|
As well, I do not know if this is the correct place to post this, so please let me know if it should be moved (and for that matter, how)
Now that I have that out of the way, I have a thought:
Why is the Samurai class considered taboo in non-Eastern settings? I understand that "Samurai" has a specific connotation, but I think that the idea behind it is something analogous to many cultures, specifically the strong adherence honor and the willingness to lay their life on the line for their king, their lord, their country, or even their group of close friends. So I ask: why not allow Samurai in your game no matter the geographical setting? A fighter or cavalier may fit the same role, but I feel that the class itself, both in flavor and mechanics, fits it more.
Discuss (but please be civil ;-) )
It may work giving up the proficiency in the exotic weapons
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It may work giving up the proficiency in the exotic weapons
...or giving it proficiencies that better suit the setting.
Dwarf samurai? His abilities are focused around his dwarven waraxe (which he'll have proficiency with anyway). Orc samurai? Why not give him proficiency with the spiked chain? Why not give a Visigoth-styled soldier the falcata? A flailpole to a medieval foot knight? A hooked hammer for the gnome?
It's not hard to make it work. You can always rename the class, too.
EDIT: Gnome samurai would be interesting, proficiency-wise. All the crossbows should definitely be an option, as should the hooked hammer and the light hammer as weapons they can focus on. Oooh, and the ripsaw glaive...
Given that there's little inherently "eastern" about the samurai's class abilities other than weapon proficiencies I typically just rename it as knight, keep the longbow an option for Weapon Expertise and allows any regionally significant one-handed sword (khopesh, aldori dueling sword, falcata...) be a optional substitute for the katana, with bastard sword being the default, and any martial polearm being an optional trade for the naginata.
This is a very small part of the class anyhow, and unlike the gunslinger and gun-averse GMs, there's very little actual crunch which makes me see why someone who want no Asian influences in their games couldn't simply alter the fluff of the samurai.
** spoiler omitted **
Now that I have that out of the way, I have a thought:
Why is the Samurai class considered taboo in non-Eastern settings? I understand that "Samurai" has a specific connotation, but I think that the idea behind it is something analogous to many cultures, specifically the strong adherence honor and the willingness to lay their life on the line for their king, their lord, their country, or even their group of close friends. So I ask: why not allow Samurai in your game no matter the geographical setting? A fighter or cavalier may fit the same role, but I feel that the class itself, both in flavor and mechanics, fits it more.Discuss (but please be civil ;-) )
Many GM's don't like eastern things in their western fantasy. Some will ban classes, some concepts, and other both.
Some have campaign worlds where things such as samurai, ninjas, and so on do not exist, and if they have been using this custom world for years, and every corner is filled they see no reason to redo anything to fit an eastern place or character into it.
PS: I have had this discussion on this board before. I am also not one to ban eastern things. :)
|
|
My question though is why it has to be an "Eastern" thing? If the name was changed and the weapon expertise was more flexible (say, any one weapon), then I don't think many would know it was based off of Samurai specifically. Though I guess ultimate combat was at least in part about fleshing out the Dragon Empires more...
Though my vote would have been that the Samurai was a alternate class of the fighter, cause I don't think horses weren't necessarily the backbone of many Japanese armies :-P
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My question though is why it has to be an "Eastern" thing? If the name was changed and the weapon expertise was more flexible (say, any one weapon), then I don't think many would know it was based off of Samurai specifically. Though I guess ultimate combat was at least in part about fleshing out the Dragon Empires more...
Though my vote would have been that the Samurai was a alternate class of the fighter, cause I don't think horses weren't necessarily the backbone of many Japanese armies :-P
Some can't separate the class name from their conception of the class.
My question though is why it has to be an "Eastern" thing? If the name was changed and the weapon expertise was more flexible (say, any one weapon), then I don't think many would know it was based off of Samurai specifically. Though I guess ultimate combat was at least in part about fleshing out the Dragon Empires more...
Though my vote would have been that the Samurai was a alternate class of the fighter, cause I don't think horses weren't necessarily the backbone of many Japanese armies :-P
I don't know. I asked a similar question a while back, and some posters took it personally. They just associate it that way I guess.
The Samurai is unusual in that it pretty heavily enforces the use of specifically Eastern weapons; even it's fellow faux-asian cousin the ninja could technically use short swords if it wanted to, but the Samurai's class features specifically call for and require the use of an Eastern weapon. You need to make house rules of some sort to strip away the Eastern flair of the class beyond just ignoring the name Samurai.
Personally, I am completely for houseruling the Samurai chassis to make it viable for settings that do not include Tian Xia or an equivalent; simply changing Weapon Expertise to be a single weapon of your choice would be fine, and I wish that this was the case RAW.
