# Xanathar's Guide to Everything's Samurai Subclass



## Morrus (Oct 4, 2017)

Next up, it's _Xanathar's Guide's_ samurai subclass! "The samurai is in the book because the samurai is a great example of a word that people want to use to say "This is my character, I'm playing a samurai right [snark type people like?] so then when you say what does the samurai include you have to ask yourself well clearly when someone is saying here in this Forgotten Realms campaign, or whatever campaign, "I want to play a samurai". They're clearly not saying "I want to play a noble born warrior from feudal Japan who has a warlord", okay, that's probably not what they're saying. They're referring to what I what I think of is like the comic book or movie version of the samurai" said Mearls to D&D Beyond.
[video=youtube;G6VVT7THzIE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G6VVT7THzIE[/video]​

"Same thing with knight when someone says "I want to play a knight", they're probably thinking more what we saw in feedback and had a knight subclass that ended up getting devoured by the Cavalier.  They want someone who's really good at fighting on horseback, which is definitely part of being a knight, but that's the part that's stuck out not the "Well you've sworn fealty to someone and you have to like you're responsible for like you're a warrior noble born, who's just  because you own a horse and owning a horse is expensive and you've gotta be a [new little horse?] and all this other stuff", so you have to ask yourself "What is it when people say samurai, what do they mean and what is the actual thing they're looking for?" 

For me a lot of it goes to Kurosawa,  the Seven Samurai , which I love that movie and I love any movie that kind of deals with transitions  that movie is really it's about the Seven Samurai but what it's really about is the end of the samurai era right  it's about firearms right and the change in culture and Japan's heading toward modernization" 

And so but what is it about the samurai that people find appealing, and what we sort of hit on was this idea of that fighting spirit. That the  samurai has duty and puts duty above everything else and will die in trying to seek out "Here is my duty here's what I have set out to do, nothing will stop me"...  that implacable nature. 

So the samurai has the ability to get a boost of temporary hit points and attack with advantage for one round and they can do that three times between short rests. So basically as a samurai I kind of almost say that mechanically is like this micro-range - like barbarians range is much more produced - but it in the movie in my mind of thinking of this character we're designing, what I saw was okay it's the fight, you're a fighter and you've been backed up to the wall, the ogre, your second or third little fighter, the ogre just smashed you, you're down to three hit points, you've got to put this ogre down, well that's when you're using your samurai ability and then you're using your heroic surge as a fighter to get an extra action and so you're making a bunch of attacks all with advantage and you've given yourself a bunch of temporary hit points if maybe your clerics down or you're of healing points...  healing spells so this is your sword if you're gonna cling to the edge and just alpha strike to try to take this guy down, and that felt very much like in the movie my mind it's like it's the samurai who's like bloodies but he's just still standing and fighting right like,  in spite all these injuries, "This is my enemy, this is my goal nothing's going to stop me", so give people that real sense "Oh yeah that's the character I want to play, I want to play this bold impetuous unstoppable warrior, really fueled by this fighting spirit I have compared to other fighters."


----------



## Tales and Chronicles (Oct 3, 2017)

This one made me realise that I would appreciate playing a samurai in a D&D game. I do have the reflex to say ''How can a player be a samurai without the whole system of feudal Japan''. But MM makes a good point and I should instead try to find ''what's a samurai in my game/setting'' (considering that I want to have them, for starter).


----------



## Mistwell (Oct 3, 2017)

Here is the video:

[video=youtube;G6VVT7THzIE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=2&v=G6VVT7THzIE[/video]


----------



## MiraMels (Oct 3, 2017)

I'm not really seeing why you couldn't just do this with the Battle Master.


----------



## jaelis (Oct 3, 2017)

MiraMels said:


> I'm not really seeing why you couldn't just do this with the Battle Master.




Seems like that is what Mearls spent the whole video addressing


----------



## BookBarbarian (Oct 3, 2017)

MiraMels said:


> I'm not really seeing why you couldn't just do this with the Battle Master.




A Noble Battlemaster makes a great historic Samurai. That's not what this is.



jaelis said:


> Seems like that is what Mearls spent the whole video addressing




Indeed. It looks like it's going to be very similar to the UA samurai with it's "Mini Rages".


