So I wanted some opinions and thought. How d you think a samurai in 2E will be handled as a class or an archetype? What are your thoughts on this?
I personally want to see this as a class. I feel this can only be done as such.
Some notable things I feel the class should have
A fighting style - Sword, from mounted, archer, etc...
A Code similar to that of a Champion. But not focused on a deity.
Focused on a specific weapon. Then branch out to a second, maybe a third. Similar to the fighter but more specialized.
Something to do with their armor, maybe focusing around intimidation specifically.
My problem with 1E Samurai was it was just a cavalier, I felt like the samurai wasn't a true class in its own right. feel it was a lazy attempt to add it to the game, same with the ninja, and feel that it was more of a money grab. Here have eastern stuff but its a copy of something out and we just want quantity over quality.
I did like the resolve class feature and would like to see something similar. A feat like charmed life seems to be the most likely.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
I honestly don't think the Samurai needs to be a class. It doesn't even need to be a Archetype. A Samurai would simply be a Fighter/Cavalier/Archer, if you wanted to do be true to what a Samurai truly was.
Now I do think there could be some sort of Iaido Archetype, that would be cool.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
In order for an idea to qualify to be a class, you need at least 40 feats worth of material.
Samurai simply doesn't have that.
I think it's reasonable to see it as an archetype (maybe a Fighter class archetype, maybe a general archetype) with an Oath, and a few fighting style feats. Its feats could centre on the use of the katana, the wakizashi, the naginata, and the daikyu (with the archetype providing access to and proficiency in such weapons).
I could stretch a samurai into 40 feats. different styles base on the different weapons. a quick draw style mounted etc. I don't know if it would be different enough from the fighter however. That would be the key.
How about in theory create a Alternate class using the fighter or something? kind of like PF1 samurai with cavalier.
|
Weapon styles - sounds like a fighter.
Archery stuff - sounds like a fighter, maybe Archer archetype (which would allow your fighter to go up to Master/Legendary in both bows and swords at the same time).
Mounted stuff - can do that with a Cavalier archetype.
Code - could do that with Cavalier, although it's not very impressive. The fighter's Bravery class feature also does some of this.
Military leader feel - could do that with a Marshal archetype.
I think mainly what's missing are some "code"-themed feats, either to beef up the Cavalier archetype or for the Fighter directly. And perhaps some more thematic skill feats?
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I still think it should slot into the Drifter class idea going around.
In order for an idea to qualify to be a class, you need at least 40 feats worth of material.
Technically, no. Sorcerers and Wizards each had 32 in core, Bards had 36, Alchemists 39.
To build a samurai you could:
-you can pick a fighter with either swordfighting or archery focus
-take a paladin or cleric of shizuru and use the katana
-pick a flurry ranger with katana + wakizashi and possibly a shortbow
-pick a swashbuckler for a swordsaint type samurai
-possibly get the cavalier on top of any of those options
-alternatevely (or additionally depending on the feat ammount in your campaign) get the marshal on top of it
While I think that Samurai COULD make a compellig class I think it won't be one in PF2
The cavalier (to whom the samurai was an alternate class to) is only an archetype (or rather 2 archetypes - cavalier and marshal) and most of the 'unique' features of a samurai can be presented by flavor stuff and/or a choice of feats/archetypes
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I built a Sword Saint-kind of character once for a level 10/12 one- shot.
I basically just used a Fighter with a Katana going the one-handed feat line of the fighter, using feats such as Knockdown, Dueling Parry, Power Attack, Dual-Handed Assault(for the 2h Katana damage).
Worked out pretty well, imo. Was fun to play, too.
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
I see it as an archetype, considering that viking and cavalier are archetypes, and this way we could see Champion Samurai, Rogue Samurai, Barbarian Samurai, and Fighter Samurai. At most, it should be a fighter class archetype, but I don't see a super compelling reason to restrict it.
Incidentally, not that you brought it up, but I see Ninja as a Rogue Racket that specifically provides access to focus points and ki spells, since it has Eldritch Trickster for Gish, but itd be neat to have a variant specifically for focus spells.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Unless we get a massive Dragon Empires book for 2E I think an Archetype would be best. What makes a samurai different from a fighter is that they server a lord or cause. An archetype that granted a cause choice of either Bushido or Ronin and a handful of feats to do the cool movie/anime samurai stuff would be fine.
|
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'd rather have an overall "Knight" class introduced that combines the non-mount stuff of P1's Samurai and Cavalier, the Challenge, the Order, the Banner, Resolve, etc.
Granted I realize that's basically a non-magical Paladin more or less. Champion or Fighter with Marshal archetype gets pretty close, but hey, they brought back Swashbuckler and made it its own cool thing rather than just nimble Fighter.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I’d really like to see a class archetype for the Champion that excises the deity portion, but keeps you an oath bound defender. The supernatural bits can go either way, though it might be easier to retain those and just add non-supernatural options.
