Samurai Builds

[Teapot Salty]

Hey guys (am I going to make a series of this, yes, yes I am, do I always answer my own questions? Yes, yes I do.) so I'm wondering what everyone thinks would make the best build or builds for a samurai, what would best emulate the classic image of a swift, highly skilled warrior, either your classic master swordsmen, or a more historically accurate horse archer/spearman. Thanks and as always, go nuts.

[Snig]

Hey guys (am I going to make a series of this, yes, yes I am, do I always answer my own questions? Yes, yes I do.) so I'm wondering what everyone thinks would make the best build or builds for a samurai, what would best emulate the classic image of a swift, highly skilled warrior, either your classic master swordsmen, or a more historically accurate horse archer/spearman. Thanks and as always, go nuts.

Battle Master fighter with a custom backround.

[Ralanr]

For archer/spearman? If you are fine without armor and are more focused on being wuxia themed, I suggest monk. Short bows I think are easier to use on mounts (I'm not an expert) and spear damage die levels up with monk martial arts because it's a simple weapon. As for subclass? I'd go elemental monk and fluff the abilities as effects from your warrior skill.

Of course we have fighter, but I wanted to experiment.

[Easy_Lee]

A custom monk would be best, perhaps one of the Kensai floating around. Barring that, a champion fighter can do just fine with an unarmored samurai build, though you'd want to ask your DM for a finesse longsword or something.

Barring both of those, a blade-pact warlock can fit surprisingly well.

Devoted to serving a patron, just like a samurai serves a lord
Refluff a rapier as a katana, or ask DM for a finesse longsword
Use spells like expeditious retreat and jump to give you mobility
Use armor of shadows and devil's sight to produce the hard to hit, highly perceptive samurai of popular fiction

[Naanomi]

Battle Master Fighter or Devotion Paladin (with the feat for Battle Master maneuvers maybe) for the classic samurai. animal handling for horsemanship

[Scarab112]

I'd say Battlemaster Fighter works very well. Possibly with a dip into Rogue or Monk if you want more agility and quickness.

[VoxRationis]

For archer/spearman? If you are fine without armor and are more focused on being wuxia themed, I suggest monk. Short bows I think are easier to use on mounts (I'm not an expert) and spear damage die levels up with monk martial arts because it's a simple weapon. As for subclass? I'd go elemental monk and fluff the abilities as effects from your warrior skill.

Of course we have fighter, but I wanted to experiment.

Interestingly enough, the classic Japanese bow is quite long. I'm not sure what the rules are for mounted archery in 5e, though.

[Malifice]

BM fighter. Dip monk for some martial arts flavor and unarmored defense if desired. Noble background.

Done.

[Karl Aegis]

Dragonborn is samurai: the race.

[Slipperychicken]

Sounds like a fighter with great weapon master. Take great weapon fighting and archery style in any order. Either have a greatsword nodachi or two-hand a longsword katana. Probably give him the soldier or noble background. If you want to emphasize mounted fighting, feel free to take mounted combatant.

[PoeticDwarf]

Hey guys (am I going to make a series of this, yes, yes I am, do I always answer my own questions? Yes, yes I do.) so I'm wondering what everyone thinks would make the best build or builds for a samurai, what would best emulate the classic image of a swift, highly skilled warrior, either your classic master swordsmen, or a more historically accurate horse archer/spearman. Thanks and as always, go nuts.

If I think about a samurai, I see a rogue/fighter.

[Human Paragon 3]

I actually like barbarian with the scholar background for this.

[Knaight]

There are a few options. You want to take the feats involved that make you effective at mounted combat, you'll probably want heavy armor, and then just use a spear and a bow primarily with a sword for backup (and duels).

[Raevum]

I was curious of this type of build myself. Personally I was thinking of perhaps a monk dip of about two levels for speed / UAD and some nifty Ki for niche spots. Than specialize in either a Battle Master or Champion fighter all the way. I'd also prefer Battle Master but at that point it's personal character Flavoring from different techniques and sizing up others in your profession to 'rigorous training and physique' for that crit potential increase.