----------



## pdegan2814 (Oct 3, 2017)

gyor said:


> I really didn't think the Samurai would make it,  it felt mechanically redundant with the Knight,  plus they already had two fighter archetypes,  the Arcane Archer and the Cavalier.
> 
> I'm curious as to what it's final mechanics look like.




I know we got a second revision of the Arcane Archer in Unearthed Arcana, but I haven't heard about it being confirmed for XGTE. Where did you see that it was?


----------



## cbwjm (Oct 3, 2017)

From memory, I really quite liked the samurai subclass.


----------



## The-Magic-Sword (Oct 3, 2017)

pdegan2814 said:


> I know we got a second revision of the Arcane Archer in Unearthed Arcana, but I haven't heard about it being confirmed for XGTE. Where did you see that it was?




Most of us are assuming those are the same thing, since they explicitly said things would be getting in based primarily on a threshold of popularity.


----------



## jaelis (Oct 3, 2017)

cbwjm said:


> From memory, I really quite liked the samurai subclass.




I found this ability a little confusing though:


> Strength Before Death
> Starting at	18th	level, your	fighting spirit	can delay the	grasp of death.	If you take damage that would reduce you to	0	hit	points,	you	can	delay that	damage and	immediately	take	a	bonus	turn,	 interrupting the	current	turn.	You	don’t	take	the damage	until	the	bonus	turn	ends.	It	is	possible	to	do	things,	such	as	gaining	resistance,	that change	how	much	of	that	damage	you	take.



Its hard for me to picture what is happening if you use your bonus action to move out of reach of the triggering attack, vs. gaining resistance to it. Maybe it will be a little clarified now


----------



## gyor (Oct 3, 2017)

pdegan2814 said:


> I know we got a second revision of the Arcane Archer in Unearthed Arcana, but I haven't heard about it being confirmed for XGTE. Where did you see that it was?




 I kind of assumed it was, but your right, it might not be, that would be shame.


----------



## lkj (Oct 3, 2017)

pdegan2814 said:


> I know we got a second revision of the Arcane Archer in Unearthed Arcana, but I haven't heard about it being confirmed for XGTE. Where did you see that it was?




Mearls basically confirmed it on Twitter today:

https://twitter.com/mikemearls/status/915309609698521088

AD


----------



## pdegan2814 (Oct 3, 2017)

The-Magic-Sword said:


> Most of us are assuming those are the same thing, since they explicitly said things would be getting in based primarily on a threshold of popularity.




True, I would say that the subclasses they did additional passes on have a higher probability of getting in. But "widely suspected" isn't the same as "confirmed". Plus, Jeremy's video about the Cavalier suggests the final take will look quite a bit different from both UA revisions, so it's entirely possible that they wanted to give it a 2nd pass and still didn't think it was ready. I do hope Arcane Archer makes it in, the 2nd revision was quite strong, and the idea of a Fighter subclass specifically built around ranged fighting seems appropriate, especially since the Cavalier and the Samurai are much more appropriate for melee Fighters.


----------



## pdegan2814 (Oct 3, 2017)

lkj said:


> Mearls basically confirmed it on Twitter today:
> 
> https://twitter.com/mikemearls/status/915309609698521088
> 
> AD




I would say that tweet certainly upped the odds. But I've learned with things like this that until they officially say "yes, it's in", then it's still assumption not fact


----------



## pdegan2814 (Oct 3, 2017)

gyor said:


> I kind of assumed it was, but your right, it might not be, that would be shame.




All the indications are that it will likely be in, which will make me happy. But I'm waiting until an official confirmation before celebrating


----------



## dave2008 (Oct 3, 2017)

gyor said:


> I really didn't think the Samurai would make it,  it felt mechanically redundant with the Knight,  plus they already had two fighter archetypes,  the Arcane Archer and the Cavalier.
> 
> I'm curious as to what it's final mechanics look like.




Well, they did say that they sorta combined the Cavalier and the Knight, so maybe now there is less crossover.


----------



## flametitan (Oct 3, 2017)

jaelis said:


> I found this ability a little confusing though:
> 
> Its hard for me to picture what is happening if you use your bonus action to move out of reach of the triggering attack, vs. gaining resistance to it. Maybe it will be a little clarified now




Well first, the video confirms it'll be temporary HP instead of resistance. Secondly, I assume that nothing special happens if you move out of reach. You're delaying _applying damage_ rather than the attack itself. So moving away would still result in a dying samurai, as the attack is still considered to have hit you, and you're still going to take that damage at the end of the bonus turn, no matter how far you run.

