Are classes like the Samurai superfluous?

[Libertad]

I notice a proliferation of classes in various editions meant to replicate characters from non-Western literature.  The Sha'ir, or Middle Eastern sorcerer who bargains with and traps genies, has his own class.  Same for the Samurai and Ninja.

I have the notion that many of these archetypes are easily replicated with the standard classes.  A Rogue or Swordsage can replicate a lot of stuff that Ninjas were known for.  Same for the Warblade and Samurai, and the Sha'ir and Wizard (hello Planar Binding!).

Instead of making entirely new classes, I think it would be best to create variant class features of similar classes instead.

Thoughts?

[littha]

Note that Crusader/Warblade/Swordsage are exactly this kind of class, they are basically variant Paladin/Fighter/Monk/Rogues and are definitely not standard classes being the final base classes printed in 3.5.

Ninja had the potential to work much better than it actually did. The Ki pool thing was distinct from a rogue but they could have done with more level relevant effects to use it on.

[Jackinthegreen]

Dragon mags 342 and 351 added several feats to make use of the ki pool.

[Chrononaut]

That's the stance (like it or hate it) that paizo takes with pathfinder, i.e. you should be able to make nearly any kind of character concept using trade-out-able class features in the umbrella of 'wizardry' or 'fightery' instead of picking up a bunch of different PrCs or printing new base classes, at least if you're using the core mechanics.

This is incidentally the Cavalier's problem, I think, its design space is already pretty much completely covered by alt class choices for rangers (horse companion), paladins (doy, they're more archetypical cavaliers than the cavalier class is!) and mounted archetype fighters/barbarians.

That said when all new, major class mechanics (usually a substitute for spells, i.e. Martial adepts, incarnum or psionics) with their own rules show up, I am in agreement that making new classes to utilize them is more prudent and looks nicer. It's probably just that, spell substitutes, which have to scale with at least 17 levels, that prompts this choice. It's easier to balance 20 levels of a new base class rather than cram 17 substitution levels onto an existing one.

The warlock sits in a weird grey area if you use this perspective, he's like an arcanist with nothing but reserve feats as his power set. I can't help but wonder if he lead to reserve feats, or reserve feats led to him. :/

[Unbeliever]

Generally, I agree with the OP.  The non-Western/Eastern idea of an archetype is usually bound to fail.  "Samurai" can and should encompass a lot of character builds -- we can easily see that kind of an archetype encompassed by Warblades, Fighters, and so on.  You could focus on fighting with the daisho, charging, mysticism, and so on and so forth.  So, making a class that encompasses all of that is bound to be a fools' errand.  And, that's without bringing in any concerns about fetishism by the authors. 

It is better, then, I think, in a system like 3E D&D to leave it to the player to figure out what their Samurai, Ninja, Mamaluke, etc. looks like. 

That being said, I think game designers often use names like this as an excuse to bring in other classes or variations.  If a designer wants to label his idea for a Rogue with a little more mysticism the "Ninja" or decide to label their magic-using class with some wonky spell mechanics "Sha'ir" I guess I don't really care.  So long as no one puts any weight on that decision.  No one I've ever played with does, but that might not be everyone's experience.  After all, it's not like we didn't make knights before PHB 2. 

I don't think there's any need for even class variations, really.  That just seems to be adding to the problem and the confusion.  One should be perfectly able to build a Samurai, etc. out of the existing materials.  The game should (ideally) be nimble enough to support them. 


P.S.:  in a lot of ways, I guess, I agree with the idea behind Pathfinder's approach.  As usual, my problem with PF is its implementation.  But, I don't like loading up on variant class features/archetypes/whatever they call them.  There's no difference in making a bunch of Fighter "kits" that relate to Samurai and Mamalukes and whatevers and making different base classes.  Just make the Fighter class flexible and interesting enough and make feats cool and useful enough to let me play any archetype I want.  That saves everyone from being pigeon-holed, so that not every Samurai has to wield a katana or a daisho, for example. 