[Naanomi]

I do like paladin for samurai, the code aspect already in place... It doesn't take much to turn Devotion into Bushido. Not every samurai but... Idyllic ones, 'true samurai' ideals. Smite works well with a good kiai behind it after all!

[CyberThread]

Most samurai's were not what you see in the movies. You want more a ranger, if you are looking towards a legit Sam :)

[Easy_Lee]

Most samurai's were not what you see in the movies. You want more a ranger, if you are looking towards a legit Sam :)

That's true. An archer fighter in medium armor would be the most historically accurate type of Samurai. But if you want a fantasy samurai...

[Teapot Salty]

That's true. An archer fighter in medium armor would be the most historically accurate type of Samurai. But if you want a fantasy samurai...

Like I say, anything works, could even homebrew a polearm fighting style as well.

[Knaight]

That's true. An archer fighter in medium armor would be the most historically accurate type of Samurai. But if you want a fantasy samurai...

A lot of the armor that saw use was really heavy by armor standards, for a huge chunk of history. I'm with you on the archer, with a side of spear (at least if you're looking at the military and not leadership roles and taking inspiration from one of the more warlike periods, which for a D&D character is almost certainly the case), but there's no way that the armor would qualify as medium.

[Easy_Lee]

A lot of the armor that saw use was really heavy by armor standards, for a huge chunk of history. I'm with you on the archer, with a side of spear (at least if you're looking at the military and not leadership roles and taking inspiration from one of the more warlike periods, which for a D&D character is almost certainly the case), but there's no way that the armor would qualify as medium.

I dunno. It was designed primarily for dealing with arrows, and would have been heavy relative to the other armor in Japan. But I'm not sure how well it would stack up to field plate, given the rarity of good iron in Japan. And I figured medium was best to allow some dexterity.

[VoxRationis]

If ring and mail are both heavy in 5e, then the o-yoroi armor is definitely heavy.

[Easy_Lee]

If ring and mail are both heavy in 5e, then the o-yoroi armor is definitely heavy.

That's fair, though ring mail, chain mail, and just "mail" are all the same thing and, when fitted, are very comfortable and actually quiet IRL. Mail ought to be medium armor; WotC doesn't know too much about actual weapons and armor.

[Slipperychicken]

WotC doesn't know too much about actual weapons and armor.

I heard that, at the time the first dnd armor tables were written, gygax and co. actually did their research, but the established authorities on the subject had a lot of misconceptions about the way medieval armor worked. This was of course, pre-internet, so they could get away with that kind of error pretty easily.

[Knaight]

I dunno. It was designed primarily for dealing with arrows, and would have been heavy relative to the other armor in Japan. But I'm not sure how well it would stack up to field plate, given the rarity of good iron in Japan. And I figured medium was best to allow some dexterity.

It's not as protective, but it's every bit as encumbering, and a fair bit more than that. Plate armor was a technological marvel, and it was significantly better than just about everything else around for a good while.

[Ralanr]

It's not as protective, but it's every bit as encumbering, and a fair bit more than that. Plate armor was a technological marvel, and it was significantly better than just about everything else around for a good while.

Sounds like samurai armor would work as half-plate.

[VoxRationis]

Of course, they did make lighter armors, on account of the old o-yoroi types being too cumbersome for people who weren't mounted.

[djreynolds]

It's crazy, but I would play a paladin. Your master is your faith.

I would take medium armor, scale mail and have a good dex score. I would greatly weapon fighting style.

You could add some battle master and grab two weapon style. This would allow you to wield a long sword two handed or fight with long sword short sword.

I would max out strength and charisma and have good wisdom or dex scores and try to fit in great weapon master and snag some rogue levels.
Perhaps 13 paladin, 4 fighter and 3 rogue. You could grab 12 paladin and 4 rogue, but 13 paladin is nice. You'd only sneak attack with your off hand when you're duel wielding and cleave with the long sword two handed.

