Alternate Class?


Samurai Discussion: Round 1


I think the samurai as well as the gunslinger and ninja just need to be considered a core class, not an alternative. There is too much grief being given to the samurai on these forums because of it. There is enough flavor and precedence for a samurai to be it's own class. Why? The samurai from history was many things depending on the era of Japan. You have a range of warriors from archers to Spearmen to swordsmen; you have powerful landowners and warrior poets; you have philosophers, revolutionaries and men who would die before dishonor. Samurai was not a class, it was an entire caste -- it was a way of life. Don't compare one to a Cavalier because in no way, shape or form was a samurai from history or from modern popular culture anywhere close to being one. It needs it's own identity.


Yes, I agree.

Lantern Lodge

Agreed.


What would be the mechanic difference? Gunslinger is based on fighter, yet it´s not anything like fighter.

Lantern Lodge

Ksorkrax wrote:
What would be the mechanic difference? Gunslinger is based on fighter, yet it´s not anything like fighter.

Yet the Ninja and Samurai are both near straight ports of their predecessors - neither of which I think they should be. Ninja have a good concept going that needs to be refined. The Gunslinger has already been refined somewhat via a homebrew fix presented by Ashiel (See here). The designers have even dropped by and thrown in their two cents worth. I expect Paizo to be able to fix it soon, but if it ends up still being an alternate class, I beg to wonder if I really will end up playing it.

Samurai and Ninja are no different. As the OP described, samurai were a caste rather than simply just a specific occupation. The same goes with ninjas. Heck, even a few ninjas utilized firearms! So I think that building these as core classes would be a decent move. All you're doing is adding an additional three choices to the class list in addition to the other 18 (not including Antipaladin).

Maybe include some ability to the Samurai entitled "Bushido" or something. I know that was the way of life they adhered to, so include that in their build. I'll see if I can't draw something up later as an idea.


I did a Samurai for Pathfinder a while back found here:

http://www.mediafire.com/ElghinnLightbringer

Might glean some ideas as how to go with the samurai.


Elghinn Lightbringer, I took a look at your Samurai class you linked and I like it. It really represents the various themes of the samurai.

When I look at the Gunslinger, I don't see a Fighter at all. When I look at the Ninja, I do see a Rogue though. However, considering that the Ninja has an emphasis on being mystical I can respect that but hope it wouldn't step on the toes of the Rogue or Monk (which it appears to do).

However, when I think of a Samurai I don't think Cavalier at all. As I believe has been mentioned, however, a samurai technically can be represented by any class when you consider traditional styles but I think a samurai having its own identity is awesome. If you are familiar with the game Legend of the Five Rings you see a representation of many types of samurai amongst the clans, some more traditional than others.

Samurai cavalry? That's the Unicorn clan.
Samurai dual-wielding? That's the Dragon clan.
Samurai iaijutsu masters? That's the Crane clan.
Samurai battlefield monsters? That's the Lion clan.

I won't go into details but taking a look at famous samurai from history you have the likes of Miyamoto Musashi who was known for never losing a duel in his life (he was in about 60) and was known for a distinct two-sword style. There's the samurai from around/before the Meiji Era from the Shinsengumi (who have become popular in anime/manga but historically are very interesting) who were a vary unique and talent lot such as Saito Hajime, Okita Soji, Hijikata Toshizo and Kondo Isami. From the Tokugawa Era and before that you had many important historical figures who shaped Japan. Oda Nobunaga, Tokugawa Ieyasu and Toyotomi Hideyoshi...

Continuing to look to popular culture and modern anime and manga, you see famous characters like Himura Kenshin. Even historical characters have been splashed into works of fiction, all of them defining what a samurai is in their own way.

From all my experiences of reading into the historical and fictional aspects of samurai and considering what a samurai should be in Pathfinder, I disagree that a samurai should be defined by what a cavalier is. Give the samurai its own class and make it a unique class all its own.

Death before dishonor.

Lantern Lodge

Elghinn Lightbringer wrote:

I did a Samurai for Pathfinder a while back found here:

http://www.mediafire.com/ElghinnLightbringer

Might glean some ideas as how to go with the samurai.

Ironically enough, it was your conversions I was thinking of when I mentioned the Bushido techniques.


Well since i like the samurai the way he is with only minor changes, AND my opinion is the only opinion that counts to me. IT will be staying how it is. so there. Hmpf.


