equipment, including but not limited to weather, raw materials, craftsmen, and cultural values. Unlike the knights of Western civilization, the Samurai had significantly less metals to work with, and the metal they had was not of the same quality. Consequently, they had to make do with what they were given. Efficiency was more important than power, hence the development of disciplines like Iajutsu, and defines the way a Samurai approached combat and training.

I know the Samurai emerged roughly around the same time the rest of the world was spawning their "tank units" (equestrian warriors), so I can just create a Samurai using the Chevalier as my base class, with little changes to flavor. There is no incentive to use Samurai, except that it capitalizes on my demographics obsession with asian culture.

My suggestion: don't fall into the same trap D&D did; don't make the Samurai a variant to another martial class. Take the time to consider what makes the Samurai a unique warrior (at the expense of much potential booing and naysaying: Iaijustu is a good referencing point). If I can create the same feel of this class from a product I've already purchased, then you're wasting your time and my money and the book's space. I've really enjoyed that the classes you've created thus far have always felt novel, don't ruin the trust and faith I've put into your product to capitalize on the word "Samurai".

Problem with your assumption is iaijutsu /iaido was actually developed as a form of self defense for civilian samurai class (sword word edge up) the samurai were unarmored to use this sword form. IT has nothing to do with armored battle.

In game terms all it would lead to is quick draw, which, the class gets with its favored weapon in weapon expertise. So iaijutsu is already represented as part of the samurai.

I've said this before, the samurai were not really all the 'unique', they were the warrior class of the nation/culture. Very similar to english knights.
What's different about them is the fact that not much was known about them due to their isolationist attitude and goals.
Westerners tend to hold oriental combatants (karate,kung fu, aikido, samurai) on a certain pedestal they did not have in history.
The West had it's martial arts (savate, english boxing, etc). Truth be told, A samurai army would have crushed under the heels of a heavy cavalry charge, and the samurai themselves were wiped out of their own country by commoners in organized armies. Both sides found with guns so you can't say it was guns that wiped out the samurai, It was a commoner army that fought in unit tactics. Video Killed the Radio star.

Samurai were not as special as our hollywood and honk kong theatre has put into our heads. But, they are still very very cool. Which is why we want one in our game. (and so paizon can flesh out Tain Xia)


Fepriest wrote:
I've really enjoyed that the classes you've created thus far have always felt novel, don't ruin the trust and faith I've put into your product to capitalize on the word "Samurai".

+1

seriously that is all this feels like and all it is.

The biggest tip off to me that they do not need to be "alternate classes" is this:

The Antipalladin is the only other one so far. No one has a problem with it. Why? because every ability it gets is exactly equal in power to the already viable palladin but just the reverse alignment.

When you are wondering about how "power level" it is not an alternate, it is an archetype. Archetypes change the mechanics significantly, Alternate classes so far just change the flavor and do not favor a demographic, just a unique concept.

The reason Ninja/Samurai doesnt need to be an alternate class is because the rogue/cavalier should already be able to be those things. There shouldn't be a class for it. Introduce some new talents, feats, or archetypes but dont make a base class for a profession based on demographic.

Paizo Employee Director of Game Design

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Folks,

We get there is some confusion in the terminology here. It is not an attempt to pull the wool over on anyone or trick anybody. Alternate classes are really just archtypes that have a high number of exchanges and receive a slightly more complete treatment.

We are reevaluating their presentation and naming, but lets all calm it down a bit.

Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing


Jason Bulmahn wrote:

Folks,

We get there is some confusion in the terminology here. It is not an attempt to pull the wool over on anyone or trick anybody. Alternate classes are really just archtypes that have a high number of exchanges and receive a slightly more complete treatment.

We are reevaluating their presentation and naming, but lets all calm it down a bit.

Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing

Btw, We are having balls of fun with our Groups Ronin. The Cavalier from the order of the cockatrice was cool, but he was vanilla in comparison to this guy.

We are having a bit of trouble using his ride a horse around and plink things with an arrow at full gallop ability, just because terrain doesn't allow this, but I imagine it'd be a blast in some kind of chase scene.

Half-orc Ronin.
Level 8
has keen senses and smell fear.
he's really cool.


Pendagast wrote:
Fepriest wrote:

I understand that a fantasy world allows for the complete rejection of history, but a Samurai evolved into what it was because of a variety of factors limiting its equipment, including but not limited to weather, raw materials, craftsmen, and cultural values. Unlike the knights of Western civilization, the Samurai had significantly less metals to work with, and the metal they had was not of the same quality. Consequently, they had to make do with what they were given. Efficiency was more important than power, hence the development of disciplines like Iajutsu, and defines the way a Samurai approached combat and training.

I know the Samurai emerged roughly around the same time the rest of the world was spawning their "tank units" (equestrian warriors), so I can just create a Samurai using the Chevalier as my base class, with little changes to flavor. There is no incentive to use Samurai, except that it capitalizes on my demographics obsession with asian culture.

My suggestion: don't fall into the same trap D&D did; don't make the Samurai a variant to another martial class. Take the time to consider what makes the Samurai a unique warrior (at the expense of much potential booing and naysaying: Iaijustu is a good referencing point). If I can create the same feel of this class from a product I've already purchased, then you're wasting your time and my money and the book's space. I've really enjoyed that the classes you've created thus far have always felt novel, don't ruin the trust and faith I've put into your product to capitalize on the word "Samurai".

Problem with your assumption is iaijutsu /iaido was actually developed as a form of self defense for civilian samurai class (sword word edge up) the samurai were unarmored to use this sword form. IT has nothing to do with armored battle.

In game terms all it would lead to is quick draw, which, the class gets with its favored weapon in weapon expertise. So iaijutsu is already represented as part of the samurai.

I've said...

I've been chugging along with life at an appropriately reckless (and productive) speed for a young'un such as myself, so pardon my tardy response:

I'm aware that Iaijutsu isn't about armored battle, which is why I used that particular example. Iaijutsu is a peculiar practice, indicative of a culturally unique approach towards combat that neither the Fighter or the Cavalier capture mechanically or aesthetically. I don't suggest Paizo use it as a class feature, but I do believe its a good staging point to understand how and why the Samurai is as archetypal as "Fighter" or "Ranger" or "Cavalier".

All we've left to see is how it turns out. Paizo has decided to jump into that particular lion's den one way or another, so lets hope they give the Samurai the fluff and crunch needed to make it feel as unique and innovative as the rest of their base classes.


Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

I don't get it.. Why do you need the APG in order to play with archtypes if they are presented in the UC book?

That's like saying you need Adventures armory to play with equipment tricks or equipment traits.

One thing I do wish though, is that the real cavalier had a ronin like order. Kinda a bit annoyed with Cockatrice and Lion. (I am destined to be the king.. So would that if I took lion I'd not be able to or would I have to follow every order i give myself?) For the order of the chicken, sometimes its in my best interest not to take the reward, as I better myself in otherways.. but If I don't take the reward I'm failing my edict of bettering myself.. even though I weaken myself... by taking reward..?

51 to 68 of 68 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Archive / Pathfinder / Playtests & Prerelease Discussions / Ultimate Combat Playtest / Samurai Discussion: Round 1 / Samurai is an Alternate Cavalier All Messageboards
Recent threads in Samurai Discussion: Round 1