[Libertad]

Even though it was presented in a humorous context, I did like Order of the Stick's idea of the setting's Samurai order all having levels in Paladin.

[phaedrusxy]

The warlock sits in a weird grey area if you use this perspective, he's like an arcanist with nothing but reserve feats as his power set. I can't help but wonder if he lead to reserve feats, or reserve feats led to him. :/

The warlock was published before any reserve feats, if that helps.

[FlaminCows]

Personally, I see nothing wrong with making a new class. Alternate class features had the benefit of more player freedom as one could mix-and-match, but new classes are easier to use and easier to create. A lot of "Asian" classes are actually pretty good and fun to play. The Samurai from Oriental Adventures is an easy dip class for any martial build that gives you two free weapons and the ability to enchant them without a mage. The Wu Jen allowed them to write new Asian-themed spells without bloating the Wizard's list further. Shaman is distinct enough to be its own thing, and while a bit obscure it is certainly fun as its own class. All of those could be refluffed to suit other archetypes, but the Asian theme was what gave the creators the ideas for them.

Having to fit all new class features to the framework of existing classes, especially considering the classes weren't built for that in the first place, is restrictive for the creator, and I understand why Sha'ir was made a class rather than an ACF or a prestige class or even a feat chain. It does help to consider that the Sha'ir was for Dragon Magazine, too, which being a monthly magazine has issues with deadlines. Sometimes freedom for the designer is more important than freedom for the character builder.

[veekie]

Culture specific classes are fine, I think, provided that they are actually created in full, and not a simple refocusing of an existing class. Don't do anything that is already fully covered within one class, that's what archetypes are for.

Now we can take a look at the archetypical ones, the most iconic are of course the oriental classes, since african/native american/slavic stuff don't get much attention and pretty much everything in Europe has already been covered one way or another:

Samurai - A samurai fights with a mixture of styles, katana, bow, spear and horse being the primary factors, while in traditionally Medium armor. Conceptually it sits in the same area as a skill oriented Fighter(or just plain Fighter if the original class was worth anything).
Mechanically speaking, it needs to be competent with the mixture of styles, which is a problem due to the wide range of feats and stat requirements to do all that, and the costs of keeping all of them at relevant levels of enchantment. Personally this would actually work off a RANGER reskin, replacing the spells, favored enemies, and animal companions for transferable personal enchantments, and a significantly expanded/focused fighting style locked on the samurai style.

Wu Jen/Shugenja - Pretty much nothing to do at all with actual eastern style wizarding other than lip service to the alternate elements and being also a spellcaster.
Mechanically very similar with existing spellcasting archetypes, something can be arranged simply by replacing the spell list alone, and for the divine spellcasters, no armor. Maybe work in some culture specific spells.

Ninja - It's a mystical rogue, so...just take a rogue and give it some minor magic relating to stealth, spying and assassinations. Make it default to no-armor.

Eastern Monk - Just mate a paladin with a monk.

[SneeR]

Eastern Monk - Just mate a paladin with a monk.

lol
Did you think the monk class was supposed to represent a non-Eastern monk? 

[veekie]

Eastern Monk - Just mate a paladin with a monk.

lol
Did you think the monk class was supposed to represent a non-Eastern monk? 

What it does is just replicate a martial artist. Eastern monks are holy men with demon exorcising powers rather than primarily kung fu masters(which was a specific subtype of secular monk).

[awaken_D_M_golem]

Fluff ... Sam is not superfluous.

Crunch ... yeah as time went by, you couldn't really justify whipping up
new mechanics, especially after the flaws of 3e were well known.
Heck, you don't wanna end up with 4e cookie cutter similarities.
But still, full caster or piker, isn't what works.

OA Sam 1 ... is almost a 1 level acf.

