| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
The Samurai base class has nearly identical features to the Cavalier base class. As it stands, many variant classes were taken care of with alternate class features. The Samurai doesn't have a different enough flavor from the Cavalier (on which it is based) to be considered its own base class. In it's current state, the Samurai should be grouped into an alternate class feature category. Either that, or it needs a complete overhaul.
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
The samurai is an alternate class for the cavalier base class
It is an alternate class, as you request.
It is an archetype mechanically and a pretty good one. I am not sure why it is called anything else or what is so wrong with it being an archetype. As it oozes samurai flavor and is pretty much the type of historical samurai I was hoping they would use as a base.
I like it how it is myself.No need for massive changes, to add new things or an overhaul,It works and does just what it is meant to do,
It is an archetype mechanically and a pretty good one. I am not sure why it is called anything else or what is so wrong with it being an archetype. As it oozes samurai flavor and is pretty much the type of historical samurai I was hoping they would use as a base.
I like it how it is myself.No need for massive changes, to add new things or an overhaul,It works and does just what it is meant to do,
It's absolutely an archetype, and the flavor is definitely that of historic feudal Japan. I just reread the Samurai class. I missed that it is presented as a variant of Cavalier. It appeared to be presented as a new class. My bad.
They call it an alt class, which is making people want to change it into one. Mechanically however it is not an alt class but a very flavorful and mostly solid archetype.
I do agree how they presented these are making people think they should be full classes when two of them {ninja, samurai} are really archetypes and not even bigger then some from the APG at that.
I do not think you should force them into full class just because the name when an archetype works. As I said,I like it as is myself.
They call it an alt class, which is making people want to change it into one. Mechanically however it is not an alt class but a very flavorful and mostly solid archetype.
I do agree how they presented these are making people think they should be full classes when two of them {ninja, samurai} are really archetypes and not even bigger then some from the APG at that.
I do not think you should force them into full class just because the name when an archetype works. As I said,I like it as is myself.
How can you say mechanically it isn't an alt class do you have some sort of insider info or something? You seem to feel the need to go around spewing this alternate class stuff when really you have no idea what you are talking about.
At least Western/=Better right seeker...
Because I have read it. He is roughly on pare with Archetype like the Zen archer with 1'049 words and roughly 6 or 7 changes.
Some archetype we do have.
Sandman bard 790
MOnk of the 4 winds has the same word count as the ninja 799
Zen archer has 800
Shape shifting ranger 834
Skirmisher ranger 1146 {this is more more then the samurai}
The anti-paladin is 2'640 words and changes every feature the class has in some way. Well over 20 changes
So it is the same size and roughly the same or less amount of changes then archetypes we have and way smaller then the one alt class we have. So yes mechanically, it is an archetype.
Numbers do not lie, it is what it is.
I do not dislike the samurai, I like it a lot really, I just do not see why it is labeled what it is not, nor do I see a need to change it even more to make it an alt class when it hits the the target as is.
I am gonna say once more...more Asian inspired orders and /or archetypes please. Asia has more to offer then just japan
How can you say mechanically it isn't an alt class do you have some sort of insider info or something? You seem to feel the need to go around spewing this alternate class stuff when really you have no idea what you are talking about.
At least Western/=Better right seeker...
It's getting bloody tiring. Seeker apparently believes that he just needs to yell "archetype" really often to make the devs take the class out as a full write-up. I hope they see through that.
I like the Samurai as an alternate class, it could give an option to replace the mount and would then be a really good, IMO.
I do not think you should force them into full class just because the name when an archetype works. As I said,I like it as is myself.
By presenting Samurai as an alternate class instead of an archetype eliminates the need for having to own both the Advanced Player's Guide and Ultimate Combat to play one. FWIW, I think that this is a good move on Paizo's behalf.
Andrew Gale
SAGAWORK STUDIOS
By presenting Samurai as an alternate class instead of an archetype eliminates the need for having to own both the Advanced Player's Guide and Ultimate Combat to play one. FWIW, I think that this is a good move on Paizo's behalf.
Andrew Gale
SAGAWORK STUDIOS
This.
Why not just say " As the samurai is a popular icon and the caviler class is not found within the core rules, we have presented this archetype as a full class write up."
Why cause unneeded confusion? And it has confused people as they want it to be something other then what it is.
Isn't UC going to have archetypes, as well?
Yes but ninja and samurai get to be treated different because the name they have. I listed above why they are archetypes, just the name gets them called anything else.
|
By presenting Samurai as an alternate class instead of an archetype eliminates the need for having to own both the Advanced Player's Guide and Ultimate Combat to play one. FWIW, I think that this is a good move on Paizo's behalf.
And I completely understand it for the samurai. The argument makes less sense attached to a glorified archetype of the fighter or the rogue.