I know monk would be thematically nice, but you need armor and a longsword is a martial weapon.

Rogue has cunning action, sneak and expertise. Fighter has battle master for some manuevers.

If you can get medium armor master go ahead but you may not reach it with a standard buy in.

[Kurt Kurageous]

That's fair, though ring mail, chain mail, and just "mail" are all the same thing and, when fitted, are very comfortable and actually quiet IRL. Mail ought to be medium armor; WotC doesn't know too much about actual weapons and armor.

OMGOMGOMG! Yesssss! WotC have never understood armor says the guy who fought heavy in the SCA in the 90's and wore almost everything.

Chain on top of padding and underneath a cloak or tabard makes as much sound as leaves blown by the wind. The joints on the arms/knees may clatter and chuff when you run, but that's it.

[Kurt Kurageous]

I heard that, at the time the first dnd armor tables were written, gygax and co. actually did their research, but the established authorities on the subject had a lot of misconceptions about the way medieval armor worked. This was of course, pre-internet, so they could get away with that kind of error pretty easily.

I think this is true. AC was more or less a shorthand for what you wore, and lower was better, eg. AC6 meant the protective class of chainmail (or some armor, I don't recall). Then they cross-referenced each and every weapon for effectiveness vs that armor class to produce a blindingly complex situation of plusses and minuses for the chance to hit and the damage that resulted. See ADD Player's Handbook, I think. Or maybe it was in the DM guide. So longbow arrows were very plussy to hit versus cloth armor (AC 9), a little less versus leather (AC8?), whereas the warhammer was super plussy to hit versus plate and less so versus leather, etc.

The origins of DnD was a rule set designed to simulate one group of warriors beating on another group of warriors. The primary factors considered to influence the outcome in this simulation was the armor worn and the weapon hitting the armor. A "hit" was an effective blow, not just contact. How effective the blow was was determined by the damage potential of the weapon to a human body. Thus the generic arrow did a d6, plus for the type. A high speed crossbow bolt got more plusses to damage than a lighter draw shortbow given it's propensity to penetrate deeper, whereas a claymore or poleaxe could knock a foe out in one blow, thus a bigger damage die (d10 or d12?).

Anybody care?

[djreynolds]

You know I read an interesting debate about Agincourt. Just how effective the longbow was, and just how terrible it was for French soldiers trudging through recenlty turned fields. Test were done with real archers firing a multitude of bows from different ranges. Interestingly, padding under the mail and plate did help in resisti some shots, though limbs that were less armored did not fair well and many soldiers did not employ shields that day. Many of the experts blame fatigue, as bowmen went melee with whatever and fell upon them.

And though I gave a "multiclass" fudge build. A samurai may just have to be its own class only because I found it very MAD with paladin as a base class. It's doable. You could really use any martial class as a base. Ranger is great for archery, but you gain skills not IMO appropriate for a samurai. Paladin us great as katana or mounted type. I like the monk.

Perhaps Wotc can create an "Oriental" adventures subset or add on.

I prefer the dual wield with long and short sword and a quick draw homebrew or the dual wield feat along with greater weapon master. You would just need good roles to flesh him out with multiclass.

[djreynolds]

You know the more I think about it. Samurai should be a class with archetypes like mounted, archer, or melee with one and two weapon option rolled into one. Yes base classes could work, but this could work. Same for ninja as a class but with archetypes magic, stealth, combat

[djreynolds]

try this build
https://merovia.obsidianportal.com/wikis/samurai
its an archetype and it works

[Slipperychicken]

You know the more I think about it. Samurai should be a class with archetypes like mounted, archer, or melee with one and two weapon option rolled into one. Yes base classes could work, but this could work. Same for ninja as a class but with archetypes magic, stealth, combat

Can't you just play a fighter with the appropriate fighting style, feat, and background? That does pretty much everything samurai are expected to do, so I'm not seeing why a new class is needed. My DM has already run samurai NPCs as fighters, and they work just fine.