Definitely wouldn’t say no to a straight up Knight Class, but a class archetype is my preference.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As a Class? I don't think there's really a good, specific, place for that.
Isn't that the assessment pretty much everyone gave the Swashbuckler before the APG was announced? And a lot of people were giving the magus too?
Not that I think a samurai class is very likely, but I'm just a little surprised at how many people think it's impossible or that another class being able to do something similar puts it off the table, given that pretty much every non-core class Paizo's announced has been one a significant number of people had written off as unnecessary.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Isn't that the assessment pretty much everyone gave the Swashbuckler before the APG was announced?
To some degree, sure, and if they come up with an entirely new mechanic as cool as Panache, they could make a Class based around it easily enough. Samurai, however, has a lot of specific cultural baggage tied to it that I think makes it less than ideal for something like this.
They've removed a lot of that burdensome cultural baggage from Swashbuckler and gotten away with it, but I don't think they could do the same with Samurai, which limits its ability to be generalized. And having a Class with a cool and unique mechanic that's stuck in a specific cultural milieu has issues.
And a lot of people were giving the magus too?
Not mostly. Some people had this attitude but they seemed very much in the minority.
Not that I think a samurai class is very likely, but I'm just a little surprised at how many people think it's impossible or that another class being able to do something similar puts it off the table, given that pretty much every non-core class Paizo's announced has been one a significant number of people had written off as unnecessary.
For me, at least, it's really more that I don't think specific cultural groups, like Samurai, or Vikings, or even Knights, should get actual Classes, as that limits the ability to play an entire Class to games where that cultural grouping fits.
One could argue that Swashbuckler started as such a cultural grouping, but the final version (as I note above), manages to mostly ditch that baggage (they can use any finesse weapon, no problem, rather than being restricted to a rapier, for example), but other such groups have more problems doing that.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Since most of the Samurai we'd want to emulate are based on media properties that share a lot of tropes (and mutual influence) with Westerns, I kind of want the "wandering swordsman" a la Sanjuro or Zatoichi to be a class path for the Urclass that houses the Gunslinger.
Since classes are kind of a clearinghouse for tropes (e.g. the Monk is the entire Wuxia genre) we can stick Westerns and Samurai film tropes in the same box.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Since most of the Samurai we'd want to emulate are based on media properties that share a lot of tropes (and mutual influence) with Westerns, I kind of want the "wandering swordsman" a la Sanjuro or Zatoichi to be a class path for the Urclass that houses the Gunslinger.
Since classes are kind of a clearinghouse for tropes (e.g. the Monk is the entire Wuxia genre) we can stick Westerns and Samurai film tropes in the same box.
The 'Drifter' Class idea, I'm completely on board with, but is something very different from the PF1 Samurai both mechanically and thematically, and deals with a very specific type of samurai (and a very specific type of other character).
But yeah, I'm 110% on board with Drifter.
For me Samurai is almost a way of live like a ideology. I don't think that we need an archetype for this. Now a Class is a better idea if they create a new mechanic like they did to the swashbuckler
TBH, the only Samurai I liked in PF1 were the Brawling Blademaster and the Wandering Poet archetypes, which trade away a huge part of the chassis of the class.
Like when "mounted" is a key component of something, I kind of tune out.
Hmm As I think about it I could see it as a class. IT would make the classic weapons associated with it class proficient then have some unique feats to follow the combat style. Give me a quick draw style. a intimidation style. we already have mounted and archer options... Let me throw quick draw style samurai on a monk so I can get the edo period style wandering samurai. I'll be satisfied.
Honestly a potential Samurai/Knight class could be based around the Resolve mechanic, using Focus points to activate it.
Have some feats for quick draw and Iai strikes. Feats for mounted archery nothing too big. Some weapon feats distinct from what Fighter's get. A few mount feats. A few armor feats. Etc.
Resolve abilities: Not dropping to unconscious when you would reach 0 HP as a reaction; Bonus vs a save; Gain temp HP whenever you use Resolve; Remove certain conditions from yourself (like Champion Mercy ability); Starting a stance that prevents certain conditions.
Heck a Knight/Samurai class could be the one that manipulates Hero Points so they have different effects. Even the Resolve abilities could be powered or affect hero points.
Basically use the stuff the had in pf1 that is not yet represented in pf2 to make the archetypes. sounds good to me.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Heck a Knight/Samurai class could be the one that manipulates Hero Points so they have different effects. Even the Resolve abilities could be powered or affect hero points.
THIS I like. I was curious if a fortune/misfortune mechanic could be used, but using Hero Points makes a lot of sense and would achieve a similar effect.
