Samurai Question

[SirWolf312]

I will be playing a game of Pathfinder over the summer with some friends and my DM is using the Tier system to determine out point buy totals based off our class. One of my friends is new to the game and would like to possibly play a samurai. Can anyone tell me the difference between a CW samurai and a OA samurai? They are in two different tiers and get two different point totals.

[Hazzardevil]

I will be playing a game of Pathfinder over the summer with some friends and my DM is using the Tier system to determine out point buy totals based off our class. One of my friends is new to the game and would like to possibly play a samurai. Can anyone tell me the difference between a CW samurai and a OA samurai? They are in two different tiers and get two different point totals.

OA Samurai gets cheaper magic weapons and slightly worse bonus feats than a fighter, CW Samurai is literally worse than a fighter, with a few cool abilities surrounded by a pile of useless stuff. Like a weapon proficiency as a class feature.

[SirWolf312]

Okay so OA is better but how do you mechanically make one? Is one a third party class or something? Like which one would it be if you just used the alternate class?

[grarrrg]

I will be playing a game of Pathfinder over the summer with some friends and my DM is using the Tier system to determine out point buy totals based off our class. One of my friends is new to the game and would like to possibly play a samurai. Can anyone tell me the difference between a CW samurai and a OA samurai? They are in two different tiers and get two different point totals.

:smallconfused:
You have this thread prefixed as a "Pathfinder" thread, and then ask about CW/OA Samurai...is it a mixed game? Or do you have your Tag messed up?

[Yanisa]

Let me just state that there is a Pathfinder Samurai (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/alternate-classes/samurai) class (which I though this topic was about, figure me confused). Although very different then the 3.5 ones....

And some googling reveals them to be tier 5... I figured them tier 4, being component in something... but I never played one.

[SirWolf312]

We are playing Pathfinder and there is a samurai class on the pfsrd. I'm just trying to figure out what type of samurai it would fall under according to the tier listing my DM game me. It has both CW and OA but not regular samurai listed.

[Yanisa]

We are playing Pathfinder and there is a samurai class on the pfsrd. I'm just trying to figure out what type of samurai it would fall under according to the tier listing my DM game me. It has both CW and OA but not regular samurai listed.

You are most likely looking at a 3.5 tier list.

Try this one (http://www.minmaxboards.com/index.php?topic=1389.0). It is Pathfinder and seems well argued.

[Xaktsaroth]

Does he want to play a samurai, or the class called Samurai?

If it's the later, the OA version is superior to the CW version, from what I've heard/read.

If it's the former, go Warblade 20 with Exotic WP(Katana) and focus on Iron Heart and Diamond Mind. I've played such a character(Fencer, in my case, but it still works.) and it was a lot of fun.

Hope that helps.

[SirWolf312]

Thank you very much that helps a lot.

[deuxhero]

Tell him that Samurai is a title/social position and you don't need a class with the name "Samurai" to be one (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0209.html). The three "Samurai" classes are all pretty rubbish.

Don't even need a martial class: you could be Wizard who happens to be a bushi (which actually works really well. It makes sense you could get access to the intense training needed for wizardry and you've got a full name that fits into an arcane mark).

[StreamOfTheSky]

The PF Samurai is (High) Tier 5, along with the Cavalier it is created from. The CW 3E Samurai is Tier 6 and that's being kind. The OA Samurai I forget how it differs exactly.

[Twilightwyrm]

Tell him that Samurai is a title/social position and you don't need a class with the name "Samurai" to be one (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0209.html). The three "Samurai" classes are all pretty rubbish.

Don't even need a martial class: you could be Wizard who happens to be a bushi (which actually works really well. It makes sense you could get access to the intense training needed for wizardry and you've got a full name that fits into an arcane mark).

Yes, you could make a Wizard and call it something else, but...why? If you are looking to Gish, you are better off starting in your martial class, being a Duskblade, or some other permutation. As powerful as wizards can be, what they do does not match the traditional samurai's role, and more importantly, they are going to suck as melee combat for a long time, and even then the best ways of playing at being a fighter if you are a wizard involve turning yourself into something else. So yes, you can, but it isn't the kind if thing I'd go around suggesting to people.