Maybe I'm misunderstanding your question.


----------



## pdegan2814 (Oct 3, 2017)

dave2008 said:


> Well, they did say that they sorta combined the Cavalier and the Knight, so maybe now there is less crossover.




Hopefully it means the Knight's Implacable Mark and Hold The Line abilities will be included in some form.


----------



## Chaosmancer (Oct 3, 2017)

Hmmm, I'm not sure how I feel about the change to the samurai.

I got a chance to play a half-orc samurai for a few levels, and Heavy Armor Master's DR combined with Resistance made me incredibly hard to take down and I liked that. However, I can see the resistance thing is the barbarian schtick and the Temp Hp might be a better mechanic for it. But, it will depend on 1) how much hp are we talking and 2) how long does it last. 

Getting a massive boost of temp hp that only lasts a turn may make you nearly invincible for that turn, but makes it a difficult proposition for other times you may want the advantage. But, getting only 5 or 10 points of temp hp isn't going to do a whole lot if you've got more than one attack coming you way, even if it lasts all day. 

So, I'm hoping for something solid, but I'm not sure this will end up working as well as the original design did for the character I played. But, at the very least it did make it on, which is amazing


----------



## cbwjm (Oct 4, 2017)

jaelis said:


> I found this ability a little confusing though:
> 
> Its hard for me to picture what is happening if you use your bonus action to move out of reach of the triggering attack, vs. gaining resistance to it. Maybe it will be a little clarified now




It is a little weird. I think after reading it (twice) that you still take the hit and will be affected by the damage but you ignore it until the end of your bonus turn. That's why you could gain resistance to it but can't move out of the way of the attack since you are still hit. It could definitely be clearer though.


----------



## AmerginLiath (Oct 4, 2017)

pdegan2814 said:


> Hopefully it means the Knight's Implacable Mark and Hold The Line abilities will be included in some form.




Ever since the 3.0 feat, every D&D ability named Hold the Line has continued to cause me to spontaneously sing out, “Love isn’t always on time!” literally every single time that I read the name...


----------



## Yaarel (Oct 4, 2017)

Arcane Archer works better as a Wizard archetype. Wizard can benefit from ranged archery attacks, and organizing a Wizard tradition around it makes sense.

By contrast, as a Fighter archetype, it feels redundant with the Eldritch Knight that can already take archery as a Fighting Style.

In all cases, the Arcane Archer should have an energy arrow as a cantrip, similar to the D&D cartoon ranger, and relating to the British folklore about ‘aelfshot’, an invisible arrow that deals psychic damage, namely pain, spasms, seizures, and strokes.


----------



## Mouseferatu (Oct 4, 2017)

Really glad to hear this. I love the samurai. Been playing one in a "gonzo, everything goes, 20th-level mini-campaign," and I've really enjoyed the class. I hope it doesn't change too much from the UA/playtest.

(I haven't watched the video as of yet.)


----------



## Li Shenron (Oct 4, 2017)

In my UA feedback I wrote that IMO the Knight and the Samurai were overlapping in concept, both being essentially "noble educated warriors", and I suggested them to be merged into a single archetype, leaving the choice of flavor (western/asian/else) to the player's narrative description.

But the Knight also overlapped somewhat in concept with the Cavalier, and WotC decision was to merge those 2 instead.

It would have actually been possible to merge even all three, but then you probably end up discarding some good abilities that can add to the game.

While I am not overly fond on this subclass (at least not the UA preview), one bright side of adding it to the game is that it makes the oriental flavor more part of the game... the reason why I've never liked having Monks in D&D has always been because they were the _only_ oriental concept in an otherwise typically very western setting, and so they felt out of place. Including Samurai certainly makes Monks feel more welcome to me.

Now if only they would keep the Wu Jen too (when Psionics come out), it would make even more sense...


----------



## Cap'n Kobold (Oct 4, 2017)

Just as you can play a "samurai character" with the Champion Fighter class, you can always use the samurai fighter class to represent a different character concept.


----------



## ZeshinX (Oct 4, 2017)

While I'm glad WotC is visiting some of their Oriental Adventures classes of previous editions, frankly the DM's Guild product Heroes of the Orient achieves a far superior approach.