Kyle Smith, Role Player wrote:
The samurai from history was many things depending on the era of Japan. You have a range of warriors from archers to Spearmen to swordsmen; you have powerful landowners and warrior poets; you have philosophers, revolutionaries and men who would die before dishonor.

Yeah, sure.

Meanwhile, in pop culture, a samurai is consistently portrayed as a noble warrior with a katana. Which the class emulates rather well, even throwing in a bit of the other stuff you mentioned.

The Samurai class is a representation of popular cliches about Japan's feudal warriors, the same way the Monk is a Kung Fu badass from high budget movies rather than a man given over to deep meditation and understanding of transcendent philosophies. There's nothing wrong with that.

Quote:
Samurai was not a class, it was an entire caste -- it was a way of life. Don't compare one to a Cavalier because in no way, shape or form was a samurai from history or from modern popular culture anywhere close to being one. It needs it's own identity.

Now, this? This is completely off-base. Cavalier is a romantic ideal of a medieval knight. Differences between knights of Europe and samurai of Japan were mostly superficial. Both were warriors first and foremost. Both divided their time between war, management of one's domain, politics, tournaments and art, in various proportions depending on an individual. Both existed in the context of the feudal order and both adhered to various codes of honor.


They should have bushido and colored armors!

The Clan thing, like it was in oriental adventures, is an interesting and more realistic option than those Orders, which makes the Samurai too closely similar to the Cavalier... Fighting class abilities should lie between the traditional and the supernatural, while non-fighting class abilities something regarding their lifestyle: meditation, tea ceremony, monochrome ink painting, rock gardens and poetry...
A real samurai is more like a multiclass Paladin/Monk and not a Cavalier, just because he has a moral code, a faction and a horse!


45ur4 wrote:

They should have bushido and colored armors!

The Clan thing, like it was in oriental adventures, is an interesting and more realistic option than those Orders, which makes the Samurai too closely similar to the Cavalier... Fighting class abilities should lie between the traditional and the supernatural, while non-fighting class abilities something regarding their lifestyle: meditation, tea ceremony, monochrome ink painting, rock gardens and poetry...
A real samurai is more like a multiclass Paladin/Monk and not a Cavalier, just because he has a moral code, a faction and a horse!

samurai have banners, mounts, an honor code etc all these things mirrored or duplicated the cavalier class which is why it was chosen as a cavalier alternate. It was this way in the first OA too.


My primary concern has been about actually making the Samurai (as well as the Ninja and Gunslinger) their own class because constantly comparing the Samurai to a Cavalier is annoying to me. The Paladin/Anti-Paladin variant makes sense but I disagree with how these new classes are being portrayed in this regard. I think the Samurai is capable of being a base class and should very well be one if its being given the same spread as base class. There's so much potential and Pathfinder has established a precedent of giving players options.

Lets give the Samurai options.


Kyle Smith, Role Player wrote:

My primary concern has been about actually making the Samurai (as well as the Ninja and Gunslinger) their own class because constantly comparing the Samurai to a Cavalier is annoying to me. The Paladin/Anti-Paladin variant makes sense but I disagree with how these new classes are being portrayed in this regard. I think the Samurai is capable of being a base class and should very well be one if its being given the same spread as base class. There's so much potential and Pathfinder has established a precedent of giving players options.

Lets give the Samurai options.

The options are there, you just choose to ignore them because you don't like how they're graphically arranged, so to speak.

You don't even need the Samurai class to play a Samurai, as a certain Paladin can attest. As you well know, a samurai can be many things, and the Samurai class is just one possible depiction.

But, and that's another thing you refuse to acknowledge, it's a pretty broad depiction, with enough wiggle room for many different samurai concepts. You get 4+Int skill points per level - quite enough to squeeze in a few ranks in Perform for your warrior-poet, and you can even get it as a class skill with an appropriate Order. Then, you get Weapon Expertise, so you're free to choose between the swordmaster, archer and spearman - all iconic fighting styles of the samurai. And finally, you get Orders, a very thorough subsystem for customizing your class. Sure, right now we only have two samurai-specific options, plus all the Cavalier options (most of which can easily be re-fluffed to fit various samurai concepts), but I'm pretty sure we'll get plenty more with the full book.