[djreynolds]

Can't you just play a fighter with the appropriate fighting style, feat, and background? That does pretty much everything samurai are expected to do, so I'm not seeing why a new class is needed. My DM has already run samurai NPCs as fighters, and they work just fine.

I agree, I was just reading another build in a different thread. My build I use is MAD, its a paladin, fighter, rogue. He fights with one katana strength, and an off hand short sword dex and grabs a sneak attack with that. He's not optimal though. He has greater weapon and dual wield styles. But ability scores are tough. No mounted or ranged really.

[Naanomi]

Yeah any class that can be reasonable modeled with existing stuff I prefer to do so, then look to if a homebrew feat could cover what is missing, then a homebrew subclass, and only then look to a whole new class.

There are lots of ways to build a samurai, and that is good; just know that different samurai characters will have different focuses instead of cramming then all in one class.

[djreynolds]

Yeah any class that can be reasonable modeled with existing stuff I prefer to do so, then look to if a homebrew feat could cover what is missing, then a homebrew subclass, and only then look to a whole new class.

There are lots of ways to build a samurai, and that is good; just know that different samurai characters will have different focuses instead of cramming then all in one class.

You know I agree, but I don't. Only because I mean a paladin in a fighter cleric some say, but a paladin really isn't. There is archetype I found a link to on this site is cool, but not me either. I'd actually like to see everyone's concept. It's just such a different culture, and very different from a fighter. Perhaps a cavalier class who had a samurai archetype. Samurai came from a different social class than a fighter or rogue and really different motivations. I'm rattling I know but though you can simulate it, it just lacks that something special. And I apologize.

[squiggit]

Samurai came from a different social class than a fighter or rogue and really different motivations.
Says who? A fighter or rogue can come from any social class and have any motivation the player wants them to be.

[djreynolds]

I know, but I remember the samurai being a subclass of the cavalier and it fit the bill. To me, and I love the rogue and fighter the most, they come from street. They fight with grit. Just me. You know braveheart was a fighter, not a cavalry type. Grunt vs officer

[Knaight]

I know, but I remember the samurai being a subclass of the cavalier and it fit the bill. To me, and I love the rogue and fighter the most, they come from street. They fight with grit. Just me. You know braveheart was a fighter, not a cavalry type. Grunt vs officer

Fighters explicitly have access to mounted techniques, and plenty of the characters that are routinely brought up as fighter archetypes are mounted warriors of high social class, starting with knights.

[Slipperychicken]

I know, but I remember the samurai being a subclass of the cavalier and it fit the bill. To me, and I love the rogue and fighter the most, they come from street. They fight with grit. Just me. You know braveheart was a fighter, not a cavalry type. Grunt vs officer

They come from wherever their background says they come from. Rogues and fighters can be as snobbish and high-born as you want; just pick an appropriate background.

[djreynolds]

They come from wherever their background says they come from. Rogues and fighters can be as snobbish and high-born as you want; just pick an appropriate background.

You guys are both right, I'm just so used to paladins and fighters as they were in the older systems. Clearly paladin has shifted some, and the fighter class really now encompasses much more than the old man at arms.

[Kurt Kurageous]

If I were to DM this, I'd homebrew a blend of the soldier and noble backgrounds and leave class out of it. Why?

IMHO samurai is not so much what you wield, but who you are in the society. Thus I look to backgrounds, not classes. Classes derive from training and in a fantasy world do not necessarily correlate to backgrounds. Yes, you can have a sage-fighter, a noble-rogue, or a criminal paladin. I'd recommend blending the background, not creating a class or archetype.

If a background from scratch, then no languages, no tools, mounted skill, charisma proficiency for leadership, some kind of tactical sense (proficient with insight regarding opponent's intent in combat) or something like that. Makes INT worthwhile.

