First, I've got most of Paizo's Pathfinder books; they're great. Ultimate Combat is overall well done imo.
What I don't understand, and am actually completely baffled over is the lack of Samurai archetypes... there are none. What was the point of the Samurai play test? How many people posted asking for a variation to the mount and/or banner? This could have easily been taken care of with 2 or 3 archetypes. Is it because it's an alternate class? The Ninja didn't receive any archetypes either, although to be fair I can't think of any as easily as the Samurai; but the Gunslinger got 4 archetypes.
Wasn't the general consensus that the Samurai wasn't a bad class but lacked flavor to distinguish itself from the Cavalier? There is an Ancestral Blade archetype posted on the Samurai play test, it's actually pretty good. I expected something like this to be included as a no brainer... so did people posting on that forum.
I mean, the Samurai is on the cover!
And then, the Magus Kensai archetype gets Iaijustsu! WHA?? That was a Samurai 3.5 thing... ?! It's just...
I'm not trying to pointlessly rant or start any arguments, I really do love Pathfinder. Could someone put this in perspective, or... man I have a headache thinking about this. Also apologies if this has been discussed already, didn't see any new topics like this since UC was released.
The Samurai and Ninja are technically archetypes (or alternate classes, depending on the terminology) themselves, of the Cavalier and Rogue, respectively, while the Gunslinger was presented as a base class. They don't archetype archetypes.
That is because it is a caviler archetype. Samurai were mounted archers first and foremost. As long as they have the ability they swap then yes they can take archetypes as normal.
The Samurai and Ninja are technically archetypes (or alternate classes, depending on the terminology) themselves, of the Cavalier and Rogue, respectively, while the Gunslinger was presented as a base class. They don't archetype archetypes.Actually, that's not correct. Take a look at the Knight of the Sepulcher on page 64 of UC. It's a paladin archetype that can only be taken by members of the antipaladin alternate class.
Well the Anti-paladin is a different animal. First off it has to be archetypes for any evil Paladin type and as it left no ability from the core class un swapped can never take a paladin archetype. No so for the other two.
The Samurai and Ninja are technically archetypes (or alternate classes, depending on the terminology) themselves, of the Cavalier and Rogue, respectively, while the Gunslinger was presented as a base class. They don't archetype archetypes.Actually, that's not correct. Take a look at the Knight of the Sepulcher on page 64 of UC. It's a paladin archetype that can only be taken by members of the antipaladin alternate class. In other words, an archetype for an alternate class.
Which is why I think they used the term "alternate class" for the antipaladin rather than expanded "archetype." I've heard both terms for Samurai and Ninja, but I haven't delved that deeply into UC yet. (And there is some debate over semantics what exactly is the difference between an archetype and an alternate class, if any.)
That is because it is a caviler archetype. Samurai were mounted archers first and foremost. As long as they have the ability they swap then yes they can take archetypes as normal.
Cavaliers were mounted too but they got mountless archetype, no?
THe way I understand it is this:
Samurai, Anti-paladins, and ninjas are NOT archtypes, they are alternate classes. In other words you could not be a Cavalier class, and trade out one of your powers for say Samurai Resolve (as an example).
The archetype situation seems to be you sacrifice powers from the main class to gain any archetype tree. You can have more than one archetype as long as your traded powers do not conflict (i.e. both archetypes require you trade out the same CORE power).
You can't be a rogue and take the Ninja's 'assassinate' power no matter what. You have to commit fully to Ninja to get that power.
I hope that was helpful. I am just glad I can be the one answering a question now instead of the dude asking them all the time. Its amazing what studying will do:)
Cavaliers were mounted too but they got mountless archetype, no?That is because it is a caviler archetype. Samurai were mounted archers first and foremost. As long as they have the ability they swap then yes they can take archetypes as normal.
I have no issue with a mountless archetype. I really wish the Hound master was included in UC and would like to see a few that only changed the mount. The mounted archer thing was in response to it not gaining super sword powers.