Between these options and the ability to multiclass, I don't find the Samurai class lacking, and I couldn't care less if it's called an alternate class or base class or whatnot.

In short, I think you focus too much on names.


Please don't say what I know and don't know, amorangias.

In your post you say I refuse to acknowledge how broad a samurai can be. If you had read my initial post, I clearly covered how a samurai IS many things and as your comic clearly depicts, you don't have to be a samurai "class" to be a samurai at all given it is a social caste. As the class is currently presented, it does allow to a certain degree of options.

Paizo has introduced to us a new class called "Samurai" and keeping true to the name, the class should reflect what a samurai is. So far I think they have done a very good job but there is still a lot they need to do to get it down right. For one, as I have said, it should be represented as a class rather than an alternative to the Cavalier -- it doesn't sit right with me. I don't focus on names either, I focus on a theme and how the class has been presented to me.

Mechanically, I'd like to see this represented better. As has been touched on in other posts in the forum, there are some things which make no sense and need further explanation by the designers.

If the Samurai will remain as a Cavalier, I think it loses out on some parts of its identity and potential. Furthermore, it needs more added to it quite frankly.

A lot of people are confused with the emphasis on having a mount and mounted archery. A lot of people don't understand why the samurai has a proficiency with shields (historically, samurai have never used traditional shields). A lot of people don't understand why the daisho of the samurai, which is one of the most valuable things to a samurai, is not represented properly. A lot of people are confused with the emphasis on a banner. There are also other themes of the samurai that haven't been considered that can't necessarily be justified by skills or feats.

We are likely to agree to disagree on our opinions on this matter and I respect your views.

Where the Cavalier is the class based on the romanticized western knight of Europe, how is the Samurai based on the romanticized samurai of Japan?


The samurai as written is a cavalier variant and, the closest of the three. To make the Samurai NOT a cavalier would require re writing the whole class.

You would loose things like banner and challenge which are very samurai flavorful, in exchange for what? Something so vague and broad it would be flavorless tot eh point if being undefinable, so we can have any kind of samurai we want?

We are talking about the difference of character class and title here.
Any character class can be a knight or a noble (although Ive never had a knighted wizard before).

I remember when AD&D got rid of the Assassin base class under the idea that 'anyone can be an assassin as it is just a person hired to kill someone' , but lo and behold, the assassin came back as a PrC.

The Samurai as a 'caste' was essentially forged and paid for be the samurai predecessors in history who were warriors. It wasn't until the 1800s where this idea of warrior-poets, physicians and money changers became to be known as samurai, which at that point in time, was more or less a hereditary title, not a definition of one's self.

This concept of the Samurai being something OTHER than a warrior comes from the decline of the samurai, and a time of peace where there was not wars to employ them, so they had to do something else or just starve to death.

Thats akin to the guys in country dance halls dressing up with a hat and boots and calling themselves "cowboys" even though the vast majority of them have nothing in common with what a real cowboy is, and in fact the guy in the carhart overalls and the john deere baseball cap is probably an actual 'cowboy' or close enough to it, and doesn't know the first thing about the two step, but is just there to drink a beer.

So you need to let go of the self proclaimed 'title' samurai and look at what the character class represents, the warriors that history and fantasy both have depicted over time, not the abstract semi-noble class that the warriors degenerated into.


I would hope that the gunslinger (if it stays more or less what it is) will be a core class.
The samurai clearly should be an alternate as it is very close to the cavalier.
For the ninja, I really hope that they will mix in a bit more rogue talents or something so that it does feel more like an alternative class.


I think that I agree with most everyone here. I was against the samurai being based off the cavalier at first. Personally I like the romanticized ideal of the Tokugawa era samurai, and not so much the warring states era ones before it. After some time I got used to and enjoyed the thought of the earlier period concepts, but I do agree with Kyle that the whole of historic samurai is not truly represented here. After the advent of Bushido (which can be role played into any class as per my samurai inquisitor with his daisho) they focused on sword schools and the heritage of these. NOT exclusively, but it was indeed a very important facet. Yes there are ways to portray it with just feats, but I think that perhaps something can be done with that, which may also be used for fighters later on down the road (the UC writeup did say something about weapon styles). Likewise, samurai were noted by who they served and not just their banner, and in many cases the "mon" or crest was placed upon their clothing, which is a variation that the banner could receive, but many may complain as that may make the class more powerful.
Just my two cents.