It works pretty good in its current archetype form as well. :)
I have to say we like cavalier.
that being said there are plenty of times he rides his mount through battle, even into different rooms.
"tally HO!" smashes this dude you were fighting to pieces with his charge (or in my case chimera not dude) and then finishes the charge move by making a ride check to squeeze through a door way and ends up in another room (triggered a different encounter, figuring out it's something he can't fight alone and ridding back into the main room) "Tally HO!" It's been a blast, especially when he doesnt make his ride check, and misses the door way and gets knocked off his horse (happened once)
Also there were plenty of times he just left the horse tied up to a post, or smacked it on the butt and said 'go feed'.
That being said our cavalier died a nasty death to two rogues with sneak attack and poison and a flamestrike the other night.
Mostly because we were outmatched due to the fact i was playtesting a gunslinger.
but he is now replaced with a Ronin. Who, deja vu looks remarkably like the same guy. (same race, took alot of the old characters gear from him). Reincarnation anyone?
The old Cavalier had a bastard sword shatter spike. Which incidentally makes an AWESOME katana (a katana that breaks other weapons and cuts through shields)
The Ronin makes just as fun a character and an awesome replacement for the cavalier, even tho the order challenge isn't quite as good.
The ronin hasn't used a horse yet, but I imagine it might be even more controlled, seeing as he wont be using a lance. cavalier has a better charge than samurai too, so i doubt it will be used as much.
Why not just say " As the samurai is a popular icon and the caviler class is not found within the core rules, we have presented this archetype as a full class write up."
Why cause unneeded confusion? And it has confused people as they want it to be something other then what it is.
Basically the point is to allow greater freedom in design. Alternate class is loosely based on the original. Archtypes require essentially a 1 to 1 replacement of abilities. Alternate classes aren't tied down to that specific model. I will admit that the samurai is far closer to an archetype then the other two (gunslinger and ninja) but in the end I think it was a good descision to present it as such.
Eh far closer? It is smaller then archetypes we now have. Same with the ninja, which has less word count if you take out the tricks {which need to be rogue talents}
I like the sam as he is, I am not sure why it is wrong to call him an archetype as that is what he is. I find him to be a pretty good archetype myself.
Alternate class is a good thing. An armor that boosts challenge (already exist) as an example benefits APG Cavalier and Samurai both.
Why wouldn't it? They are the same class.
Why wouldn't it? They are the same class.
Yeah. I was just saying that is anyway enough related to receive support.
The one reason I can see for having the ninja and samurai as alternate classes instead of archetypes is that you could then have ninja and samurai archetypes.
Eh far closer? It is smaller then archetypes we now have. Same with the ninja, which has less word count if you take out the tricks {which need to be rogue talents}
I like the sam as he is, I am not sure why it is wrong to call him an archetype as that is what he is. I find him to be a pretty good archetype myself.
Actually ninja I think wouldnt fit as an archetype. What exactly on the rogue do you pull for ki pool? That is in my opinion a big shift from way the rogue normally does business and in order to make it work correctly it needs to be an alternate class and not an archetype. Regardless of the end result of the ninja or samurai, I think the key is to not handcuff them to the exact format of the original class, which archetypes do.
Actually ninja I think wouldnt fit as an archetype. What exactly on the rogue do you pull for ki pool? That is in my opinion a big shift from way the rogue normally does business and in order to make it work correctly it needs to be an alternate class and not an archetype.
Umm it is an archetype. Look at em side by side. It gets 1 extra thing at level 6 but it pulled evasion for the ki pool, it traded trapfinding for poison use and trap sense for no trace. And traded cap stones
The ninja tricks are renamed rogue talents {many reprinted} It trades 6 things and has a word count of 799 words if ya take out the tricks and roll them into rogue talents.
Hell most of those tricks are classic rogue tropes not just ninja tropes
Why must it be changed more when it hits the nail on the head now, just to justify calling it an alt class?
Actually ninja I think wouldnt fit as an archetype. What exactly on the rogue do you pull for ki pool? That is in my opinion a big shift from way the rogue normally does business and in order to make it work correctly it needs to be an alternate class and not an archetype.
Umm it is an archetype. Look at em side by side. It gets 1 extra thing at level 6 but it pulled evasion for the ki pool, it traded trapfinding for poison use and trap sense for no trace. And traded cap stones
The ninja tricks are renamed rogue talents {many reprinted} It trades 6 things and has a word count of 799 words if ya take out the tricks and roll them into rogue talents.
Hell most of those tricks are classic rogue tropes not just ninja tropes
Why must it be changed more when it hits the nail on the head now, just to justify calling it an alt class?
You are right, I guess I didnt look at it in enough detail. But my guess at this point is like someone said, to allow for a more normalized expansion of ninja and samurai with their own prc's and archetypes, and to justify (even if it isnt the only way to justify it) the full re-print.