WotC's approach is simpler, and likely to be organized play legal if that's your thing, and that's great, but if you're looking for a more complete OA-inspired collective of material, Heroes of the Orient is likely going to serve you far better that a few piecemeal bits from WotC.


----------



## jaelis (Oct 4, 2017)

flametitan said:


> Well first, the video confirms it'll be temporary HP instead of resistance.



I think that is a different ability though.



> Secondly, I assume that nothing special happens if you move out of reach. You're delaying _applying damage_ rather than the attack itself. So moving away would still result in a dying samurai, as the attack is still considered to have hit you, and you're still going to take that damage at the end of the bonus turn, no matter how far you run.
> 
> Maybe I'm misunderstanding your question.



It's mainly a narrative thing. So you get hit by an attack that would take you to 0 hp, and decide to use Strength Before Death to strike back. I can see two ways to describe that: (a) you're so tough that even though you've been stabbed, you have time for one last attack before you drop, or (b) you're so quick that you can get an attack in just before the killing blow lands. Either of those works for me, and the effect is the same.

But say it's a fireball, and you use your action to drink a potion of fire resistance. Per the rules, that is effective, which I can only understand as option (b). But if you use your action to dash out of the spell area, then you still take the damage, which seems to require option (a). 

So how am I supposed to think about it? I'd like a narrative option (c) that works for both cases. 

Of course, maybe the ability was tweaked a bit to avoid this conflict.


----------



## TwoSix (Oct 4, 2017)

ZeshinX said:


> While I'm glad WotC is visiting some of their Oriental Adventures classes of previous editions, frankly the DM's Guild product Heroes of the Orient achieves a far superior approach.
> 
> WotC's approach is simpler, and likely to be organized play legal if that's your thing, and that's great, but if you're looking for a more complete OA-inspired collective of material, Heroes of the Orient is likely going to serve you far better that a few piecemeal bits from WotC.



Excellent point, Heroes of the Orient is a great product.


----------



## Jonathan Alvear (Oct 4, 2017)

Well, obviously temporary HP affects all damage vs. the basic B/P/S resistance.  I think they had Fighting Spirit in mind when they wrote the text for Strength Before Death.  So if you invoked Fighting Spirit when Strength Before Death triggered, you would have triggered the B/P/S resistance and possibly reduced the damage to below what would have taken you down to 0 HP.  In the new version, your pool of temporary HP from Fighting Spirit may soak up enough damage to prevent you from actually going down to 0 HP by the end of the bonus turn from Strength Before Death.  

In either case, the point was that if you had any uses of Fighting Spirit left, you could invoke Fighting Spirit to potentially prevent yourself from going to 0 HP (as well as get advantage on your attacks).  You also could activate Action Surge if you still have it.  You could not, however, use Fighting Spirit and Rapid Strike in the same turn.  If you survive to your next turn, you then could give up your advantage for an extra strike from Rapid Strike.


----------



## GreenTengu (Oct 4, 2017)

Well, at least they are building it off of the concept that it is about "duty" first and foremost. Given that the meaning of samurai is "one who serves" meaning a dedicated lifelong military officer who is on the payroll of someone from a noble house... well, at least they are on the right track and far less likely to classify the most stand-out examples of samurai in history as something other than samurai.

It is a vast improvement over the damn nonsense of 3.0 Oriental Adventures where the concept of "samurai" was "I have a magical katana and I am the best at using a magical katana and therefore I use a magical katana." Which is the mistake I see pretty much every thread on this board proposing this subclass makes ever since 5E launched. So many people are just incapable of getting over their whole fixation on the sword that they actually build the class to dissuade people from using bows (which is really where a Japanese Samurai shines over the European knight) or polearms (which they tended to use in battle at least as often as their sword).


----------



## Uchawi (Oct 4, 2017)

I prefer 'I want to play a noble born warrior from feudal Japan who is a warlord'. How each player gets there is up to them. However, with any fighter presented in 5E I am afraid it will be too simple.


----------



## Mirtek (Oct 4, 2017)

Cap'n Kobold said:


> Just as you can play a "samurai character" with the Champion Fighter class, you can always use the samurai fighter class to represent a different character concept.