To be honest, I think the only ability of the Cavalier that meshes well as a Samurai is the Challenge ability. The reason being is my view of the Samurai on the battlefield would have him conducting one on one combat. Its a very flavorful in my opinion. But mounts? Banners? By your precedence, Pendagast, those are not required to be a Samurai, correct? The Samurai really doesn't need all that work to be different from the Cavalier and still retain its flavor.


Im not sure i understand your statement, kyle. No the Samurai as written isnt all that different form the cavalier, which makes it the best representation of an alternate class.
It's basically 'what would a cavalier be in tian xia'

Take Gunslinger that is basically nothing like a base fighter, or ninja which is far far away from a rogue but still slightly similar.

Could you play a Ranger that is a samurai? sure but the class abilities dont align well, animal companion is your horse, but the spells ?(maybe take skirmisher) weapon styles, yea you can make that work, the nature affinity and tracking? not so much, its alot further than cavalier is.

Fighter is close because it's so vanilla.

barbarian? eh you could make it work.... rage just being battle frenzy...

Bard? meh any bard like abilites for battle field control are covered by the cavalier, and everything else doesnt fit.

Wizards, sorerors, clerics, druids? we just get farther and farther away.

If we were to make samurai from scratch he'd still be stupid close to cavalier.


I would have to politely disagree that the Samurai would be similar to the Cavalier if it were built from the ground up. If the designers designed a base Samurai class, it surely would be different. Why? Its not designed as a variant/alternate class for the Cavalier. There's a lot that can be done to the Samurai. If I may have your opinion, what sort of represented abilities would you consider as a good representation of the Samurai?

I agree with you, however, that the Cavalier is the best fit and the Fighter is generic enough to fit about any martial character (which isn't bad at all, I consider the Fighter variants in the APG to offer interesting choices when you consider Fighters a samurai for options). If we want a mounted samurai or a comparison to a western knight, then it fits.


Ok well, not all samurai were mounted and archers (thats really the earliest example of the warrior known as samurai)

Combat changed, the spear and bow gave way to lighter and faster swords, so the heyday of the samurai i would say is probably closer to a duelist in medium armor.

But with that said.

I would build a Samurai for the ground up, off a weapon/combat style basis like the ranger. (two weapon for those who like musashi, two hander, bow and naginata/yari)

If they wanted to ride horses they could just buy one and put skills in doing it, i see no reason to have a special mount of extraorindary ability to keep track of.

Id give them probably 4+int skills

I'd give them, class skils like appraise, craft, diplomacy, intimidate, knowledge nobility, knowledge religion, perform, ride, and sense motive.

Id give them medium armor and no shields.
Id give them All martial plus Katana/bastard swords

For class abilities I dont see them being too different, the banner/symbol thing was definately there, the challenge too, resolve... on and on, none of the abilities they already get are that different from what Id say they need and many of them are carry overs from cavalier.

so im not seeing anything out of place when it comes to the class abilities except for the ones i previously mentioned.


As I mentioned, I think the only Cavalier ability that should carry over is Challenge. I honestly think that the Banner ability doesn't represent the Samurai. Every military has had banners, colors and flags, it has been a identifier of a side of battle and was commonly not carried by a great warrior. Now, I understand that samurai carried sashimono or back banners, but it was another way to identify an enemy from an ally.


Kyle Smith, Role Player wrote:
As I mentioned, I think the only Cavalier ability that should carry over is Challenge. I honestly think that the Banner ability doesn't represent the Samurai. Every military has had banners, colors and flags, it has been a identifier of a side of battle and was commonly not carried by a great warrior. Now, I understand that samurai carried sashimono or back banners, but it was another way to identify an enemy from an ally.

why not shirts and skins???

I call the side that gets to wear the chain shirts!!


Kyle Smith, Role Player wrote:
Where the Cavalier is the class based on the romanticized western knight of Europe, how is the Samurai based on the romanticized samurai of Japan?

As presented in the playtest, the samurai is:

-a warrior first and foremost (full BAB etc.);
-especially focused on archery, kenjutsu, or spear training (Weapon Expertise class feature);
-at his best when challenging worthy foes to single combat (Challenge class feature);
-able to engage in courtly romance and intrigue (Diplomacy as class skill);
-sworn either to his sovereign or a personal philosophy (Order class feature);
-capable of implausible feats of will for the sake of fulfilling his duty (Resolve, True Resolve, Honorable Stand and Last Stand class features);
-taking pride in his ancestry, proudly announcing his presence on the battlefield and inspiring others through it (Banner class feature);
-trained in firing arrows from horseback (Mounted Archery class feature);
-able to engage in pursuits other than his life of combat (a reasonable number of skill points).