I didn't understand the magus getting Iaijutsu stuff either. That was just weird. Honestly, that should have been in the vein of the style feats, as the technique can be adapted to just about any other style of sword combat. As far as I know, the katana is the only sword you can use iaijutsu with, though. Wakizashi too, I guess...? I dunno. Seems like a really odd place to put it none-the-less.
Maybe we'll get to see some more material like Samurai and Ninja archetypes in future stuff, since Tian Xia books are in the works.
The Samurai and Ninja are technically archetypes (or alternate classes, depending on the terminology) themselves, of the Cavalier and Rogue, respectively, while the Gunslinger was presented as a base class. They don't archetype archetypes.Actually, that's not correct. Take a look at the Knight of the Sepulcher on page 64 of UC. It's a paladin archetype that can only be taken by members of the antipaladin alternate class. In other words, an archetype for an alternate class.
It's also the FIRST and ONLY archetype for an Alternate Class. There's always the off-chance you'll see additional archetypes for alternate classes down the road in newer Pathfinder products, but when the Antipaladin was released, it was also the FIRST alternate class. On top of that, in the Advanced Player's Guide, the new base classes did not receive Archetypes at all; Magus and Gunslinger got archetypes when they were released because the directors know they had something the community wanted in archetypes for base classes. Now Ultimate Combat is trying something new with archetypes for alternate classes.
I guess the tl;dr is that when Paizo makes a brand-new concept, don't expect them to go overboard with it. They'll test the waters and plot a course before sending a ship to sail.
hopefully later books will have more archtypes for samurai and ninja otherwise ill be terribly disapointed.
To play devil's advocate...You can do all that, you just have to trade most of the samurai's alternate class abilities and choose the samurai's order as a base class cavalier.
I agree that mountless samurai would be awesome though.
|
Yeah, the Samurai was the biggest disappointment of the whole book for me. Followed closely by 90% of the feats seemingly useless unless you are a monk. :P
I could be wrong, but from what I gathered the largest complaint of the Samurai from the playtests was that it was another class that was FORCED into having a mount, rather than focusing on weapons or some other cool abilities. This makes it so much less useful in PFS where more adventures seem to happen on boats, indoors, or underground. The Cav and Samurai kind of seem to get the shaft.
Samurai and ninja are meant to be very specific alternate classes, and as such not really intended to be as flexible as the base classes from which they are based. They are more like an archetype themselves, though there could possibly be specific archetypes introduced it seemed mostly unneeded to me, most people do not need 12 kinds of asian flavor for one concept.
They did actually add two orders, they might add a few more over time, very possible they will add ninja clans as archetypes as well.
I kinda like the book anyway it seems more useful to me than UM, though I didnt think that was a bad book either, there might be a little too many spells in this book mainly, but I suppose they for the better part mesh with the specific roles and options elsewhere in the book
Yeah, the Samurai was the biggest disappointment of the whole book for me. Followed closely by 90% of the feats seemingly useless unless you are a monk. :P
I realize everyone has different preferneces, but there seems to really be a finite amount of combat feats. I am sure I could make some useful new ones if I had too, but it seems that new combat feats get so specific as to be nearly useless, when compared to more general combat feats.
Quick-drawing attack techniques are actually a part of a lot of swordsmanship traditions, even Western ones. :)I didn't understand the magus getting Iaijutsu stuff either. That was just weird. Honestly, that should have been in the vein of the style feats, as the technique can be adapted to just about any other style of sword combat. As far as I know, the katana is the only sword you can use iaijutsu with, though. Wakizashi too, I guess...? I dunno. Seems like a really odd place to put it none-the-less.
Maybe we'll get to see some more material like Samurai and Ninja archetypes in future stuff, since Tian Xia books are in the works.