I was looking at some of the samurai threads and realized samurai archetypes could be really cool. We have the base mounted samurai, but then we could have a two weapon fighting archetype for the samurai (lose mount gain TWF, etc). A ninja that loses no trace and gains disguise bonuses, etc.
Seeker clearly thinks that he can convince the developers if he only says "archetype" very often. ^^
I do not care what you call your dog, but if it looks like duck, quacks like a duck and I have seen it flay around the yard..you and your friends calling it a pitbull is not gonna convince me it is in fact not a duck.
Which is what is going on here. It simply is not an alt class, unless we have a few alt classes in the APG they forgot to label as alt classes.
What is so wrong about them being what they are? I like the samurai but I am not calling a duck a dog.
I do not care what you call your dog, but if it looks like duck, quacks like a duck and I have seen it flay around the yard..you and your friends calling it a pitbull is not gonna convince me it is in fact not a duck.
Which is what is going on here. It simply is not an alt class, unless we have a few alt classes in the APG they forgot to label as alt classes.
What is so wrong about them being what they are? I like the samurai but I am not calling a duck a dog.
<shrug> Clearly the developers disagree. So, don't say "archetype" three times in a row, otherwise a Ninja appears. :p
I just do not understand why they are calling archetypes alt class other then because they happen to have Asian names , which just baffles me. I understand folks wanting them to be new classes but mechanically , both in number of changes and word count they fall well with in the archetype range and no where near the one sub class we have.
To me they are giving in to people who think the Asian stuff must be super different and have it's own new class. I do not agree with confusing folks just to please the Asian elitists over what is just a archetype.
I am fine with the samurai as he is, I like it and it is pretty much the archetype I was asking for months back. However,I am not gonna call him something he clearly is not just because some of y'all think he must be a new class because he is Asian.
And honestly that is what it comes down to.
I just do not understand why they are calling archetypes alt class other then because they happen to have Asian names , which just baffles me. I understand folks wanting them to be new classes but mechanically , both in number of changes and word count they fall well with in the archetype range and no where near the one sub class we have.
To me they are giving in to people who think the Asian stuff must be super different and have it's own new class. I do not agree with confusing folks just to please the Asian elitists over what is just a archetype.
I am fine with the samurai as he is, I like it and it is pretty much the archetype I was asking for months back. However,I am not gonna call him something he clearly is not just because some of y'all think he must be a new class because he is Asian.
And honestly that is what it comes down to.
So, we are back to "get your stinking Asia out of my Western Europe medieval RPG!"
I just do not understand why they are calling archetypes alt class other then because they happen to have Asian names , which just baffles me. I understand folks wanting them to be new classes but mechanically , both in number of changes and word count they fall well with in the archetype range and no where near the one sub class we have.
To me they are giving in to people who think the Asian stuff must be super different and have it's own new class. I do not agree with confusing folks just to please the Asian elitists over what is just a archetype.
I am fine with the samurai as he is, I like it and it is pretty much the archetype I was asking for months back. However,I am not gonna call him something he clearly is not just because some of y'all think he must be a new class because he is Asian.
And honestly that is what it comes down to.
I was giving this some thought and I wonder if we are looking at the wrong end of it. So one of the reasons mentioned for making this an 'alternate class' instead of an archetype is so it can have it's own archetypes. That is possible, and I think leads to something different.
What if it isnt broadness of mechanics and but broadness of concept that makes an 'alternate class' instead of an archetype. It seems to me that samurai, and ninja both are robust concepts, full of their own unique flavor, history in the game and in the real world. Them being 'alternate classes' allows more room for potential future expansion (such as their own archetypes).
For instance, a future release may expand on the concept of the ronin. As it stands they could do this with a samurai archtype. If the samurai were itself an archetype it might be more difficult to add to it since it would build off of what is already present in the samurai.
So maybe (this is ofcourse speculation) it makes sense as an alternate class to make future expansion of the concept more practical, both in terms of flavor or in terms of mechanics.
So, we are back to "get your stinking Asia out of my Western Europe medieval RPG!"
That seems to be your stance yes. To me the current archetype is a samurai. There is no need for a new class when an archetype fits both mechanically and conceptually.
This does on both ends, but some folks want more because well it is Asian so must have more. I am not the one getting hung up on east vs west.
|
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.
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.
To me the current archetype is a samurai. There is no need for a new class when an archetype fits both mechanically and conceptually.
In fairness it is in the PRD for free so you don't have to have the APG.
I like the Samurai as an alternate class, it could give an option to replace the mount and would then be a really good, IMO.
Seconded. Mount must become an option.
I'm 99% sure that's not really an acceptable solution.