[Spore]

Yes, you could make a Wizard and call it something else, but...why?

I am asking you why not.

I play P&P and roleplaying games to get away from more traditional rulesets and forcing people to take a class and detailing it the most stereotypical way possible. The trope "Samurai" and the title "Samurai" are not the same thing.

[ngilop]

I am not sure... I just feel telling a player who wants to be a samurai to stop being dumb ad be a wizard is a complete jerk move.

yes with the stupidy overwhelming power and versatility full casters get you can be literally ANYTHING as one.

but I just find it almost impossible to realiticly see a wizard be a samurai.

even in real life samurai thought it might have been semi-social station.

they were warriors dedicated to their lord. not mystics shrouded in mystery with ability that tellreality and the universe to shut up sit down to do as they command.

they were competent swordsman, and wonderful archers.

im not seeing where ny samurai summoned extra planar beigns used black tentacles o entangle their foes or creation random materials out of thin air.


im apologize but that is one of the things I hate most about the 'tier' system it has waaay to many supporters who feel that unless you are a wizard you are doing it wrong. subsitutte wizard for any 'tier' 2 of higher class.

[malonkey1]

I am not sure... I just feel telling a player who wants to be a samurai to stop being dumb ad be a wizard is a complete jerk move.

yes with the stupidy overwhelming power and versatility full casters get you can be literally ANYTHING as one.

but I just find it almost impossible to realiticly see a wizard be a samurai.

even in real life samurai thought it might have been semi-social station.

they were warriors dedicated to their lord. not mystics shrouded in mystery with ability that tellreality and the universe to shut up sit down to do as they command.

they were competent swordsman, and wonderful archers.

im not seeing where ny samurai summoned extra planar beigns used black tentacles o entangle their foes or creation random materials out of thin air.


im apologize but that is one of the things I hate most about the 'tier' system it has waaay to many supporters who feel that unless you are a wizard you are doing it wrong. subsitutte wizard for any 'tier' 2 of higher class.

However, you assume a standard "Wizard" loadout. You could easily choose a Wizard that mostly has melee buffing spells and the like that can be refluffed as training and meditation before battle. Really, a lot of classes could be workable Samurai. Off the top of my head, I can see the Knight, Fighter, Warblade, Crusader, Paladin, select Iaijutsu-focused Factotum builds, and more. Wizard is definitely an outlier, but it can definitely be used. People keep forgetting that a class is not a slave to the standard build, and can be used in ways not intended in order to fit a theme. A Wizard can be a Samurai, a Warlock can be a Jedi, and a Ranger can be a Cowboy. It's all about how you use the class features in your build that determines what themes it can fit.

[torrasque666]

I am not sure... I just feel telling a player who wants to be a samurai to stop being dumb ad be a wizard is a complete jerk move.

yes with the stupidy overwhelming power and versatility full casters get you can be literally ANYTHING as one.

...


im apologize but that is one of the things I hate most about the 'tier' system it has waaay to many supporters who feel that unless you are a wizard you are doing it wrong. subsitutte wizard for any 'tier' 2 of higher class.


You. I like you. You grasp the central idea of these type of threads. Its not "How can I be the most powerful?" but "How can I be good at this class?"

Actually hell, this isn't even about that. Its asking to explain the differences between two classes. I honestly feel I can't do that here because I'd just get "be a wizard" type response.

[deuxhero]

I am not sure... I just feel telling a player who wants to be a samurai to stop being dumb ad be a wizard is a complete jerk move.


Wizard was just an example (and a purposefully extreme one at that) that any class (except maybe commoner) has potential to be a "samurai". I also expected someone would give you the "right" answer after that though, but no no seems to have. Sorry.