Each and every of those things is extremely appropriate for a samurai, though some features are easier to find in popular depictions than others.

Then, there's the mount... I have to admit, this one seems a bit forced, as samurai weren't really good at fighting from horseback (using bows while mounted was pretty much the only thing they did competently in this regard, and even this was a trick learned from Mongols). Then again, the real samurai did care for their horses greatly, so it's not impossible for me to stomach.

Quote:
A lot of people don't understand why the daisho of the samurai, which is one of the most valuable things to a samurai, is not represented properly.

And what would constitute "proper representation"?

Realistically, the daisho is nothing more than two best swords the samurai had in his possession, and which he held more dear than any other piece of equipment. But that's it, because real katanas weren't magical.

In L5R, the roleplaying game when it comes to samurai, the daisho is just ordinary starting equipment for any Bushi, with no special traits unless the player pays extra during character creation (or so it was in older editions, I've lost track by now).

In Oriental Adventures, the daisho is a heirloom item that the character can upgrade over time. But in Complete Warrior, the Samurai gains nothing like it.

So, again, what is the proper way to handle it?

My point being, a single class in the Pathfinder system cannot simultaneously cater to all possible depictions of the samurai throughout ages of historical and artistic visions. Consistency with people's expectations is a non-issue, because there are as many expectations as there were people who watched The Last Samurai, and more. The issue is internal consistency, and in this regard, I see no problem with the playtest Samurai class.


Pendgast: Sir, you win the award for the most random comment in this thread.

I think the Samurai can get rid of Mount, Mounted Archery, Banner, Greater Banner and Shield Proficiency.

Trading Shield Proficiency for Bastard Sword Proficiency would be great.

With the aforementioned abilities, that leaves levels 1, 4, 5 and 14 to replace abilities with. If we went this route, perhaps rearranging some abilities would be necessary. I would like to see a large emphasis on developing a fighting style for a samurai. Weapon Expertise is awesome but I think building off of it would be cool. I'd like to understand if Samurai get access to Fighter feats pertaining to their weapon or not.

Honestly, Mount and Mounted Archer are my biggest annoyances since from my experiences playing DnD/Pathfinder, you seldom can take your horse into a large percentage of the combats you run into.

amorangis: I will concede to your points, they are very spot on. As I wrote above, though, I would like to see some things shifted around, changed, etc.

The Cavalier may be the best fit for a samurai. I still think it should be given its own unique class. Whatever the future holds for the class as a whole, I do hope we see positive changes. The class is good, Paizo produces quality products. I think we'll see a great class for the Samurai this fall.


Kyle Smith, Role Player wrote:

Sir, you win the award for the most random comment in this thread.

I think the Samurai can get rid of Mount, Mounted Archery, Banner, Greater Banner and Shield Proficiency.

Trading Shield Proficiency for Bastard Sword Proficiency would be great.

With the aforementioned abilities, that leaves levels 1, 4, 5 and 14 to replace abilities with. If we went this route, perhaps rearranging some abilities would be necessary. I would like to see a large emphasis on developing a fighting style for a samurai. Weapon Expertise is awesome but I think building off of it would be cool. I'd like to understand if Samurai get access to Fighter feats pertaining to their weapon or not.

Honestly, Mount and Mounted Archer are my biggest annoyances since from my experiences playing DnD/Pathfinder, you seldom can take your horse into a large percentage of the combats you run into.

I think the horse is underrated.

Everyone has this idea that the horse can't travel in most places with his master.

where does this happen exactly?

If monks can deflect bullets, why cant horses gallop down stairs?
Just make a ride check.

we had a cavalier in serpents skull before he died and the player replaced him with a ronin, so I dont see how he saw having a horse like a big hindrance, since he actually has the same exact horse the cavalier did (the cavalier died, the mount didnt, and we rescued the ronin from a pack of hungry charau-ka)

The Cavalier rode his horse nearly everywhere, except when he didnt want to, not because he couldnt.