In fairness it is in the PRD for free so you don't have to have the APG.
Paizo thinks its a good enough solution for adventure paths.
I'm 99% sure that's not really an acceptable solution.
In fairness it is in the PRD for free so you don't have to have the APG.
Wait it isn't acceptable that you can go here and get the entire class? What are you going to do about the other base class archetypes in Ultimate Combat and Ultimate Magic?
And I completely understand it for the samurai. The argument makes less sense attached to a glorified archetype of the fighter or the rogue.
Actually, I think the gunslinger should be its own class rather than be called a variant fighter. It's too different from the fighter, and too specific.
I can totally see it for the samurai, who is still recognisable as a cavalier (sans mount - but the banner, order and challenge, i.e. the whole leadership and nobility angle's still there), and the ninja, who gets more than a few variant class abilities (so it might be a bit too much for an archetype).
But the gunslinger class/variant?
That means that none of the class abilities remains unchanged. Most are gone, and those that are in there somewhere are changed so much you can claim that they're not the same but merely similar abilities. They even have different base features.
They might both be warrior classes, but the gunslinger is not a fighter. The class features aren't any more similar than those of any other warrior type class, and the feel of the class is different, too.
So, we are back to "get your stinking Asia out of my Western Europe medieval RPG!"
That seems to be your stance yes. To me the current archetype is a samurai. There is no need for a new class when an archetype fits both mechanically and conceptually.
This does on both ends, but some folks want more because well it is Asian so must have more. I am not the one getting hung up on east vs west.
Given that you are one of the people complaining that you don't like that a class gets different stuff because it's asian, I highly doubt that.
The Samurai is an alternate class, it gets alternate abilities. It is based on the Cavalier, yes, but since it is not a Cavalier but a Samurai, there is absolutely no reason to not make it have different abilities. Hell, the Gunslinger is so different from the Fighter that I wouldn't have recognized the Fighter as its base class.
Well, yeah the gunslinger Is an alt class, so sure he looks vastly different with many changes. He is the only one of the three even close to an alt class.
The sam is an archetype being called something else. I do like the sam as he is myself, so I do not see why he must be called something he clearly isn't.
Kinda like calming your LG fighter is a paladin because he uses sword, shield armor full BAB and is LG. You can call it what ya want, but it is what it is.
So, lemme get that right:
a.) You complain that the Samurai is only an archetype of the Cavalier, not an alternate class, because it gets not enough unique abilities.
b.) You oppose the Samurai getting unique abilities which distinguish it from the Cavalier.
Allrighty then...
Because it is good as it is. You guys are wanting to change it when it is already a fine fit. It does just what it was meant to do, mimic a more historical samurai
And why do you want to change it? Does it need it? is it unbalanced? is it a mess? No, you want it to be called an alt class so it needs more changes, many more changes.
Needless for changes sake is something I always oppose. As it stands it does a great job of really doing a samurai, a really damned fine job really. If I disliked it or if it was greatly disliked that would be one thing, but it seems most people are fine with it. You guys simply want more change so it wont be an archetype. No other reason.
So yes, I do not want that changed just so you guys can say your playing an alt class.
Dude, the developers are calling it an alternate class. You can yell "archetype, archetype!" as much and as long as you can, but it will look silly a few months after the book releases.
And as an alternate class, which it is by word of the developers, it can have different features than the Cavalier. Like an alternative for the mount, since a lot of people want to play their Samurais as more of a footsoldier.
I know what they called it.
However it is both less changes and a smaller word count then other archetypes they themselves wrote. By what we have it simply is an archetype. The one and only difference is these two have Asian names.
It and the ninja are being called an alt class purely for the name they bare and no other reason.
And again it does not need these changes.They did good with this one, no need to rework it just so it will not be an archetype when an archetype works really well.
Yeah, okay, I'm done with this discussion. Have fun saying "archetype" a lot.
You have been done for a while.
I know what they called it.
However it is both less changes and a smaller word count then other archetypes they themselves wrote. By what we have it simply is an archetype. The one and only difference is these two have Asian names.
It and the ninja are being called an alt class purely for the name they bare and no other reason.
And again it does not need these changes.They did good with this one, no need to rework it just so it will not be an archetype when an archetype works really well.
But what you are leaving out of this discussion is that the developers said in the same post, That if they were doing the APG today some of the more complex archetypes would have gotten written up as alt classes instead.
I love how people twist what other people say around just to help their own argument and leave the little thing out that breaks it :)
|
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.
Plus, making it an archetype saves page space, reduces confusion from the people who think alternate class makes it a different class (antipaladin is pretty different from paladin in the number of changes) - as evidenced by the OP's confusion.
It really only needs to be an archetype (and the developers said they were open to whether these would be archetypes or alt. classes) - though I'd like to see the pretty picture in the book.