As for the question itself, the two really just share a name mostly. OA Samurai is a 3.0 class (so more conversion work), draws heavily from a class that was greatly modified in PF (Fighter), has the worst code of conduct in existance (what is a chaotic act? If you go by the extreme argument, one choice of their class feature might violate it!) plus BoED's ancestral weapon feat is the OA Samurai's only unique class feature for a feat. CW is HORRIBLE and playing under Pathfinder makes it EVEN WORSE (intimidate doesn't stack in PF. It's a stupid, uneeded nerf to martials that doesn't effect casters you should ignore, but it's in PF).

[ahenobarbi]

You. I like you. You grasp the central idea of these type of threads. Its not "How can I be the most powerful?" but "How can I be good at this class?"

Actually hell, this isn't even about that. Its asking to explain the differences between two classes. I honestly feel I can't do that here because I'd just get "be a wizard" type response.

Are we reading the same thread? I są w some explanation of those differences followed by advice (good) to check with the new player if another class is an option (becouse some classes are much better for roleplaying samurai concept than classes named samurai).

[Sayt]

If you wanted to play a Samurai styled character in Pathfinder, you have a number of options.

Samurai isn't the strongest, but it does have some nice things, and comes with thematically appropriate weapon proficiency. (Tier 5)

Fighter is the mundane approach, the extra feats can make up for the proficiency losses. (Tier 5-4)

Paladin's can make very interesting Samurai, especially if you can debate your GM into allowing a Good Aligned Paladin-***-Ronin. (T4-3, more 4).

Last thing I'd consider, although certainly not the least, is the Magus. For lower levels, the light only armor and spell-casting is somewhat incongruous with my mental conception of a Samurai, though not incompatible. (Tier 3)

[torrasque666]

Are we reading the same thread? I są w some explanation of those differences followed by advice (good) to check with the new player if another class is an option (becouse some classes are much better for roleplaying samurai concept than classes named samurai).

Are some classes better at roleplaying Samurais? Yes. Its mostly due to the idea that you could use a Wizard to fit that. I see a lot of times in threads like these where a guy comes looking for a martial based class and all people do is throw casters at him. (IE, the guy who was asking how to build a sniper and half the levels suggested were Cleric)




Back on topic: I would suggest taking a Paladin and reskinning it, as that is closer to what I see as a samurai than the Samurai class.

[Yanisa]

Are some classes better at roleplaying Samurais? Yes. Its mostly due to the idea that you could use a Wizard to fit that. I see a lot of times in threads like these where a guy comes looking for a martial based class and all people do is throw casters at him. (IE, the guy who was asking how to build a sniper and half the levels suggested were Cleric)

Ugh, that happens so often in 3.5. Then I say I want to play a "Ninja", and some dude offers a weird "spellcaster" like "Shadow Sun Swordsage". :smallsigh:


Back on topic: I would suggest taking a Paladin and reskinning it, as that is closer to what I see as a samurai than the Samurai class.

And aren't you now doing to same thing? Advising a "spellcaster" over a material class? :smalltongue:

On a more serious note, why are we suggesting classes when the question is about tiers? And if I dare ask, why is the Pathfinder Cavalier/Sumurai a tier 5 character? Tier 5's are awfully rare in PF and even "famous bad classes" like the Fighter and Rogue seemed to have escaped tier 5 status (not on all lists, but a lot of people do place them tier 4ish), yet the Cavalier/Sumurai is one of the rare ones that universally seems to be dumped here, even though the class on first glance looks functional and intresting. (Then again so does the Monk, in some ways...)

[Spore]

Tier Lists are irrelevant if all jobs are accounted for in the group.

I play a PF Cavalier and it is by far my strongest group. You're not a burden unless you play a rogue or ninja (because DMs need to throw in things for the rogue to do, everything other classes do come naturally with social play and combat). With my Cavalier I do the ubercharging to kill big things quickly. I also have a bit of Diplomacy, Perception and Know (Nobility). The cleric keeps us one or several steps ahead of the competition (if the enemy has high AC, we get insane attack boni, if the enemy hits like a truck, we get temp. HP and AC, if we face a spellcaster, he counters the spells), the Arcane Archer kills important targets, the Gish tanks the BBEG and the trapper ranger scouts, traps and ambushes (tbh she is struggling, but because of the screwed TWF not the class).