Think of the last several APs... Second Darkness, I can think of a few places the mount couldnt go, but they werent very big. so they wouldnt last long.
Legacy of fire, nope huge and open desert, or another plane of existence, or the dungeons/insides were big enough for the mount.
Council of thieves? Perhaps in the mansion, but alot of that and the sic fold trials stuff was role playing anyway, not combat. Once combat happens the manor is open enough for the mount and the dungeons below might have been tricky, but by then the cavalier is high enough level to just use ride rolls alot.
so far council of thieves is the most hampered.

Kingmaker? plenty of room for mount.

Serpent's Skull? one dungeon on the shiv might have been tight, so far that's it (havent finished it yet) most of the areas are so big, the horse is actually a boon, not a limitation.


I have no experience with Adventure Paths honestly so I can't quite comment on such.


Kyle Smith, Role Player wrote:
I have no experience with Adventure Paths honestly so I can't quite comment on such.

well they represent the vast majority of adventures published by paizo, what else is out there? what module cant they go in?

Ive played the kobold king ones, dont see a problem, Ive played that red raven one, dont see a problem, hangmans noose, might have issues, but honestly its not that much of a disadvantage as seoni can back hand the mosnters in that one...


I have a little experience with Pathfinder Society but overall, the games I play in are home brew campaigns.


Kyle Smith, Role Player wrote:
...There's a lot that can be done to the Samurai. If I may have your opinion, what sort of represented abilities would you consider as a good representation of the Samurai?

Dang post monster!!!

Alright, let me direct you to my PF Samurai I made about a year ago.

http//www.mediafire.com/ElghinnLightbringer

In my opinion, I would keep the following features from the cavalier: Challenge, Banner, Greater Banner.

I'd get rid of shield proficiency.

Mount could be turned into something like the divine bond, called Ancestral Bond or something (whatever) that allows the samurai to select either a mount like a cavalier, or an ancestral weapon (via ancestral spirits that can improve the weapon).

From my version, I think the First Strike feature and Way of the Warrior is useful, and flavorful. I also like the Bushido Techniques.

I also like the Zen Training tree, but it could be too much. Maybe this could be lumped into the Bushido Technique selections.

A different capstone ability more in flavor to the samurai could be needed.

That's my two bits.


Kyle Smith, Role Player wrote:

amorangis: I will concede to your points, they are very spot on. As I wrote above, though, I would like to see some things shifted around, changed, etc.

The Cavalier may be the best fit for a samurai. I still think it should be given its own unique class. Whatever the future holds for the class as a whole, I do hope we see positive changes. The class is good, Paizo produces quality products. I think we'll see a great class for the Samurai this fall.

Certainly, the Samurai could be handled differently, and in several ways.

My biggest hope for the class is that the first version will see more Orders than "Bushi and Ronin". I wouldn't also mind if they renamed Orders into either Clans or Schools.

Mounted Archery doesn't really bother me, at the very least, it can be used in tournaments. I wouldn't mind if they swapped it for an extra feat, though.

Perhaps Mount could be changed into something more akin to Paladin's Sacred Bond - a choice between the mount and the ability to temporarily boost your weapon, as a way to handle the daisho as something more than a heirloom item.


Personally, I don't think the Samurai should be an alternate Cavalier at all.

It should be a standard Cavalier, perhaps with a couple of distinctive Orders to choose from.


Personally, I don't understand the obsession with making the Samurai so historically accurate.

Last time I checked, medieval Bards didn't throw magic spells around.

I find the more modern portrayals of Samurai from movies and video games to be far more interesting to play as an adventurer in a fantasy setting.

At the very least, I was expecting Samurai to have a Ki Pool.

I for one would love to see a Samurai Archetype that does for Samurai what the Qinggong Monk archetype does for Monks.

Dark Archive

i dont mind Samurai as a cavalier alternative. I would love to see a "blade bound" option, but it works on a basic level. Otherwise, you can always take other class levels and call yourself a samurai


There's always the 4 Winds Fantasy Gaming take on the Samurai, as well, in Paths of Power. If you're not opposed to 3PP material, at any rate.

Community / Forums / Archive / Pathfinder / Playtests & Prerelease Discussions / Ultimate Combat Playtest / Samurai Discussion: Round 1 / Alternate Class? All Messageboards
Recent threads in Samurai Discussion: Round 1