When 5e finally arrived the samurai was the first character I thought to create. He would have to be a train martial artist however to start with this ability the choices are limited you must either be Human tavern brawler or Monk. The tavern brawler would still lack the necessary dash and dodge to call yourself a samurai so you would have to multiclass rogue/ranger or rogue/fighter. Regardless of these option is if your DM allowes you to take feats anyway. Thus to be a martial artist from the beginning of the game you are left with monk. The problem with monk is once you multiclass is weapon options. You pretty much lose your martial art abilties with any weapons a samurai would used. The game as of date has no katana. The weapon most similar to katana is the long sword with its versatility and damage and while the multiclass ranger or fighter abilites will let you use the long sword you will miss out on what a Samurai could do. It seems as a player you can only take what is given to you.
1. You can take feats if your DM allowes
2. There is no feat to let you use monk powers with other weapon groups
3. You are stuck with only what's in the PHB until the next one comes out.
A fantasy roleplaying game should be just that, a fantasy with the ability to create with ease. 5e lacks the ease to do many things at this early stage in the game. Rules like up to the DM, check with your DM, and your DM is the finally rule maker is a cheap out for game that I thought was awesome. It gives far too much power to the DM in the one aspect that players should have the most power. How the player envision their hero should never solely be left up to arbitration of a rule maker. One of the reason many DM'S didn't like 4e was because of all the rules that reign in the DM's power. I suspect the reason people will not like 5e is that it is left to the limited imagination of the DM to allow their heroes to be heroes. This should have been rule number 1.
I think you could be a bit confused about Samurai 
Actually, any fighter with the noble background is a Samuari (or a Ronin, if his Daimyo is dead or has lost his favor).
A Samurai is not Jackie Chan in full plate armor 
Kaandorian wrote:
So your problem is you don't get everything at level 1? Chalk it up to game balance and move on.
I still think a Fighter with Tavern Brawler will give you most of what you need at level 1. If you want to truly model a fighter with the breadth of experience attributed to Samurai, then you'd want to start at at least level 3, if not higher.
why should a samurai be particularly good at unarmed combat when they should never be without their daisho? it's their badge of station.
Maybe I didn't explain well: in ancient Japan, there were two noble castes. One of those were the Kuge, or classical court nobles, the other were fighting nobles, and took the name of Samurai. Common folk soldiers were not Samurai, because they laked the social status. Infact, a paesant could in no way become a Samurai.
Consequently, Samurai are noble fighters.
You have the fighter class, you have the noble background. Reflavour them in a japanise-style, and you're done.
One more thing: Bushido was formalized in the Tokugawa age and it is indeed strictly similiar to the european chivalry code and also the ancient roman mos maiorum. Everybody could follow bushido, but that didn't make someone a samurai. Many martial artists followed bushido but weren't samurai because they were not nobles.
Maybe you refere to characters like Musashi Miyamoto when you say
A Samurai is fighter that doesn't need his swords to fight. He studies for years in the art of martial combat before he can even picks up a weapon.
I never see a character as something that start all powerful but something that becomes powerful. The only way to take Tavern Brawler is you must be human and your DM must allow you to take feats. (this point is something I thought was a little too much) I really have a problem with you must be a race in order to be a class even if you created that class yourself sounds a bit limited to me. The Human tavern brawler fighter/rogue is the best bet, and with two level dips into rogue for the dash, dodge, and disengage abilities it would be a nearly perfect Samurai. The monk/ranger option is also really good and gives you variety in races however to make him work their needs to be a feat to allow him to use martial weapons otherwise you are just playing two classes and not one. (and if you have one of those it is not in the playerhand book wont allow it kind of guys it sucks) A rogue/monk makes an excellent ninja though. It seems that when D&D thinks of the monk they only have Shaolin in mind. They created a great templar with the fighter and paladin class. They force the player to play the DM's game and I guess that is the person who is probably going to spend the money on the books. My point was the run the risk of players not wanting to play.
So make a new class.