Long story short: As long as you do not want to do combat with Archery, Two Weapons or Blasting spells, Samurai is a fine choice.

[malonkey1]

Tier Lists are irrelevant if all jobs are accounted for in the group.

I play a PF Cavalier and it is by far my strongest group. You're not a burden unless you play a rogue or ninja (because DMs need to throw in things for the rogue to do, everything other classes do come naturally with social play and combat). With my Cavalier I do the ubercharging to kill big things quickly. I also have a bit of Diplomacy, Perception and Know (Nobility). The cleric keeps us one or several steps ahead of the competition (if the enemy has high AC, we get insane attack boni, if the enemy hits like a truck, we get temp. HP and AC, if we face a spellcaster, he counters the spells), the Arcane Archer kills important targets, the Gish tanks the BBEG and the trapper ranger scouts, traps and ambushes (tbh she is struggling, but because of the screwed TWF not the class).

Long story short: As long as you do not want to do combat with Archery, Two Weapons or Blasting spells, Samurai is a fine choice.

I have never had a game where the I needed to add in the party Rogue. I always make any challenge one that can be passed in a number of ways. No Rogue? You're going to have to beat up the guard-beast. Fighter's too weak? Well, the Ranger can search for the hidden passage past it. Ranger accidentally lost his eyeballs? the Sorcerer can distract it with a tasty heroes' feast. Always give them about as many ways out of any given situation as there are players.

[Yanisa]

Tier Lists are irrelevant if all jobs are accounted for in the group.

I know that, I am playing a monk and I am not feeling useless to the group. :smalltongue:

A good player or DM knows that the tier system is more a guideline, or warning system, rather then a power list. A tier 5 and a tier 1 in the same group might lead to some issues when the tier 1 is always useful and the tier 5 has to sit out encounters... but a great DM can probably work around that. In my 3.5 group I'm a wizard and the rest of the party were two fighters and a rogue. Yet it never felt that I, the wizard, was dominating the playing field.

Still there is a reason why the samurai is discarded as low as the lists say, and tier 5 is the layer that classes are considered not even good in the thing they claim to be good in. I don't see why a cavalier/samurai should be bad in the whole mounted combat + supporting allies. And it doesn't really matter for groupplay, but still I am curious why. (The cavalier generally seems to be a class that isn't talked about.)

[SirWolf312]

Alright, alright, this is getting a little out of hand. I was not asking what is the best way to make a samurai. I asked what the difference was between the OA and CW samurai in the tier listing I had. Turns out I had a 3.5 tier listing instead of a pathfinder one. When that was given, my question was answered.

[Twilightwyrm]

I am asking you why not.

I play P&P and roleplaying games to get away from more traditional rulesets and forcing people to take a class and detailing it the most stereotypical way possible. The trope "Samurai" and the title "Samurai" are not the same thing.

Yes, Samurai is a title. So is Knight, Spy and Priest. But they are also archetypes, and when someone says they want to play, for instance, a spy, you don't hand them a character with a desk job cross-referencing field reports. So if you want a play a character of the "Samurai caste" that happens to be a wizard, hell if you just want to play against type, you are more than welcome and the rules will support you're attempt. But if someone asks for suggestions on playing one, try to keep in mind the archetype they are most likely envisioning.

[grarrrg]

Alright, alright, this is getting a little out of hand. I was not asking what is the best way to make a samurai. I asked what the difference was between the OA and CW samurai in the tier listing I had. Turns out I had a 3.5 tier listing instead of a pathfinder one. When that was given, my question was answered.

Yeah...I think they know...they're in full "thread derailed" mode.

[Spore]

Yeah...I think they know...they're in full "thread derailed" mode.

We answered the question. The missing further input led to a discussion. I see no problem here.