If you want to emulate the fictional samurai rather than the more historical one the barbarian class is even better


----------



## dave2008 (Oct 5, 2017)

Cap'n Kobold said:


> Just as you can play a "samurai character" with the Champion Fighter class, you can always use the samurai fighter class to represent a different character concept.




That would be my plan.


----------



## jrowland (Oct 5, 2017)

AmerginLiath said:


> Ever since the 3.0 feat, every D&D ability named Hold the Line has continued to cause me to spontaneously sing out, “Love isn’t always on time!” literally every single time that I read the name...




Thank you. You've successfully passed this disease to another.


----------



## Yaarel (Oct 5, 2017)

@_*Morrus*_, I appreciate you providing transcripts for all of these videos!


----------



## Azzy (Oct 5, 2017)

Mirtek said:


> If you want to emulate the fictional samurai rather than the more historical one the barbarian class is even better




THE fictional samurai? You mean A fictional samurai—given that samurai in fiction are all over the place in how they're represented (which is really unsurprising). There is no single iconic take on the samurai.


----------



## Yaarel (Oct 5, 2017)

[MENTION=6563]Azzy[/MENTION], [MENTION=40810]Mirtek[/MENTION]

Using the Barbarian for a Samurai makes sense to me.

The light armor, toughness, high Dexterity, relentless attacks, and so on, work pretty well.

The suggestion by Mirtek to use the Barbarian was surprising because its flavor is so wild, and the flavor of the Samurai is so civilized. But both are arguably disciplined warriors, and the mechanics seem a good fit. Flavor ‘rage’ as ‘zen’, and it works.


----------



## thanthaocb (Oct 5, 2017)

For me a lot of it goes to Kurosawa, the Seven Samurai , which I love that movie and I love any movie that kind of deals with transitions that movie is really it's about the Seven Samurai but what it's really about is the end of the samurai era right it's about firearms right and the change in culture and Japan's heading toward modernization"


----------



## thanthaocb (Oct 5, 2017)

That the samurai has duty and puts duty above everything else and will die in trying to seek out "Here is my duty here's what I have set out to do, nothing will stop me"... that implacable nature.


----------



## Ranger REG (Oct 5, 2017)

Would they be describing Kara-Tur setting in the FR world of Toril for 5e?


----------



## Wrathamon (Oct 5, 2017)

for me i dont understand the difference between knights & samurai to be honest. They're noble warriors who wear heavy armor and fight for a lord.


----------



## Cap'n Kobold (Oct 5, 2017)

Wrathamon said:


> for me i dont understand the difference between knights & samurai to be honest. They're noble warriors who wear heavy armor and fight for a lord.




They have often been portrayed quite differently in fiction. And that is the basis from which many D&D character concepts spring from.

If anything else, we have the opposite issue with the Samurai, same as with the Kensei and several other archetypes:
There are so many different portrayals of "Samurai" that many people had a concept of what a Samurai was that didn't fit with the way it was represented. From the historical mounted masters of the spear and bow, to the unarmoured duelling courtesans of later eras depicted in recent media. Many different concepts, all with the same name.


----------



## BookBarbarian (Oct 5, 2017)

Wrathamon said:


> for me i dont understand the difference between knights & samurai to be honest. They're noble warriors who wear heavy armor and fight for a lord.




Knights rarely if ever used bows in battle. Samurai often did. 

This is a moot point however since there is little about the Samurai class that well represents historical Samurai. Which Mearls was very up front about in the video.


----------



## Morrus (Oct 5, 2017)

I'm not sure how I feel about Mearls telling me that when I say "I want to play a samurai" I'm clearly not saying "I want to play a noble born warrior from feudal Japan who has a warlord". That is exactly what I'm saying.


----------



## 3catcircus (Oct 5, 2017)

But how many *are* saying they want a noble asian warrior with feudalism and honor?  Forgotten Realms is the default setting.  Kozakura and Wa are the pseudo-Japan cultures/regions.  How about doing more than just lip service and let the battlemaster fill that role for non-asian samurai.


----------



## hejtmane (Oct 6, 2017)

Cap'n Kobold said:


> They have often been portrayed quite differently in fiction. And that is the basis from which many D&D character concepts spring from.
> 
> If anything else, we have the opposite issue with the Samurai, same as with the Kensei and several other archetypes:
> There are so many different portrayals of "Samurai" that many people had a concept of what a Samurai was that didn't fit with the way it was represented. From the historical mounted masters of the spear and bow, to the unarmoured duelling courtesans of later eras depicted in recent media. Many different concepts, all with the same name.