[dman11235]

Those classes are indeed superfluous.  A more correct term, however, would be gratuitous.  They are not necessary, and as such should not exist.  The difference between ToB and the Samurai, however, is the mechanics.  The CW Samurai is a Fighter with feats picked out for you, essentially.  The Warblade adds an entirely new mechanic to the game.  As such the CW Samurai should not exist, but the Warblade can exist.  If you want to make a more specific class you should be using PrCs.  PrCs are intended to specialize characters, so while a ranger could be using just about anything rangery, but an Order of the Bow specializes it to archery (precision, single shot high damage archery).  Classes provide base mechanics (see: Wizard, Cleric, Fighter, vs. Druid, Monk, Samurai), while PrCs focus them (Wizard PrCs usually do this well, like the Incantatrix, Initiate of the Sevenfold Veil, Geometer, etc.).

[zugschef]

the fighter should not exist because it is no class.

[dman11235]

It's much more general, which is what I was referring to.  You are correct that it is poorly designed and should not exist as is, however.  The Warblade does the Fighter better than the Fighter, but that does not mean the the Fighter should not exist.  It just means that the Fighter needs to be different to justify existing.  The concept is general enough to justify existing as a base class, but the mechanics are non-existent (more than just bad or specific like the Monk or Druid), and thus it shouldn't exist.  Make sense?

[littha]

I dont know why you keep bringing druid up, it does provide unique features in a base class

[dman11235]

Too unique.  It should be a PrC.  The class is way too specific, but you're right, the Wildshape is unique enough for a base class.  So really, there should be a base class that has Wildshape as its primary class feature (or, even better, Shapeshift variant), and then the Druid would be a Cleric with a nature focus, that class, and a PrC called the Druid.  However, the Druid is very close to the edge*.  It can really be argued either way.  The only reason I kept using it is that it's a powerful class that has that design problem, to balance out the bad classes that have the same design problem (uniqueness of flavor), in order to show that class power has nothing to do with this issue.

*The argument for it being its own class: it has a very unique secondary class ability and its own spell list, and then the flavor mechanics allow for a number of different builds  Not quite enough to put it squarely on the side of "yes, it's good", but enough to make it close.

[zugschef]

It's much more general, which is what I was referring to.  You are correct that it is poorly designed and should not exist as is, however.  The Warblade does the Fighter better than the Fighter, but that does not mean the the Fighter should not exist.  It just means that the Fighter needs to be different to justify existing.  The concept is general enough to justify existing as a base class, but the mechanics are non-existent (more than just bad or specific like the Monk or Druid), and thus it shouldn't exist.  Make sense?

my stance is and has been for a long time, that "fighter" is way too generic to be a character class in a class-based rp-system. a fighter could be a soldier, a champion, a gladiator, a ranger, a samurai, etc.

[Unbeliever]

I expressed my opinion earlier in this thread.  But, I don't think this is right:

my stance is and has been for a long time, that "fighter" is way too generic to be a character class in a class-based rp-system. a fighter could be a soldier, a champion, a gladiator, a ranger, a samurai, etc.

A "wizard" is extremely generic, as is a cleric, rogue, etc.  A cleric can be a champion of faith, a crusader, a healer, a soothsayer, and so on. 

A Warblade isn't much more generic than a Fighter, at least a melee-oriented one, conceptually.  The fluff for that class is ... whatever.  And, that class seems to work pretty well by all accounts.

[veekie]

Do keep in mind quite a few classes as they are now started out as PrCs.

One issue is in range of capabilities, a PrC is well suited for a class with an intrinsically narrow sub-speciality, a single fighting style, mechanic, or a subcategory of spells(in the game role sense, rather than the spell school sense), which will naturally run out of options before extending to a full 20 levels. A base class needs to go the distance, whatever the concept, it must provide meaningful variety across all 20 levels. Some classes are weak, providing false variety(Fighter feats for example, really just kind of tap out in a hurry, despite the seeming variety).

Another factor is class identity. Base classes, while varied, need to have SOME degree of intrinsic identity. If you see a ranger or a rogue, you generally know what they'd be doing, within a certain range. T1 classes don't have identity. They could do anything at all. A necromancer doesn't just raise undead, he polymorphs, sets stuff on fire, and mind controls people too!