You're right, there are limits, which are inherant to any class-based RPG. It's not a case of "players verus the DM" as you wish to phrase it, but an inherant limitation of the game, as intended by the games designers. If anything 5e has some the least limitations of any iteration of this system, in fact it wouldn't suprise me if down the road there's a eastern-styled adventure book with a Samurai fighter archetype and a ninja rogue archetype. Your issue seems to be in part that they've made feats optional rather than a core mechanic like it was in 3.x. Is your DM not allowing them? Have you tried explaining your desire to use them?
if the dm allows
Terrik wrote:
Thank you.. Someone who finally speaks my language. The game is design this way for a purpose otherwise you would have 5 DM's arguing at the table and one real DM not wanting to play the game. The whole final ruling versus rule book is frustrated. Letting your players be heroic should have been stressed more than anything. My philosophy of the game is TPK is a failure of the players and not a success of the DM. Managing the players, keeping them interested, and making the game difficult but not too hard is a success for the DM. Characters making it to level 20 is a win for everyone.
I totally agree that the Samurai archetype will be something D&D does. (but as a right now rule number 2 make it up doesn't sound as good as rule number 1)
I'd say multiclass: fighter 1/monk 1.
That would be a decent start, you'd have the necessary physical skills, training with military weapons and armour, and you'd have the knowledge of hand-to-hand combat for those occasions when you didn't have your weapons to rely on.
As Kaandorian said, take the noble background to reflect your status. Reflavour the long sword as katana.
I don't see any way of creating the character you want at first level, so start art level 3 or prepare yourself to wait until then. Perhaps treat the character as if they're still learning until level 2, taking monk as your second level.
blake_marlowe wrote:
In 5th edition, characters are often considered still in their formative periods until at least 3rd level. That gives you 3 levels of multi-classing and class features to start you on your path to your goal.
It seems like your overarching character concept is "lightly armored fighter who can fight unarmed or with a sword (katana)."
I think either the Noble or Soldier background may work for your character, or you are also free to design your own background with its own set of proficiencies and special perk.
The longsword fills the role of a katana pretty well in my opinion, because it can be wielded in one or two hands (for increased damage). Nothing says your longsword can't be single-edged and slightly curved, as long as it functions like a longsword. If you want to fight with two weapons, the Dual Wielder feat would allow your character to wield either two longswords (katanas) or a longsword and a shortsword (wakizashi).
Fighters are proficient in unarmed strikes, even though their damage is relatively low (1 instead of 1d4, which is really only 1.5 less damage on average). If you can choose the "Duelist" fighting style, it is allowable that your fighter would now deal more damage (3+ability modifier) on unarmed attacks than a Tavern Brawler or Monk without that feature. The fighter would also get the Duelist benefit when fighting with their sword.
However, given that you say your character would not draw his weapon against an unarmed person, there's nothing to stop him from training in the Athletics skill and using his Attack action to Shove or Grapple people, judo-style.
If you're worried about your character being agile, assign him both a good Str and Dex score. This will shore up his AC if he doesn't wear armor and give him a better initiative check and Dex saving throws.
There is a topic on the Product and General board about the finesse quarterstaff where someone has posted a fairly good homebrew Monk archetype to get almost exactly what you are looking for. The thread is located here: http://community.wizards.com/forum/product-and-general-dd-discussions/threads/4129331
I would argue that simply allowing a longsword to be a finesse weapon would not unbalance the game, also. In fact, I would allow a d12 two handed finesse weapon, with the caveat that players will not abuse it with strange setups; i.e. Great Weapon Master and sneak attack. This is moving into unrelated territory though.
I agree that there are some shortcomings in 5e right now, however overall I have been very impressed with what is available in terms of character customization to this point. You can do quite a bit more, thematically, in this system than in, say, 4e when it was first released. However, I imagine that while there will be a Samurai background for sure, and likely some Japanese-style class features, feats, and pieces of equipment, what you are describing sounds more like a Swordsage, from the 3.5 Tome of Battle. I would keep an eye open for that.
Just give your Martial Arts-compatible spear or shortsword "flavour" to make it a Katana. Job done.
Terrik wrote:
Terrik wrote:
Captain_Kobold wrote:
Captain_Kobold wrote:
Thoughts_My_Aim wrote:
Thoughts_My_Aim wrote:
1eejit wrote:
OrwellianHaggis wrote:
Kaandorian wrote:
Thoughts_My_Aim wrote:
Kaandorian wrote:
Terrik wrote:
Terrik wrote:
Terrik wrote:
[quote="Terrik"]
Power corupts. If D&D use the word arbiter as oppose to final ruling I think it would have been more helpful to the player. I have DM before and I like the rule to let your players be heroes. I believe a good DM finds a way to always say yes. Yes being yes and not as a disadvantage to the players concept of the character. It hurt no one to say YES. It invest the player. Don't get me wrong their are many ways to do this D20 and all but say because there isnt a feat yet or the weapon doesn't exist lack imagination of what endless possibilities D&D should have to offer.