Most think of the Samarui of Meiji time or if older from the movie Shogun but I do much like you find it funny that the Samuari and the Knight were bacialy the same dam thing. Horsemen in heavy armor oh and alot of them carried a odachi or a nodachi large/Great sword  or field sword. They were later outlawed and the Katana took over and of course the media myths and Japense ledgends etc etc took over. They were also great spearman and Bowman


----------



## gyor (Oct 6, 2017)

There is also Samurai in "Shou" towns in various Faerun cities like Westgate. 

 And a Shou nation in Faerun which is called Nathlan I believe is a mix of Kara Tur cultures.


----------



## Coroc (Oct 6, 2017)

But i want to play a ronin


----------



## Coroc (Oct 6, 2017)

[MENTION=533]Ranger REG[/MENTION]  but then they Need some more "eastern" subclasses. 

Generally it is strange that they did not do so already, all the stuff looted from other campaign worlds and put into Toril but the things that were there from the start have not been mentioned.


----------



## Azzy (Oct 6, 2017)

Coroc said:


> [MENTION=533]Ranger REG[/MENTION]  but then they Need some more "eastern" subclasses.




Sure, but it'd be nice if they didn't just default to Japanese for almost every one of them, like they did for classes and kits in previous editions. There is more to East Asian than just Japan.


----------



## Ancalagon (Oct 6, 2017)

Cap'n Kobold said:


> Just as you can play a "samurai character" with the Champion Fighter class, you can always use the samurai fighter class to represent a different character concept.



An intriguing suggestion.  I suspect that you are right, but the range will be far narrower...

Sent from my SM-G930W8 using EN World mobile app


----------



## Alexemplar (Oct 7, 2017)

D&D "clerics" aren't mere priests, but undead (but strangely, not demon/devil) turning warrior-prophets largely inspired by Van Helsing.  It's "paladins" are only slightly less so. D&D's "druids" are best known as shapeshifters (based on the Gallizenae it seems). D&D's "barbarians" are invariably some flavor of (totally not Northern European) berserker. D&D's "bards" are less lorekeepers/poets as they are wandering rogue/warriors with some true-word style spellcasting. It's "monks" are all some variant of Wuxia warrior. It's "rangers" aren't just wardens/scouts/frontier warriors, but also traffic in magic and nature spirits as inspired by Aragon from LotR. So on and so forth.  D&D "sorcerers" aren't just spellcasters, but individuals who are part >insert supernarural creature here< and are apparently different from "wizards" who cast magic- not like they do in 99% of fiction- but by preparing every spell they're going to cast that day ahead of time.

  Few (if any) of the classes/subclasses in D&D are really what you'd expect them to be based on the historical/casual meanings of their titles.  You basically have to unlearn what you knew and come to learn the idiosyncrasies of the D&D version.  It helps that so many other fantasy games have been influenced by D&D to the point where we don't bat an eye at things like Paladins calling down rays of holy light, Bards weaving arcane illusions, or druids dressing like Native Americans and turning into bears in order to maul their foes. Not historically accurate at all, but we still roll with it.

  Not really surprised that the D&D "samurai" deviates from it's historical roots and is instead based on a rather specific depiction/interpretation.  I certainly wouldn't expect anything different from D&D.


----------



## Greg K (Oct 7, 2017)

Alexemplar said:


> Few (if any) of the classes/subclasses in D&D are really what you'd expect them to be based on the historical/casual meanings of their titles.  You basically have to unlearn what you knew and come to learn the idiosyncrasies of the D&D version.  It helps that so many other fantasy games have been influenced by D&D to the point where we don't bat an eye at things like Paladins calling down rays of holy light, Bards weaving arcane illusions, or druids dressing like Native Americans and turning into bears in order to maul their foes. Not historically accurate at all, but we still .



I don't have to unlearn anything. I  have no problem with Bards casting illusions, because it fits Celtic bards. I do have issues with them being jack of all trades among other  things, but that is easily house ruled. Clerics, I will continue to house rule them. Paladins calling down rays of holy light? Not in my campaigns.  Druids dressing like Native Americans? Again, not in my campaigns (If I want shamans, I will find a good third party Shaman class like I did in 2e and 3e).  Hell, I didn't even use the Druid class in 3e and may not in 5e (I am, definitely, not using Circle of the Moon).