Tweaks? Please, no more optimizations...:smallyuk:

[Ralanr]

Background was a very big thing, and there were multiple different schools of teaching combat. Plus not every teacher/tutor taught the same way.

So focusing on background probably would work better. As long as it doesn't lead to full casters being called samurai.

Could a samurai clan have full casters? Yeah, but it's possible they wouldn't be treated as fairly or with much honor. Their powers would be useful, but too conflicting to the honor code to be seen as anything more than war...oh god it's like what the Qunari do to their mages in dragon age.

[Alejandro]

You could incorporate the Honor ability score from the DMG.

[Kurt Kurageous]

You could incorporate the Honor ability score from the DMG.

Yeah, that's almost a given, I would think. A big need to be very circumspect in speech and actions!

[ThermalSlapShot]

Yeah... The new Mystic Psionic Character would make the best samurai.

Two levels of rogue and you get the dude from Samurai Champloo.

But for now...

Variant Human (Resilient Con) Mystic (Order of the Immortal) 5/ Fighter (champion) 15

This gives you prof in Dex (Strength of Mind), Wisdom (Mystic), and Constitution (Resilient).

Str/Wis/Con build, you really don't need a high Int for the Immortal but due to MC you need at least 13.

Edit

Replace Fighter with Monk and go jujistu master and when you don't want to use your katana you can just beat someone to death with your bare fists.

[PotatoGolem]

You guys are both right, I'm just so used to paladins and fighters as they were in the older systems. Clearly paladin has shifted some, and the fighter class really now encompasses much more than the old man at arms.

Didn't fighters explicitly get a noble title as a class feature in one of the old editions? I seem to remember hearing about that.

It's funny, though, I always had the opposite view of fighters- they're the knights, the heroic champions, the King Arthur-types. Grunts are Warriors (in 3.x) or NPC statblocks. Either one can be a fighter now, of course, and the background system is really wonderful for capturing that difference. But it just goes to show that a lot of the background concepts of the classes varies a lot from group to group (or person to person)

[VoxRationis]

In AD&D, they became lords at 9th level and got retainers if they built a fort or castle. I too am not inclined to think of fighters as inherently lower-status warriors. They're supposed to be a broad, catchall representation of many kinds of warrior-types.

[Teapot Salty]

Yeah... The new Mystic Psionic Character would make the best samurai.

Replace Fighter with Monk and go jujistu master and when you don't want to use your katana you can just beat someone to death with your bare fists.

As a martial artist you have no idea how much it hurts me to hear jujitsu used in the sense of a striking martial art :P

[Ralanr]

In AD&D, they became lords at 9th level and got retainers if they built a fort or castle. I too am not inclined to think of fighters as inherently lower-status warriors. They're supposed to be a broad, catchall representation of many kinds of warrior-types.

Doesn't look like wizards broadened out much in terms of archetypes.

You know, a blade lock ronin would be pretty cool. Fey for more tricky styled swordsmen, fiend for...well for pretty much destruction, that doesn't really make a characters personality (it can, but it's not broad enough).

If you wanted to make Benkei, I think he'd be a mix of barbarian and monk levels, mostly barbarian. Polearm master with glaive, bear totem (Because Died standing usually sounds like being able to take a damn hit. It was probably due to rigor mortis, but I'm not sure how much berserker would fit).

[ThermalSlapShot]

As a martial artist you have no idea how much it hurts me to hear jujitsu used in the sense of a striking martial art :P

:smallsigh:

Yes jujistu isn't a striking martial art but D&D isn't real life nor is it a simulation of real life.

D&D also doesn't do well, at all, with anything other than striking when it comes to martial combat.

The use of the word jujitsu is because samurai were known to use that martial art. Replace jujitsu with boxing, karate, Kung Fu, or whatever else it doesn't matter as it will come down to fluff.

Up until we get a Setting Sun martial archetype at least.

[Ralanr]

:smallsigh:

Yes jujistu isn't a striking martial art but D&D isn't real life nor is it a simulation of real life.