[/quote]
And here's where I would disagree with this. It is entirely dependent on what your DM's world is like. As someone who plays rarely and constantly GM's, I have to say this is false.
1. Players should be the heroes, if this is what you're going for. BUT...Character concept has to fit with the established setting that I already have. If I have a culture who has a samurai in a very traditional (but still cinematic) sense, and you think it should be a different way as a player, that's certainly your opinion and you're welcome to it. You can even make a character who is the way that you envision you want samurai to be, and again, that's fine. Socially, Politically, and economically, those have their own consequences.
2. It can hurt to say "yes". Someone's choices can affect the fun of the group, or hurt the setting or tone of the campaign. My character concept is essentially, Superman. I should make a class that shows how awesome I am. Or...My concept is an old Wizard, why do I have to start at 1st level like the rest of these people when my concept clearly states expert and experienced Wizard.
3. Yes, please work with your DM to make up Feats, equipment, or what else to fit your character concept into his world. That's great. Here's where this falls apart:
Let's say my DM has a setting where it's a little more historical, we're dealing with the Romanization of the British Isles and the Normal Invasion. I, as a player, have a real idealization of Vikings, and have awesome ideas about how my character is supposed to go. I mean, Berserkers were really both trees of the Barbarian class, they should get both abilites. Or I think that they really need X, Y, or Z because VIKINGS R COOL. (Well, they are). This doesn't mean that I can impose that on the setting my DM already has, can't conceive of why I would ever lose, and have no problems with being able to carve my way to Rome because......reasons.
It sounds like there is a disconnect between your vision of a samurai and what the DM's vision of samurai is. Ideally, if you want to play one, then setting is really important in that decision. You can always tend to play what you want to play but there are consequences (Socially and Politically) of those choices. (As an aside, it's why I have a problem with Tieflings) If your DM has a more historical vision of Samurai. You might portray yours as what you described above, and build him through his starting levels accordingly. Remember that level 1 is no longer and experienced and veteran adventurer, like in 4th. This is more like in 2nd and 3rd, where you're really new to this still. The samurai you're talking about is already at least more than level 1 described by the amount of abilities and capabilities that he has.
The thing is.... A Samurai trained in Akijutsu, Kenjutsu and Kyuujutsu would be a multiclass Fighter/Monk by the 5E system. The game fully supports this.
Also, you are talking about fully trained samurai.... Level 1 does not represent a fully trained character. It represents an apprentice. You don't reach "fully trained" status until you hit 2nd tier - at level 5.
Furthermore, I fully expect a Kensai tradition for the monk at one point. I created a rough draft of such on another thread, which you can read here: Sohei/Kensei Monk. When the draft is finished, I plan on creating a new [PEACH] thread for it.
When such a tradition is created, it would allow multiple variant samurai to be created... The "Warrior" samurai decked out in o-yari armor (Champion or Battle Master); The unarmored Kensei (Kensei monk); The well-rounded samurai (multi-class Battle Master / Kensei) trained in all techniques of bushido, and anything in between.
Edit: Here is a link to my current version: Kensei/Sohei Monk
Terrik wrote:
Setzer_G wrote:
I'd hate to see the OP's response to the 3.X Samuraii...
That being said, a 'historical' Samuraii VS a media Samuraii are two totally different things; the later being drawn from traditional Japanese Theater as much as any real history; and what exactly a 'Samurai' meant varied alot across time historically as well. There would be a very good argument for Samurai to be built as mostly a mounted archer to represent the time they were most militarily active historically
I agree, Thoughts. I might not have put it the best way, but that's what I was trying to get across to the OP. The idea that agree-to-work-it-out aside, there needs to be realistic expectations by players on where you balance party fun vs individual fun. The handling of the situation aside, I got caught up on your second paragraph, and related that to what I saw the larger issue to be, That wanting all of those things were unrealistic expectations.
