Sounds fair to me, I agree. No reason to give them free feats. In the OA/Rokugan setting the the Ancestral Daisho was given in place of 1st lvl fighter feat, but their version of the samurai was a fighter. Over all I like the class, just would like other options instead of a horse, but maybe Paizo will do something like what Skaorn said.
In the OA/Rokugan setting the the Ancestral Daisho was given in place of 1st lvl fighter feat, but their version of the samurai was a fighter.
Yeah, Samurai never "updated" to the 3.5 version in our games. I honestly wouldn't mind this version being Pathfinderized as an alternate class of Fighter myself.
I'd like to see a finesse build for a two hand fighter/cavalier, samurai or no.
The two hand fighter archtype for fighter is all about raw damage and breaking things.
Not all 2 handed fighters fought like that, least of all samurai.
[Original OA worked different its hard to compare, but with the old proficency system you just didnt take something like naginata and took TWF (older version was better/more powerful too) it was way easier to do, you werent loose something, like feats you habe to burn to twf, you just didnt pick something you didnt want in the first place and took something you did (like TWF)
In my case, like i was saying, if you dont want mount, give options, like TWF or i dunno bonded weapon or something.
Bonded weapon seems to fit the divine theme of the paladin, i thought TWF was more 'samurai' than bonded weapon....My point is that everyone still had to follow the same rules. If I made a Samurai in 2nd Ed I could take Katana, Wakizashi, Daikyu, and TWF (fighters got 4 Weapon Prof. at 1st level IIRC) but would not be able to take naginata, yari, weapon specialization, two handed weapon fighting, etc. You didn't get TWF free, completely ignoring the proficiency system, so you were in fact loosing something by specializing in TWF.
I've got no problem with people who want a different option then a mount for samurai. I don't think it will be a part of the class though since Cavalier doesn't get to replace it and it has already been printed. Instead I think that Paizo will release Archetypes for both that replace their mounted combat abilities. I think Samurai Archetype would probably be things like "Duelist" and "Yojimbo" but not any thing as specific as the TWF Samurai. Paizo was trying for a more historically accurate Samurai and you can achieve TWF with Feats fairly easily. I just don't see the reasoning for them to get a free pass on the requirements for TWF.
and my point now is you would swap it out for animal animal companion/mount and get TWF as a choice instead of mount, when you would nornally get one of the mounted abilities in samurai you get another twf feat instead.... so whats the difference?
and my point now is you would swap it out for animal animal companion/mount and get TWF as a choice instead of mount, when you would nornally get one of the mounted abilities in samurai you get another twf feat instead.... so whats the difference?
As I've said before, why would Samurai get this class option built into their class when Cavalier don't? Why would this option have to be TWF if they did give them an option of replacing the mount? Why not something like Cleave because of Kill Bill part 1 or Making their Katana strikes effectively Adamantine because a lot of media show Samurai cutting through just about anything? If I wanted to give people the option of trading out the mount in one of my games I'd say you could get a Bonus Feat instead, al la Fighter. Admittedly this would allow some one to take TWF if they want, but not allow them to ignore the requirements. It would also allow some one take other feats as well and didn't require anything official printed.
Paizo has gone on record saying that they were going for a more historical take on the Samurai and ,as many people have stated, TWF was extremely rare historically.
and my point now is you would swap it out for animal animal companion/mount and get TWF as a choice instead of mount, when you would nornally get one of the mounted abilities in samurai you get another twf feat instead.... so whats the difference?As I've said before, why would Samurai get this class option built into their class when Cavalier don't? Why would this option have to be TWF if they did give them an option of replacing the mount? Why not something like Cleave because of Kill Bill part 1 or Making their Katana strikes effectively Adamantine because a lot of media show Samurai cutting through just about anything? If I wanted to give people the option of trading out the mount in one of my games I'd say you could get a Bonus Feat instead, al la Fighter. Admittedly this would allow some one to take TWF if they want, but not allow them to ignore the requirements. It would also allow some one take other feats as well and didn't require anything official printed.
Paizo has gone on record saying that they were going for a more historical take on the Samurai and ,as many people have stated, TWF was extremely rare historically.
Why do Samurai get ANYTHING different from Cavaliers? Lets make them identical!
Oh wait this is an alternate class, people might expect alternatives!
Like people who want to play the class without... I don't know HORSES?
The Samurai is less though of as mount centered than the cavalier, so although mechanically the same class, we are looking for an ALTERNATIVE to the mount, which alot of people don't want.
What would you have in it's place? bonded weapon? Aikido? Firearm proficiency? None of them would be wrong.
Why do Samurai get ANYTHING different from Cavaliers? Lets make them identical!
Oh wait this is an alternate class, people might expect alternatives!
Like people who want to play the class without... I don't know HORSES?The Samurai is less though of as mount centered than the cavalier, so although mechanically the same class, we are looking for an ALTERNATIVE to the mount, which alot of people don't want.
What would you have in it's place? bonded weapon? Aikido? Firearm proficiency? None of them would be wrong.
I have stated numerous times that I don't think Paizo will give people the option of switching out their mounts as a class feature because Cavalier didn't receieve this options. I have also stated that they will likely address this with Archetypes which would give both classes fair treatment. Don't try to make it sound like I'm just against being able to opt out of the mount, I just want it done fairly for both.
My issue is your insistance that it should be replaced with TWF, which seems just as limiting to me. Honestly it seems to me that you want the class to be changed to support your specific build, so you don't have to spend Feats on TWF and don't have to worry about dex. I apologize if that's not the truth but that's just how you're coming across to me.
Honestly Samurai and Cavalier already seem significantly different to me, like different species of the same genus. As for how I would change it, I've already given a few answers to that already. The first was one was a quick one that worked for getting non-spellcating Rangers and Palladins, replace the ability set with Bonus Feats. The other is develope Archetypes to replace that ability group, that are not necessarily based around specific combat styles. Archetypes such as Duelist, Yojimbo, Courtier, etc.