D&D also doesn't do well, at all, with anything other than striking when it comes to martial combat.

The use of the word jujitsu is because samurai were known to use that martial art. Replace jujitsu with boxing, karate, Kung Fu, or whatever else it doesn't matter as it will come down to fluff.

Up until we get a Setting Sun martial archetype at least.

Melee simulation in D&D isn't that great, this much is true. Though this is pretty great for people who like to describe their attacks, which a complicated combat system wouldn't give as much leeway with.

Doesn't do anything for those who like being strategic, but it's not a perfect game.

[ThermalSlapShot]

Melee simulation in D&D isn't that great, this much is true. Though this is pretty great for people who like to describe their attacks, which a complicated combat system wouldn't give as much leeway with.

Doesn't do anything for those who like being strategic, but it's not a perfect game.

Actually it is even worse for people who like to describe their attacks.

"I grab the enemy's hand, twist it so they have to bend over which causes them to fall down, and then I strike them in the side of the head"

That is a grapple, a trip, and an attack when described like that. To describe it like this and do it like this it will take two-three actions/rounds.

If the game was set up to allow maneuvers as bonus actions or just part of the attack (plus your base damage) then we would have a very fluid and descriptive fighting system.

Without martial rider effects combat becomes very choppy when you want to do anything other than strike.

[Ralanr]

Or just know your DM.

Some DMs favor cool over rules. Not all, but if your DM isn't letting you have fun 50/60% of the time then why are you still playing with them?

[djreynolds]

A katana and wakizasi, two weapon and the ability to stow or draw that short sword as a free action. Mounted combatant. Paladin 13 and battle master 7 can cover a lot of bases. You get two fighting styles, enough feats, and paladin devotion gives a nice feel for master and Bushido. It's MAD, but doable.

[ThermalSlapShot]

Or just know your DM.

Some DMs favor cool over rules. Not all, but if your DM isn't letting you have fun 50/60% of the time then why are you still playing with them?

Or make a game where the rules don't force DMs to make up stuff on the fly that is pretty basic stuff.

As a player, when I go to a game (AL/Home Game) I expect to be using the same rules as I bought, not some homebrew rules that I don't know.

This is why 3e was a turn off, it eventually got to the point where DMs had enough houserule to make their own system.


A katana and wakizasi, two weapon and the ability to stow or draw that short sword as a free action. Mounted combatant. Paladin 13 and battle master 7 can cover a lot of bases. You get two fighting styles, enough feats, and paladin devotion gives a nice feel for master and Bushido. It's MAD, but doable.

It's sad that a basic fantasy concept takes so much work to make.

[Kurt Kurageous]

DMG p.41 mentions a samurai as paladin. That's about all the RAW there is. Go with your gut.

[djreynolds]

A Paladin is good base and so is the ranger and really any of the martial classes, fighter, monk, barbarian, and even valor bard has some good points to it. But the samurai is going to be mad. I've made some with a 27 point buy in. I put at least a 10 in every attribute. It works. Paladin, IMO, is a nice base because smite can simulate your strike and bushido. But ranger is great for archery and valor bard is great for the warrior poet.

I apologize now, I think people want an optimized character. I don't think you can dump stats on this one. The horseback archer probably uses a spear to charge with and needs strength, and unless you homebrew it, a katana is not a finesse weapon. So you cannot dump strength. Scale mail is medium armor so you cannot dumped dexterity. Unfortunately, my build has a 12 constitution and that hurts. I used the human variant
and get

Str 13 +1= 14
Dex 13 + 1= 14
Con 12
Int 10
Wis 12
Chr 14

Very MAD, unless you take strickly fighter or ranger and can dump the charisma. Monk works but you're armored. And barbarian gives a nice ronin feel to it. Rogue is helpful for cunning action.