I had a player new to the campaign I was running years ago who wanted to play a nymph sorcerer by didn't want to use the level adjustment for it. I said no, decent concept aside, you can't ignore fundamental parts of game balance because you want to and you can't expect me to go along with the idea, compromising other player's sense of fairness or fun. I tried to help him work the concept out using slightly tweaked rules or a variant racial template, but that, in the end, wasn't good enough.
Ugh, a story again. But yes, Thoughs. I agree. There are lots of options that can be done to get the feel of a classical or even wuxia style samurai with rules presented, I totally get that. The tone of the OP seems to be confrontational with the GM, as opposed to the intent of the game and almost all games which is to share a storytelling mechanic. No one's competing, but if I have a the above example with the Norman Invasion, and someone wants to play The Doctor, because he got a call from some chieftain and showed up in mystical pseudo-brittain, then I, as the DM have the right on behalf of myself and some of the other players at the table to say "no", not "Everyone should be able to play what they want" It's an extreme example, but that's what I'm reading so far from above. Some games are good for that. Interations of RIFTS, for example, but that's something you work out together with your GM.
I'd like to chalk it all up to "frustration with a ruling"
...and bows....a classical samurai needs bows.....
Once there was a poor man who made the mistake of insulting a samurai. The noble warrior issued a formal challenge, to be fought in the village square the following morning.
The poor man, terrified, ran to his friend the weapons master, and begged him to teach the way of the sword.
"I cannot teach the way of the sword in a night," said the weapons master. "But I will teach you how to properly tie aside the sleeves of your hitatare, so you can at least die with dignity."
All night the poor man learned the warrior's practice of tying aside the sleeves of one's hitatare. He practiced it over and over, for the weapons master was both wise and kind, knowing that the poor man would go mad with terror lest he be left to himself.
When dawn arrived, the poor man carefully donned new shitabakama and hakama. Over his kosode he donned a silk hitatare embroidered with dragons. He borrowed a sword from the weapons master and together they walked to the square. Opposite stood the samurai, bedecked in his most fashionable clothes.
Somehow the poor man kept the trembling from his voice. "Shall we begin?" he asked.
The samurai answered with a curt nod.
The poor man bowed deeply to the samurai. Then he turned to the weapons master and gravely handed the master his sword to hold. The poor man turned back to face the samurai, bowed again, and - staring gravely at the samurai, as is part of the ritual - began to tie back the sleeves of his dragon hitatare as the weapons master had showed him.
When the poor man finished, he turned to the weapons master, bowed, and asked for his sword.
The weapons master replied, "You do not need it. Behold!"
The poor man turned back to the samurai and was astonished to see the noble kneeling on the dirty cobbles.
"I withdraw my challenge," he said. "I am not swordsman enough to defeat so great a master. A man who is as attendant to ritual as you, sir, is surely a fabled warrior. Forgive my impetuous challenge."
The samurai rose, turned on his heel, and stalked away.
The poor man, eyes filled with wonder, looked at his friend the weapons master. "Thank you for the loan of the sword," he said.
"This is not my sword, sir," said the master. "It is now yours, a weapon as befits a warrior who has defeated a samurai. Put it in a place of honor."
/hijack
Terrick, I don't wish to be unkind. You have a character concept you wish to play, and it sounds like a cool concept. However, while your character concept is cool, when compared to samurai, it's chalk and cheese, mate. I strongly suggest you suss out what samurai actually were and how they behaved and lived. Movies don't count. 
There was an AD&D sourcebook called Oriental Adventures that had excellent renditions of Asian character classes, from Sohei to Samurai. I'm sure it would be relatively simple to port the classes into 5e, provided you can find a copy of the book. Heck, I might do that myself. 
Cheers,
Bob
terrik quoth:code aside a samurai is a trained hand to hand fighter.
Terrik wrote:
Sorxores wrote:
Terrik wrote:
Gungolphus wrote:
baronspam wrote:
baronspam wrote:
CaptainPicard wrote:
Terrik wrote:
There seems to be a argument going on here that was not the intended purpose of the forum. What is a Samurai was never a question I had asked however I am getting a history lesson by so many on the subject. Here is the list of things I read and watched in the last month I am sure I have seen and read more thoughout the history of my life (books Hagakuri, The Code of a Samurai. Movies: 13 Assassins, Seven Samurai, 47 Ronin (american), The Sword of doom, Lady Snow Blood. Anime: Samurai Champloo, Kouga, House of Leaves. And then there is this thing called google.) I don't need a history lesson on Samurai and unless you are a profressor of Japanese Studies I am going to to assume your knowledge of Samurai is no greater than mine.