The Samurai is unusual in that it pretty heavily enforces the use of specifically Eastern weapons; even it's fellow faux-asian cousin the ninja could technically use short swords if it wanted to, but the Samurai's class features specifically call for and require the use of an Eastern weapon. You need to make house rules of some sort to strip away the Eastern flair of the class beyond just ignoring the name Samurai.
Personally, I am completely for houseruling the Samurai chassis to make it viable for settings that do not include Tian Xia or an equivalent; simply changing Weapon Expertise to be a single weapon of your choice would be fine, and I wish that this was the case RAW.
In similar discussions reflavoring was also not allowed by some, but others were ok with it. I think in the back of their minds it would still be a ninja/samurai/etc...
To me, reworking Weapon Expertise to fit the given setting is just the right thing to do.
Again, dwarves, elves, and gnomes are all great examples. I'd use it as a racial class so to speak, wherein the given race uses it + a ranged weapon that fits them (throwing axes for dwarves, crossbows for gnomes, longbows for elves). This fits it into a traditional fantasy setting just fine IMO. (Heck, that'd help make thrown weapon users more viable: Quick Draw as a bonus feat! Without actually having Quick Draw.)
Hm... Mounted dwarven axe thrower with that girdle of mighty hurling and all that.
|
People tend to prefer Samurai in eastern settings for several reasons. The Samurai is an alternate class for the Cavalier, not the fighter. The Cavalier orders are interchangeable with the Samurai's. Mechanically the Samurai and the Cavalier are nearly identical, to include the base class' free mount (the Samurai tradition historically began as mounted archers). Thus, some people running games who don't care for the Eastern flavor ask their players to run a Cavalier instead.
Just to be clear I LOVE samurai culture and history and often run some martial build skinned as a bushi of some sort. I'm currently running a PFS Swashbuckler that is tooled to feel like Jin from Samurai Champloo.
In the end all the honor/ devotion/ service aspects are non-mechanical fluff. In the end anyone can roleplay an honor bound warrior in service to a lord, and in truth a good DM will find all sorts of ways to work those aspects of the characters life into the campaign.
The eastern part is just the fluff. The rest is mechanics. Just change the fluff to fit your setting.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I really wish we didn't even have to have discussions like this. "Samurai" is just the name that happens to have been given to that particular grouping of game statistics. Reskinning/reflavoring is an important if not essential aspect of playing RPGs. It's a major part of what makes the hobby creative and enjoyable. When I actually have to walk my GM through the very concept of reskinning just to initiate the conversation about my character concept, I feel like I'm back in 1989.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Why is the Samurai class considered taboo in non-Eastern settings? [...]Discuss (but please be civil ;-) )
Let me turn the question around. What do you get from a samurai that you don't get from a cavalier?
If someone said to me "I don't want to play a wizard, I want to play a thaumaturge," my first question would be "what's the difference?" Ditto if someone said "I want to play a lama, not a cleric" or "I want to play a scoundrel, not a rogue."
In my experience, the Eastern flavor (and the katana) are what motivates most samurai fans. If you reskin by taking those away, you've eliminated the motivation for the player. But those are also what most GMs object to. If flavor is the only thing the player is after, but also what the GM objects to, it's hard to find a common ground.
Why is the Samurai class considered taboo in non-Eastern settings? [...]Discuss (but please be civil ;-) )
Let me turn the question around. What do you get from a samurai that you don't get from a cavalier?
If someone said to me "I don't want to play a wizard, I want to play a thaumaturge," my first question would be "what's the difference?" Ditto if someone said "I want to play a lama, not a cleric" or "I want to play a scoundrel, not a rogue."
In my experience, the Eastern flavor (and the katana) are what motivates most samurai fans. If you reskin by taking those away, you've eliminated the motivation for the player. But those are also what most GMs object to. If flavor is the only thing the player is after, but also what the GM objects to, it's hard to find a common ground.
Resolve point system and a focus on mounted archery vs teamwork feats and a focus on mounted charging.
Why is the Samurai class considered taboo in non-Eastern settings? [...]Discuss (but please be civil ;-) )
Let me turn the question around. What do you get from a samurai that you don't get from a cavalier?
If someone said to me "I don't want to play a wizard, I want to play a thaumaturge," my first question would be "what's the difference?" Ditto if someone said "I want to play a lama, not a cleric" or "I want to play a scoundrel, not a rogue."
In my experience, the Eastern flavor (and the katana) are what motivates most samurai fans. If you reskin by taking those away, you've eliminated the motivation for the player. But those are also what most GMs object to. If flavor is the only thing the player is after, but also what the GM objects to, it's hard to find a common ground.
Resolve. I love the idea that I can shrug off a magic assault that would otherwise have affected me just because of sheer heroic willpower.
It's not all that hard to play a wandering samurai in a western setting anyways. Any creative player worth his salt will find an interesting backstory that would give him a reason to be traveling outside of his original culture.