[Falcon X]

Middle Finger of Vecna gave us this excellent homebrew:

http://middlefingerofvecna.blogspot.com/2015/05/class-pack-1.html

[ThermalSlapShot]

I apologize now, I think people want an optimized character.


See most people think I like to optimize, I just like to be effective and not hold the party back.

If you want to do anything other than *damage* on a martial build you have to optimize the hell out of it so you can have fun, but still be effective enough to not hold your party back.

[Ralanr]

See most people think I like to optimize, I just like to be effective and not hold the party back.

If you want to do anything other than *damage* on a martial build you have to optimize the hell out of it so you can have fun, but still be effective enough to not hold your party back.

Your experience may differ. The martials in my group don't optimize at all and we are push the campaign along faster than casters.

[ThermalSlapShot]

Your experience may differ. The martials in my group don't optimize at all and we are push the campaign along faster than casters.

If your DM is holding the martials hands or if the casters don't want to push the campaign along then yeah, this can happen.

But all things even, the martials don't have the features to do such a thing as much or more so than the casters.

I could play a commoner and push the campaign along more than others if the DM and other players work in such a way in which I have the opportunity to do so. That does't mean the commoner is on the level of the PC classes.

[Ralanr]

Or if the whole party respects each other and/or people are more focused on their ability to role play than their features.

Like how background makes the character more than the class. Noble and soldier, or even a combination of them makes a good samurai before building. Outlander, criminal, or urchin makes a good ronnin character.

[ThermalSlapShot]

Or if the whole party respects each other and/or people are more focused on their ability to role play than their features.

Like how background makes the character more than the class. Noble and soldier, or even a combination of them makes a good samurai before building. Outlander, criminal, or urchin makes a good ronnin character.

So... It is respectful to be forced to not play to your character's strength when that character is a necromancer or is a enchanter? To not be able to make a character and play that character? It isn't about playing the "features" but playing that character. If I'm playing a Knowledge Cleric, I chose those features cause they best represent my character. Characters are made up of features, you can't dismiss them.

Really it is more disrespectful that some people are knowingly playing a class that forces others to not play the character they want. Though, those players may not know what they are doing, I actually blame WotC for this issue.

If everyone is playing classes that can all keep up then no one has problems. But once you choose a class that is so narrowly focused ("I do damage, damage, and more damage") you are forcing others to have to deal with your issues.

A Cleric doesn't force the Fighter to play a different way, but a Fighter can force a Cleric to have to play a different way. This happens in team sports as well.

And there is no reason for this in a fantasy game, we could just bring everyone up to the same level and not have this issue.

And yes, I've seen this issue in 3.X and now in 5e.

[Ralanr]

My buddy played a necromancer while I played a barbarian actually. Both of us relied on each other heavily to survive. One time he would have drowned with the water weird pulling underwater if my barb didn't dive in and save him (and we had a lot of evil merfolk around us. It was not an easy fight). We also ran a simulation that involved the two of us fighting a...what was it? CR 7 snake person (we were 5-6). While my barbarian was feared (totem) he was surviving only with bane and unlucky rolls until I could come back and smack the snake dead.

During an early fight with an Ettin, my guy would have died if not for his guy hitting it with chromatic orb and chill touch (my dps was low due to sword and board).

Downside? This was low level stuff. He's gonna play a half-Orc genasi life cleric who focuses on grappling if he's not healing at level 10 (his character didn't die. He just wants to play more support) I'm playing my barbarian at level 10 or level 8 with 2 levels in fighter. So it'll be our first taste of high level 5e.

Course my group likes to talk about what we make before we play. That's what character building sessions are for. I'm also blessed to be with people who put character before optimization, so much that I'm switching to berserker because it fit better with the character.

It is a team game, you should help your buddies out like how they should help you. Sometimes that requires some out of the box thinking.

[RedMage125]

Interestingly enough, the classic Japanese bow is quite long. I'm not sure what the rules are for mounted archery in 5e, though.

The Daikyu was so long, it could only be fired from horseback. The archer turned his horse "broadside" and fired the bow.