CaptainPicard wrote:
crimfan07 wrote:
Thoughts_My_Aim wrote:
baronspam wrote:
crimfan07 wrote:
Terrik wrote:
Ashrym wrote:
I appologize for not reading the whole thread but the second you had to start providing a history lesson to explain the flavor you wanted, I think you should see the problem with your arguement. Fluff it or forget it. There are 234324324 different concepts that I think are interesting that haven't been written into an official book. Putting more flex power in the hands of the DM to control the game is doing you a favor in this regard.
crimfan07 quoth:i don't see anyone here being dishonest, even if we don't agree with you.
Terrik wrote:
Thinly veiled, "I can't have everything I want the way I want it right now, dammit!" thread.
crimfan07 wrote:
blake_marlowe wrote:
Terrik wrote:
ooSitrioo wrote:
Thank_Dog wrote:
Irithil wrote:
Terrik wrote:
Terrik wrote:
Terrik wrote:
There were no ninjas.
Stagehands dressed in black during theater, as they do to this day, and you were supposed to not pay attention to them. They would come out and do acts of god like knock over the impious or rustle leaves. Over time, it became an "Aww Sh#t" moment when the stagehand would enter, and they started to become a character in their own right.
Every kingdom ever used spies and some have revised history to attribute old acts of spying and sabotage to ninja hijinks.
Samurais, like knights, were throat slitting thugs for most of their existence, until they became nearly useless with the invention of guns and the rise of the merchants. After getting sidelined, they got more in to idle pursuits. Once their armor, horse, and swords couldn't give them an edge, they took up granny crafts, and largely went in debt to the merchants.
The image of the samurai who did calligraphy, poetry, could spin kick 8 feet in the air, and chop five guys in half with one twirl is a mish mash of many different centuries, much like "iconic" Greece or Egypt are jumblehumps of things that didnt exist at the same time.
Terrik wrote:
Terrik wrote:
The thing about "official options" is that they are still options, and your DM is perfectly at his liberty to ignore any and all splat books he likes, much as he ignores optional features in the PHB. Hell I've played more than one D&D game where races and classes from the core rules were dissallowed for campaign flavour.
If you can't talk it out with your DM then you have two options:
1. Put this concept back on the shelf for the moment and create a new character within the limitations your DM imposes. Even without the optional Feats and Multiclassing, there's still a tonne of options for different archetypes and play styles out there.
2. Look for a new group/DM who will let you play how you want.
Terrik wrote:
Terrik wrote:
OK.
Historical wrangling aside, your character concept is your own, and is based upon what you want them to actually be able to do. So lets work on that.
Kalani's Monk option looks pretty close to what you're after. I'd suggest showing it to your DM and seeing if they would be OK with that.
A level 1 character is virtually an apprentice, level 3 is when they solidify their actual path, and level 5 is when they should be redarded as competent examples of their concept.
So lets aim to get most of what you're after for your character by level 5.
What do you want out of:
Heavy Armour proficiency?
Martial weapon proficiency (or at least longbow, glaive, longsword/scimitar)?
Unarmoured defence?
Improved unarmed damage?
Monk Martial Arts class feature?
Monk Martial Arts class feature using non-Monk weapons? (This is the tricky bit since you will need DM houserules to allow it.)
Flurry of blows?
Ki pool?
Open Hand Technique?
Battlemaster Maneuvers?
Is there anything else you want your character to be able to do by level 5?
UnknownMourner wrote:
Captain_Kobold wrote:
Discussions of historical accuracy aside, as someone who really unironically loves the character type that Terrik is describing here, I would very much like to see a Fighter archetype that uses Ki to an extent, similar to how the Eldritch Knight uses magic. I would never expect such a thing to be in the first PHB, but I can say I'm really pulling for it making a later appearance. I'm hoping that, with the ability of 5e sourcebooks to cover as much ground as the PHB has due to honestly much simpler rules, that there can eventually be some book that lets people make all the Mugens and Jins and Akames and Vergils that they want and have them do the most ridiculous anime stuff possible. It would be good to contain all that to a single book too, since then people can choose to use it or not, and complain about it on the Internet more effectively.