That being said, it's just like guns. Some dms/players just can't roll with it. Which imo, these limitations on fluff incredibly limits the fun you can have in these games. There are so many curveballs you can throw at your players if not everything in the setting is dark ages medieval timey wimey stuff.
It's not all that hard to play a wandering samurai in a western setting anyways. Any creative player worth his salt will find an interesting backstory that would give him a reason to be traveling outside of his original culture.
That being said, it's just like guns. Some dms/players just can't roll with it. Which imo, these limitations on fluff incredibly limits the fun you can have in these games. There are so many curveballs you can throw at your players if not everything in the setting is dark ages medieval timey wimey stuff.
This is why I aways recommend changing the fluff of a class in order to keep the mechanics wanted.
Resolve point system and a focus on mounted archery vs teamwork feats and a focus on mounted charging.
Why is the Samurai class considered taboo in non-Eastern settings? [...]Discuss (but please be civil ;-) )
Let me turn the question around. What do you get from a samurai that you don't get from a cavalier?
If someone said to me "I don't want to play a wizard, I want to play a thaumaturge," my first question would be "what's the difference?" Ditto if someone said "I want to play a lama, not a cleric" or "I want to play a scoundrel, not a rogue."
In my experience, the Eastern flavor (and the katana) are what motivates most samurai fans. If you reskin by taking those away, you've eliminated the motivation for the player. But those are also what most GMs object to. If flavor is the only thing the player is after, but also what the GM objects to, it's hard to find a common ground.
this bolded mechanic alone is what differentiates the samurai from the cavalier and serves as plenty of mechanical niche. the focus on mounted combat in place of teamwork feats is also a valid arguement. cavalier has no ability to reduce or even negate mounted archery penalties
It's not all that hard to play a wandering samurai in a western setting anyways. Any creative player worth his salt will find an interesting backstory that would give him a reason to be traveling outside of his original culture.
That being said, it's just like guns. Some dms/players just can't roll with it. Which imo, these limitations on fluff incredibly limits the fun you can have in these games. There are so many curveballs you can throw at your players if not everything in the setting is dark ages medieval timey wimey stuff.
I do not agree on the Guns-Samurai comparison. The Samurai are, in fact, just the name of some character mechanics. It don't really have anything with the setting, as long as you change the Weapon Expertise.
But guns... It change the world. Not only do you need some kind of technological level, but it will change also the way to do war. True, it can work if you play the card of ''the Gunslinger comes from ''Venise'', and the game is in ''Scandinavia'', but it means that finding bullets and gun's gonna be a pain in the ass.
I get where you're coming from there. I just think that it's limiting your options as a dm if you want to put only dark age medieval times stuff in your game and that's it.
I mean, think about how fun it would be to investigate say, a massacre that happened. And all of a sudden you find that there are gunshots in the victims and in-game your characters are all "wtf?" But the players are all like "omg the enemies have guns!"
The same thing could be done with Samurais, if the killings were done with Katanas and the players are all like "oh man east vs west omg!"
I mean, I admit this is very much a style thing and something I would do to throw a few story curveballs here and there. I get not everyone wants to do this. But hey, what I meant is that cool things can be done with anachronism and/or culture mixing. And I'm just surprised is all that not a lot of gms take advantage of it because "no guns in my fantasy please."
I'm not judging or anything, I'm just surprised. Play how you want.
It's not all that hard to play a wandering samurai in a western setting anyways. Any creative player worth his salt will find an interesting backstory that would give him a reason to be traveling outside of his original culture.
That being said, it's just like guns. Some dms/players just can't roll with it. Which imo, these limitations on fluff incredibly limits the fun you can have in these games. There are so many curveballs you can throw at your players if not everything in the setting is dark ages medieval timey wimey stuff.
I do not agree on the Guns-Samurai comparison. The Samurai are, in fact, just the name of some character mechanics. It don't really have anything with the setting, as long as you change the Weapon Expertise.
But guns... It change the world. Not only do you need some kind of technological level, but it will change also the way to do war. True, it can work if you play the card of ''the Gunslinger comes from ''Venise'', and the game is in ''Scandinavia'', but it means that finding bullets and gun's gonna be a pain in the ass.
Eh. Not really.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My rule is that your character must be eastern in some way, or Tom Cruise, whichever works better.
In extreme cases one can also assume the role of Keanu.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
We've GOT the non-Eastern Samurai... it's called the Cavalier. On the same venue, one could also ask why not use the Cavalier instead of the Samurai in Eastern type settings?
One's really only a flavor variation of the other.
That's already been answered in this thread: They have different mechanics.
You can reflavor gunslingers, but samurai are probably easy. Gunslinger has a few elements of their class that are very much tied to gun rules and may not make sense with crossbows, etc.
You can reflavor gunslingers, but samurai are probably easy. Gunslinger has a few elements of their class that are very much tied to gun rules and may not make sense with crossbows, etc.