Samurai (Lone Wolf) vs Cavalier (Maximus)

[Ardenup]

Hi,

I've playtested a Samurai build and I like the class alot.

Just wondered on others opinions about the 'selfishness' of the class.
We'll it's not selfish, but compared to the cavalier the flavor is totally different.

The cavalier is kinda like Maximus- a great warrior but a better General. I've played an Order of the shield cavalier to great effect and besides the challenge mechanic, I think tactician is the primary ability. Keep in mind I play in a group of 6.

Granting Powerful Teamwork feats to allies makes cavalier a frontline buffer! Now the flavor changes from order to order, but tactician is amongst them all.

Enter the Samurai.

Sung:

Challenge 1/day, Mount, Resolve, Wpn Fcs: Katana, Power Attack, Intimidating Prowess, Point Blank Shot
Honour in all things
Weapon Expertise (Kantana), Dazzling Display
Challenge 2/day, Mounted Archer
Banner, Wpn Spl: Katana
Shatter Defenses
Challenge 3/day, Conrugan Smash
Way of the Samurai
Gtr Resolve, Gtr Wpn Focus
Challenge 4/day
Honourable Stand, Deadly Stroke
Critical Focus
Challenge 5/day, Staggering Critical
Gtr Banner
Strike True, Blinding Critical
Challenge 6/day
True Resolve, Rapidshot
Manyshot
Challenge 7/day, Deadly Aim
Last Stand

Now I LIKE the lack of Tactician here. Access to the Fighter Wpn Feats makes it possible to really create the Swordmaster stereotype I love about samarai. Deadly Stroke (which no other cavalier can take) is kinda like the master draw and strike (not sure of the spelling) Ijatsu. A samurai SHOULD be a better swordsmen than a Cavalier.

My take is that a Knight/Cavalier is more concerned with Leadership than a Samurai who'd be more interested in Martial Perfection. Of course mine is not the only interpretation.

Overall the power =/=. A cavalier is a party buffer, but a Samurai is far less likely to fall.

[Threeshades]

I don't think I see what you are trying to say with this thread, other than Cavalier and Samurai are radically different. Which is a good thing in my opinion.

[Ardenup]

I agree. I was more commenting on how well they've been able to shift the emphasis from 'Leader' to 'Swordmaster' using the same chassis.

Personally I hope the samurai doesn't change. Paizo got it right first up.

[STR Ranger]

I'm ressurecting this to see if anyone has opinions on the power differences between Samurai and Cavalier.

So much has been made of the Ninja being better than a rogue (and barring archetypes i agree.) but it's been a fair while now and I wonder if many groups have continued to playtest this class much.

In the general discussion forum, it's been mentioned that Cav's are the Least Popular of the new classes. Which I disagree with. My group plays them a fair bit. The mount is not an issue since they get a whole bunch of bonus feats, challenge damage and the UBER powerful Tactician ability (Being able to grant extra AOO's at +8 to hit and +4 for flanking makes the Bard Cry and Buddy Rogues go giddy!!)

Plus at higher levels (when open spaces and bigger enemies/flying is common) the mount+horse shoes of flying RULZ.

That said, the lack of chatter on the Samurai could mean 2 things:

1.Paizo got it right the first time with this one.
2. Nobody likes cares about the Samurai (hating on the mount again)

What I mostly like about the Samurai is they've made the class have a totally different FEEL than the Cav.

As I stated earlier the Samurai is Lone Wolf Swordmaster with a horse. Makes a good Switch Hitter.

The Cavalier is a Kickass war leader, a Mix of Fighter/Bard who kicks a$$ himself and helps his fellows kick more a$$.

Wish they could have done this with Ninja. Right now the Ninja=Rogue, but better.

[Nimon]

A mount requirement can be hard in PFS games, unless you are like a gnome or halfling riding a dog or something(and if you do something like that prepared to be teased relentlessly at the table). I think the mounted abilies should be a feat progression that one could opt into instead of forced, simular to how a ranger choses a combat style at level 2.

[Cheapy]

Honestly, the Samurai seemed to me to be a mountless cavalier. The only mount thing I saw was getting mounted archery for free. Wahoo.

[Bruno Kristensen]

Nimon wrote:

A mount requirement can be hard in PFS games, unless you are like a gnome or halfling riding a dog or something(and if you do something like that prepared to be teased relentlessly at the table). I think the mounted abilies should be a feat progression that one could opt into instead of forced, simular to how a ranger choses a combat style at level 2.

Except you'd need to call the class something completely different, then :)

[STR Ranger]

Cheapy wrote:

Honestly, the Samurai seemed to me to be a mountless cavalier. The only mount thing I saw was getting mounted archery for free. Wahoo.

Mounted Archery IS a good feat. With the bonus feats a Samurai gets you can easily pump out a Fairly Optimised Switchitter.

Full attack from Horseback with a bow while your mount closes. Quick dismount. Next round, drop your bow (or sheathe it in a glove of storing), have the horse flank while you full attack with your (preferred) Katana-cause you get Quickdraw with it for free :)

[Cheapy]

STR Ranger wrote:

Cheapy wrote:

Honestly, the Samurai seemed to me to be a mountless cavalier. The only mount thing I saw was getting mounted archery for free. Wahoo.

Mounted Archery IS a good feat. With the bonus feats a Samurai gets you can easily pump out a Fairly Optimised Switchitter.

Full attack from Horseback with a bow while your mount closes. Quick dismount. Next round, drop your bow (or sheathe it in a glove of storing), have the horse flank while you full attack with your (preferred) Katana-cause you get Quickdraw with it for free :)

My point is that it just allows for some interesting tactics, as opposed to full on focus of the class, as is the case with the Cavalier.

[Nimon]

Bruno Kristensen wrote:

Except you'd need to call the class something completely different, then :)

Thats easy call the Cavilier a Knight. The Samurai does not seem to be as hindered by lack of mount so that will be nice.

[STR Ranger]

I agree the Samurai is a bit more swordmaster than a cav.

However IMHO Cav is Equal Parts Commander/Horseman.

Tactician is MORE powerful than the mounted features if you pick good teamwork feats and your party works to achieve flanks.
Aslo, some of the cav's charge bonuses do apply to on foot charges.

I had a OOTShield cav who went Scimitar/Shield TWF. And no mounted feats.
He be on horseback as much as possible.
When combat started, he'd have the horse close on it's move. Then quick dismount and full TWF attack (sort of a 1st round pounce) then use his orders improved standstill ability to prevent the foe from moving (resolved by an AOO rather than a CM Check).

The mount had Charge through and would run over anyone it could.
You don't HAVE to focus on charges at all and Cav's don't suffer for it.

[Andric]

An interesting comparison of the two, and I do agree here that despite virtually being the same class, you could have both a Cavalier and a Samurai in the same party, and the two would fulfill completely different mechanics without stepping on each other's heals too much.

I am really looking forward to the end result of the samurai in Ultimate Combat. And I agree, I hope it stays just the way it was introduced in the play test.