In terms of homebrew rules, I see four distinct ways this can be done:
- A Monk path, similar to Kalani's excellent Sohei posted earlier, that gives access to more weapons and some other fantasy Edo-period Samurai stuff, like iaijutsu, that you'd want.
- A Fighter archetype, which gives ki points and some Monk-like abilities, such as Unarmoured Defense. This would not have Flurry since Fighters already get all the attacks they need, but fast movement, iaido, and some Path of Four Elements stuff, like drawing your sword and shooting like an energy cut at a dude like you're Vergil doing Judgment Cut, might be included. That would be sweet. Vergil rules.
- A feat, which allows you to treat a much greater set of weapons as Monk weapons, perhaps allows you to use the weapon attack with your flurry to some extent, and maybe some minor iaido ability similar to the 4e Samurai theme's ability to shift when initiative is rolled.
- The simplest of all, just let the Monk use the Longsword. This makes the Monk a little better, particularly at level 1. I don't think it's that significant, personally, but this is a very rough-hewn rule, designed as a stopgap until something is published that they can really use.
Also, Terrik, I see a lot of good stuff in your list there, but do not see Rurouni Kenshin: Kyoto Inferno on the list despite it having been out for three weeks. I think you should try to remedy that.
This discussion has prompted me to alter my sohei slightly... I missed the line about you requiring to be unarmored and not carrying a shield to gain the monk damage with your weapons and use dex.... Adjusting my sohei's Bonus Proficiency entry accordingly.
It now reads:
Bonus Proficiencies
Starting at 3rd level when you choose this tradition, you gain proficiency with the glaive, longbow, longsword, scimitar, shortbow, and with light armor. In addition, you retain the benefits of your Martial Arts class feature while wearing armor (but not shields) you are proficient with, and add the glaive, longsword and scimitar to your list of monk weapons.
If the Bushi monk somehow gains proficiency with heavy armor (either from a feat or via multiclassing), they are welcome to use their MA ability (including dex to attack and damage, and scaling damage die) with all monk weapons.
Your "ideal" samurai under this system would likely be a Battle Master Fighter / Bushi Monk
Fighter would be their first class as samurai train predominantly with their weapons (and train in martial arts as a secondary, fall-back option). Said character would have proficiency in o-yari (plate) armor, and could treat their Katana (longsword), wakizashi (shortsword), yari (spear), and naginata/nagamaki (glaive) as monk weapons, with a yumi (longbow) strapped across their back.
Take the mounted combat feat and the noble, or noble (knight) background, and said character could easily simulate someone trained as a "traditional" warring samurai, who is also trained in akijutsu, and latter-period "unarmored" combat styles.
P.S: I designed the Bushi monk specifically to simulate the kensei, sohei, and shaolin monk styles, in addition to the romanticized samurai (multiclass fighter/monk). This was by design that the samurai would be a multiclass character.
CaptainPicard wrote:
Thoughts_My_Aim wrote:
Setzer_G wrote:
CaptainPicard wrote:
Setzer_G wrote:
Kalani wrote:
I'm a tad curious... *what could a Samurai do?* that's so lacking from a fighter?
Looking at the Battlemaster Fighter, it looks pretty much perfect.
Samuari were competent with a variety of fighting styles, as to be expected from a feudal warrior caste.
Proficient at archery, infantry or calvary? Check!
Fighting style that benefits using a single sword? Check!
Fighting styles that benefit twohanded weapon or archery? - Check!
Fighting styles that benefit the historically dubious katana and wakizashi or duel katana pair (Nitōjutsu?)? Check! - Two Weapon Fighting style with Duel Weilder Feat.
They can even do the "Study your opponent" thing that seems a recurring troupe of Fedual Japanese folklaw.
As for unarmed and unarmoured fighting, Samurai obviously didn't prefer it in battlefield situations to being armed and armoured,but again, looking at the DM Basic Rules PDF at the NPC stats.
A 1st level fighter with Str 16 has +5 vs AC and 4 damage, that's plenty enough to punch out a commoner (AC10, 4HP) with a single blow, and is fully capable of landing a solid blow against a gaurd with AC:16, 11HP
At 5th level, they're likely packing STR18 so +7vs AC, 5 Damage and two attacks they can confidently drop a gaurd in 12 seconds!