I will not explicitly deny that, but specifically iaijutsu applies to katanas. The techniques are designed for the shape of the weapon. Quick-drawing attack techniques for longswords, rapiers, etc are going to be different because they are straight blades. Scimitars I can see sharing some similarities, but it really depends on what you see as a scimitar. I can't help but think of Azeem from Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves, or old Sinbad cartoons (those swords are ugly, IMO, and they look awkward to use).
The gentle curve of a katana lends itself better to being drawn swiftly. And as far as I can tell from Google searching your claims, there are no Western sword-drawing arts. Europe had a lot of multi-cultural involvement that allowed them to develop a vast array of specialized weapons and armors, while Japan perfected a handful of options and drove off outsiders. All that aside, the fact of the matter is that Iaijutsu shouldn't have been relegated solely to the Magus.
Again, perhaps this will be fixed in Tian Xia splats.
Iaijutsu shouldn't have been relegated solely to the Magus.
Wave Stike + Quick Draw should work right?
Wave Stike + Quick Draw should work right?Iaijutsu shouldn't have been relegated solely to the Magus.
Hm. It's passable for now. I had actually seen this one, but hadn't thought about fluffing it as iaijutsu. Touche, I suppose?
An interesting question for me is about a small Samurai having a wolf as a mount. Since the wolf follows the druid animal companion progression, shouldn't he get large at seventh level? Shouldn't that be then a problem for the small Samurai in mounting the beast?
I've been beaten to the mention of Wave Strike + Quick Draw, but I do believe such images of Western draw attack techniques exist as part of some German fechtbuchen. I rather wish I had pictures on hand for proof, but alas I do not, I simply remember seeing such.
I will not explicitly deny that, but specifically iaijutsu applies to katanas. The techniques are designed for the shape of the weapon. Quick-drawing attack techniques for longswords, rapiers, etc are going to be different because they are straight blades. Scimitars I can see sharing some similarities, but it really depends on what you see as a scimitar. I can't help but think of Azeem from Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves, or old Sinbad cartoons (those swords are ugly, IMO, and they look awkward to use).
The gentle curve of a katana lends itself better to being drawn swiftly. And as far as I can tell from Google searching your claims, there are no Western sword-drawing arts. Europe had a lot of multi-cultural involvement that allowed them to develop a vast array of specialized weapons and armors, while Japan perfected a handful of options and drove off outsiders. All that aside, the fact of the matter is that Iaijutsu shouldn't have been relegated solely to the Magus.
Again, perhaps this will be fixed in Tian Xia splats.
Without procuring a copy of the book (or books?), I can't find any detailed information on the contents, but I am inclined to take your word for it, though it seems like in the context of the book it's more of a single technique rather than an art unto itself, which iaijutsu is. A student of German sword, from what I have read, would be more likely to learn a faster way to draw his sword and move on to some other techniques, probably guards or footwork.
This fechtbuchen sounds far more practical and to the point (pun intended) than kenjutsu or iaijutsu, but also less involved. The German version might be more like quick draw+wave strike, but the iai-version more like what the Magus got.
I am content for the moment with what is given, but still hopeful for more. :D
An interesting question for me is about a small Samurai having a wolf as a mount. Since the wolf follows the druid animal companion progression, shouldn't he get large at seventh level? Shouldn't that be then a problem for the small Samurai in mounting the beast?
No, as long long as it is larger than you you can mount it. So it being large means you can enlarge person (potions) and still ride it.
Wave Stike + Quick Draw should work right?Iaijutsu shouldn't have been relegated solely to the Magus.
where is 'wave strike'? I checked PFSRD and got nothing.
where is 'wave strike'? I checked PFSRD and got nothing.Wave Stike + Quick Draw should work right?Iaijutsu shouldn't have been relegated solely to the Magus.
Ultimate Combat. It lets you feint as a swift action when you draw your blade in the first round of combat.
So, would this be better than improved initiative for a Deadly Stroke fighter?
You COULD lose initiative, but still Deadly Stroke if the check passes?