----------



## Ancalagon (Oct 7, 2017)

Azzy said:


> Sure, but it'd be nice if they didn't just default to Japanese for almost every one of them, like they did for classes and kits in previous editions. There is more to East Asian than just Japan.




And South Asia is barely explored at all... :/   (although see signature)


----------



## Connorsrpg (Oct 8, 2017)

OMG. How long did it take for ppl to say - you could do this with the Battlemaster.
For s*^t sake - yes, you can do practically any type of warrior with battlemaster and champion from PHB. But the fighter subclasses are rules-based too and a lot of us want alternatives as to how these subclasses can work. (I developed 5 subclasses, some with subsystems and all I got was - "You can do that with Battlemaster"!)
Some people do not want to 'build' their archetypes from the battlemaster suit or use that mechanic.


----------



## Eubani (Oct 8, 2017)

Connorsrpg said:


> OMG. How long did it take for ppl to say - you could do this with the Battlemaster.
> For s*^t sake - yes, you can do practically any type of warrior with battlemaster and champion from PHB. But the fighter subclasses are rules-based too and a lot of us want alternatives as to how these subclasses can work. (I developed 5 subclasses, some with subsystems and all I got was - "You can do that with Battlemaster"!)
> Some people do not want to 'build' their archetypes from the battlemaster suit or use that mechanic.



Battlemaster and Champion are far too broad for what subclasses are meant to be. Yes you can play them as almost anything but they will not have the flavour of that thing let alone compared to something specifically designed for that flavour. I am not alone in feeling this way, the devs have said this and have received feedback saying that as well. It seems that any fighter subclass homebrew or UA has to started with I don't want to hear about BM or Champ.


----------



## jrowland (Oct 8, 2017)

Coroc said:


> [MENTION=533]Ranger REG[/MENTION]  but then they Need some more "eastern" subclasses.





And "southern" subclasses, too!

'Redneck' would make a fine artificer subclasses in IMHO. Class features like "Git 'er done", "More Power", "Hold my Beer". and of course "MacGyver Rigging" would do well.


----------



## Alexemplar (Oct 8, 2017)

Greg K said:


> I don't have to unlearn anything. I  have no problem with Bards casting illusions, because it fits Celtic bards. I do have issues with them being jack of all trades among other  things, but that is easily house ruled. Clerics, I will continue to house rule them. Paladins calling down rays of holy light? Not in my campaigns.  Druids dressing like Native Americans? Again, not in my campaigns (If I want shamans, I will find a good third party Shaman class like I did in 2e and 3e).  Hell, I didn't even use the Druid class in 3e and may not in 5e (I am, definitely, not using Circle of the Moon).




   Recognizing where and how the D&D classes differ conceptually/mechanically from historical/casual roots is the first step in deciding to modify/replace/ditch them.


----------



## Greg K (Oct 8, 2017)

Alexemplar said:


> Recognizing where and how the D&D classes differ conceptually/mechanically from historical/casual roots is the first step in deciding to modify/replace/ditch them.




Yet, I am still not required to unlearn anything as I, personally, already have the knowledge of what I want conceptually. New players coming into my game...well, that may or not be a different issue.


----------



## Alexemplar (Oct 8, 2017)

Greg K said:


> Yet, I am still not required to unlearn anything as I, personally, already have the knowledge of what I want conceptually. New players coming into my game...well, that may or not be a different issue.




  "Unlearn" doesn't mean you literally cease to have previous knowledge of what you knew.  We all know what we consider a cleric/bard/druid/etc when we're talking about it ro other people outside the context of D&D.

    It refers to coming into contact with new ideas/concepts that expand upon or clash with what you knew before as it applies in the given context. I.e. we know that when discussing the PHB cleric/bard/druid/etc that we are referring to a different conceptual beast.

   That you dislike these interpretations and run things differently in the games you run doesnt change that. We're still starting from the same reference point that is uniquely D&D- that had to be learned because D&D has its own idiosyncratic take on lots of stuff.