[Tenmujiin]

One of my players wanted to play a "first strike" type samurai so I gave him a finesse longsword (which he generally 2 hands) and called it a katana and then he took levels of battle-master with plans to go assassin after 3 fighter levels. The 1d10 finesse weapon seems balanced so far, particularly since it requires both hands.

[EvilAnagram]

One of my players wanted to play a "first strike" type samurai so I gave him a finesse longsword (which he generally 2 hands) and called it a katana and then he took levels of battle-master with plans to go assassin after 3 fighter levels. The 1d10 finesse weapon seems balanced so far, particularly since it requires both hands.

It's not terribly broken - only a couple points of damage over a straight rogue - but I'm still not entirely comfortable with it. I suppose I'd have to see it in play.

[Naanomi]

One of my players wanted to play a "first strike" type samurai so I gave him a finesse longsword (which he generally 2 hands) and called it a katana and then he took levels of battle-master with plans to go assassin after 3 fighter levels. The 1d10 finesse weapon seems balanced so far, particularly since it requires both hands.
Two handed makes finesse weapons stronger due to interactions with Great Weapon combat style and sneak attack...

[djreynolds]

I like the idea of two handed long sword, and then dual wielding long sword and short sword. You can really cover all the bases. I know having high strength and dexterity is not always the best but a samurai needs both IMO, you don't have to max both out. A 14 in dexterity is adequate as you only need it for your off hand strike with the short sword. MAD but doable. Excited to see some builds. I like the idea even of barbarian-type Ronin.

[Once a Fool]

Two handed makes finesse weapons stronger due to interactions with Great Weapon combat style and sneak attack...

To illustrate: Great Weapon Fighting would add 0.4 repeating (call it 0.45) to the average of each 1d10 non-crit attack and a would further add another 0.4 to the average of each die of sneak attack (so 1st level of rogue and each 2 levels after potentially add 0.4 twice in a round).

This means 9 levels of rogue would net a paltry +2 to the average Sneak Attack up to twice a round. And even a level 19 rogue would only average +4 per Sneak Attack.

Note that Great Weapon Master will not add damage (except by providing a circumstantial bonus attack), since it's bonus damage only works for heavy weapons.

Compared to a finesse d8 weapon combined with Dueling style (average +1 damage per attack compared to the average of a 1d10 attack with no bonus), this doesn't seem to me to be so bad. Especially considering Dueling allows a shield.

Assuming sneak attack in both cases, Dueling with d8 vs. GWF with d10 is avg. 6.5 per hit + avg. 3.5 per SA die up to twice per round + 2 AC vs. avg. 5.95 per hit + avg. 3.9 per SA die up to twice per round + 0 AC. Like I said, seems okay to me.

Giving finesse to heavy weapons is where the game breaks.

[Once a Fool]

To address the OP's topic, though:

Samurai Jack = Monk/Fighter/Ranger/Paladin with Noble/Commoner/Hermit/Gladiator/Sailor as backgrounds.

[djreynolds]

Have dexterity to hit for all weapons and strength for damage. Have strength requirements to use heavy weapons and dexterity to employ finesse weapons. No samurai, in my very meek and humble opinion, would have an 8 strength. I'll let you finesse a long sword if you have a 13 strength and 18 dexterity, that seems fair. I'll let a cleric dump dexterity or wizard dump strength, but a rogue doing back flips is as strong as he is nimble. Samurai had power and grace. No monk in real life is sporting an 8 in strength, these dudes are strong guys.

[ThermalSlapShot]

Two handed makes finesse weapons stronger due to interactions with Great Weapon combat style and sneak attack...

I'm sure GWM needs a heavy weapon. Longswords aren't heavy.

But I may be wrong.

[Naanomi]

I'm sure GWM needs a heavy weapon. Longswords aren't heavy.

But I may be wrong.
Right which is why I said Great Weapon Style (from a fighter or paladin dip)