Awesome. I won't lie, I am usually very hard headed. It isn't easy to sway me to the opposite.
But I must say there are some VERY good arguments to sway it as an archetype. I really like the concept of a knight class with the samurai as an option, similar to that of a champion.
I have always like the concept of the samurai and the ninjas. and in 1E was disappointed they were just alternates of the cavalier and the rogue. I do like the concept of the ninja being a rogue racket.
I liked a lot of the things I read. Especially with the Hero point manipulation.
As an archetype - what feats would be. I really want to see the iaijutsu strike from the sword saint have its own feat or something similar to it.
Well when I want to play a samurai I want to play on like Kenshin TBH occasionally tho I do want to play one from the Heian Era with the demon looking Oyori Armor.
I Say let the archetype be able to do both.
|
|
I think an "honorable warrior" focused archetype might be interesting - it would be something that you could use to build an iconic western knight, or an eastern samurai. By making it an archetype you could fit it on a fighter, but you could also put it on a swashbuckler ("musketeer, dueling with honor") or barbarian ("tribal honor").
I don't really think we need that much focus on weapon style stuff, because that's already available in pretty flavor-neutral archetypes like Archer that you can paste onto another class, or just built into classes like the Fighter already. But one of the key concepts of samurai is the honor system, and that's also what separates a romantic knight from a thug on a horse. So far, the cavalier's banner ability does a little bit with that but I'd say there's a 1-2 page archetype worth of potential still unused there.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The samurai would make a decent LN champion. Their code is just as strict, but elevates duty and loyalty above any question of morality. They are about as bound to their lord as a paladin to their god. Use the "tenets of bushido" instead of "tenets of good/evil/neutrality", and their focus spells could be more ki or resolve themed. Ronin could be the CN counterpart, perhaps.
As always I think a full class is better because it will inherently come with a multiclass archetype.
Also, I think hero point manipulation really should be a full class with a multitude of different feats.
Not to mention that having more classes is always good in my book. No need to limit things.
The problem there is actually getting it printed. An archetype could show up in something like an adventure toolbox in the Fists of the Ruby Phoenix AP, whereas a dedicated samurai class would likely need to wait for a full dragon empires book. I hear the first one didn't sell great, so that could be a long time coming, if at all.
Also, archetypes dedicated to a theme or concept seem more flavorful than multiclass thus far, although that's wholly subjective. A multiclass archetype has too much ground to cover to get to grips with each aspect the main class touches on.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Does anyone else sorta feel like Samarai as a concept generally doesn't, and never really did fit Golarian?
This is squarely an "Earth-Centric" concept in the first place that relates to one specific era in one specific culture/nation only. In many ways, it makes about as much sense to include in PF2 as it would to include a Class or Archetype for Navy Seals or a Mohawk Warrior.
A Knight Archetype with a set of rules regarding code of conduct and loyalty, on the other hand, would almost certainly approximate this concept far more appropriately than simply stealing a legitimate historical/cultural group of warriors from Earth.
I don't know if we're interested so much in approximating concepts from history so much as "approximating concepts from popular media".
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, that's sorta my point though right?
Would it not be better to enable someone to build the character concept that could easily be called a Samarai without needing to bolt all of the cultural baggage to said Archetype? There is a LOT of baggage that comes with that name and identity that, if anything, locks out or is at the very least mismatched to character concepts that don't directly point toward Japanese culture.
Just a thought I had, I'd hardly blink twice if they decided to keep the name and publish some rules to support it but I'm not sure it really makes sense, but on the other hand, neither do have of the names of the Weapons in the system if we look at it from that angle.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I feel like what we really want is mechanics for "taciturn wandering warrior who is bound by a code of honor that drives them" which is a samurai, but also a gunslinger.
So if we did a "drifter" class, then you can stick the Samurai stuff in there (if you want to ride a horse, or serve a master).
TBH, the only Samurai I liked in PF1 were the Brawling Blademaster and the Wandering Poet archetypes, which trade away a huge part of the chassis of the class.
Like when "mounted" is a key component of something, I kind of tune out.
The base samurai was very concerned with doing things that real samurai did at the expense of feeling like the movie samurai that people actually care about.
I'd agree that the best course of action would be to make a class that satisfies the Ronin/Mysterious Stranger/Etc archetypes. I think it'd be much easier to make a distinct and interesting chassis out of that.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It is sort of interesting that Pathfinder 2e has pivoted towards a more realistic version of some things that came into the game through media (e.g. "Drunken Boxing" no longer actually involves alcohol or real inebriation.) But I figure that the real Samurai/Knight as in "you're a member of the military noble class, and you fight who, where, and when your boss in the feudal hierarchy does" isn't really a thing that makes for a wide variety of good stories.