----------



## Connorsrpg (Oct 9, 2017)

Eubani said:


> Battlemaster and Champion are far too broad for what subclasses are meant to be. Yes you can play them as almost anything but they will not have the flavour of that thing let alone compared to something specifically designed for that flavour. I am not alone in feeling this way, the devs have said this and have received feedback saying that as well. It seems that any fighter subclass homebrew or UA has to started with I don't want to hear about BM or Champ.




Pretty sure we are on the same page here  Well said and yes, I had to repeat that last phrase sev times when asking ppl to have a look at my homebrews.


----------



## Eubani (Oct 9, 2017)

Connorsrpg said:


> Pretty sure we are on the same page here  Well said and yes, I had to repeat that last phrase sev times when asking ppl to have a look at my homebrews.




I would be interested in looking at your homebrews.


----------



## Shasarak (Oct 9, 2017)

I did not realise that Samurais were so big into horses to be confused with a Cavalier.


----------



## Alexemplar (Oct 9, 2017)

Shasarak said:


> I did not realise that Samurais were so big into horses to be confused with a Cavalier.




  Just wait until D&D introduces a Dragoon class/subclass/feat/option and see how confused people really get.


----------



## Azzy (Oct 9, 2017)

Shasarak said:


> I did not realise that Samurais were so big into horses to be confused with a Cavalier.



The samurai were *really* into horses until the common usage of firearms during the late Sengoku era (at which point they used horses to get to the battle, but not on the battlefield—they didn't want their horses to get shot, and they were easy targets). Prior to that, samurai were all about mounted warfare.

So, heavily armored mounted warrior of the noble class... cavalier... easy comparison (especially after the early Kamakura period when the start transitioning from bows to melee weapons).


----------



## Shasarak (Oct 9, 2017)

Alexemplar said:


> Just wait until D&D introduces a Dragoon class/subclass/feat/option and see how confused people really get.




Ha, Donjons and Dragoons; the other DnD


----------



## Connorsrpg (Oct 9, 2017)

Eubani said:


> I would be interested in looking at your homebrews.




I have individual threads on here somewhere for indiv comments maybe head there rather than threadjack, but here is a link to the Fighter subclasses we allow. Those listed as House have links to the ones I have developed.

http://connorscampaigns.wikidot.com/5e-fighter


----------



## Greg K (Oct 9, 2017)

Eubani said:


> I would be interested in looking at your homebrews.




Connor has some good stuff on his site.  I like the new skill proficiencies and the breakdown of games, instruments, vehicles,  and weapon groups. There are some nice additions to the lists  (while I am thinking of it,  [MENTION=19265]Connorsrpg[/MENTION], the weapon groups link on the proficiencies page is broken).


----------



## Connorsrpg (Oct 9, 2017)

Greg K said:


> Connor has some good stuff on his site.  I like the new skill proficiencies and the breakdown of games, instruments, vehicles,  and weapon groups. There are some nice additions to the lists  (while I am thinking of it,  [MENTION=19265]Connorsrpg[/MENTION], the weapon groups link on the proficiencies page is broken).




Ah, it would be. Our weapon groups page is now for ALL systems. On website, look at right hand nav bar. Each page sorted by system, but many are for ALL systems (at the top). Thanks, though, will change link 

(I haven't written much for 5E for a while. most of what I have was done a while ago. Been doing stuff for other systems, but it appears we are starting a new 5E game soon, so i may be adding more  If you see anything else i should submit to En5ider plz give me a hoy ).


----------



## Wrathamon (Oct 10, 2017)

BookBarbarian said:


> Knights rarely if ever used bows in battle. Samurai often did.
> 
> This is a moot point however since there is little about the Samurai class that well represents historical Samurai. Which Mearls was very up front about in the video.




for me that is weapon choice ... proficiencies that the fighter already has ... choose Archer fighting style for your "Samurai" and take the archer feats. everything else to me can be mechanically the same its the theming. If you want your Samurai to be mechanically different than a Knight ... it seems like they are both filling the same "space" But, it's my opinion so I know it's not the same for others. Samurai for some reason fall into the category of Ranger ... everyone has a different idea of what it should be.


----------



## BookBarbarian (Oct 10, 2017)

Wrathamon said:


> for me that is weapon choice



 Right. Different weapon choices are a difference. Or were you only asking what mechanically would be the difference between an Historical Knight and an Historical Samurai being represented in 5e?

I took the question to be a general difference between Knights and Samurai.


----------