Sounds pretty badass to me.
After looking at it, the chinese swords I was thinking of, really are more like scimitars (dao) or short swords (jian) than broad/long swords, Thoughts. I rescind. I mostly was thinking of a Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon style film, using the jian in kung fu, but the size of the weapon isn't very long. The blades don't get much more than 2 1/2 ft. I had, in my head that a short sword was more like a gladius, or seax, but I think the jian qualifies as well. When I'm making a sword for tournament or list, blade length rarely goes over 3' because I'm short and body mechanics disagree with longer length...my perspective was a bit off. It's a longsword for ME, but I'm a dwarf....
It seems like the intention was to have the weapons at low levels until you out-die'ed them in level progression with unarmed attacks, then throw those weapons in the creek and punch faces for free.
Nevermind, I'm rambling....
EDIT: as an edit to the post above me, Remember that Proficiency, as described in the book, can mean a lot of things. It's a rating of your general effectiveness. If the samurai Fighter and a Barbarian both have proficiency of +4, that just means the Barbarian gets +4 of brutal cunning and savage tactics, while the +4 for the Fighter can be fluid, precise strokes, cut with clear focus and a sharp mind. It's all about spin....
Setzer_G wrote:
Terrik wrote:
This is one of the greatest parts about 5e. This problem is so easily answered. Dual class into fighter when you want to turn into a Samurai, then use a long sword. (pg 78, last paragraph in Martial Arts)
Done, you are a Samurai.
QuietNinja wrote:
Kalani wrote:
QuietNinja wrote:
QuietNinja wrote:
Thoughts_My_Aim wrote:
Macv12 wrote:
QuietNinja wrote:
QuietNinja wrote:
Terrik wrote:
Holy molies! I did not read that part correctly. Hmmm, it seems I am wrong.
QuietNinja wrote:
Pauper wrote:
Pauper wrote:
My thoughts for your samurai character:
Make Dexterity your highest ability score.
Pick:
Background - Noble
Class - Fighter
Martail Archetype - Battler Master
Choose maneuvers such as Disarming Attack, Evasive Footwork, Feinting Attack, etc.
The longsword is the closest thing to a katana. Ask your DM if you can pay a premium in gold to have a specially forged longsword that also has the finesse property. Then get some scale mail for when you know you're going onto the battle field, but otherwise just wear padded armor under your kimono.
Take the Tavern Brawler feat at level 4.
It seems like you want your samurai to be proficient at both armed and unarmed attacks. While the samurai seek perfection in all that they do, they might not always achieve it. With the Figheter/Tavern Bralwer combo, you master your swordsmenship first, then wrestling/unarmed combat second. If your DM does not allow feats, ask if you can gain the bennefits of Tavern Brawler if you spend a sufficient ammount of time in training.
Alternatively, if you see your character mastering unarmed combat before swordplay, pick Noble/Monk/Way of the Open Hand, and then take the Weapon Master feat. (Note: the Monk is proficient with the shortsword, which is a perfectly servicable wakizashi).
The first and foremost rule in D&D from the very beginning days of the game is that "The DM has final authority over the rules." In other worlds, Rule #1: the DM is always right. Rule #2: if the DM is wrong, see rule #1. A DM should use the rules when possible and break them when necessary to keep the game fast and fun. A good DM would never abuse his power, but only use it to make the game fun and fair.
D&D is not a game of infinite possibilities. It is a game of traditional fantasy archetypes set in a pseudo-European medieval setting. The monk is a strange anomoly in the system. The system is not based around Asian archetypes (although there may be a future release for Asian-flavored games, as there was in some past editions), thus there is no real reason it should support a Samurai build. It doesn't support a space-pirate build either.
BTShire wrote:
I find it interesting the way some people are interpreting the Monk class and their martial arts feature. It seems like some people believe that:
In movie X a martial artist uses weapon Y. Monks are martial artists. Therefore, weapon Y is a monk weapon.
But "martial arts" can be a deceptively broad term; any study or style of combat is technically a martial art. I believe it's self evident that the Monk class is based on the Shoalin monks. Now, I'm no expert, but it was my understanding that the Shoalin monks developed their own martial art, and that the weapons they employed were highly situational, best used at keeping bandits at a distance.
While the term martial arts can mean a number of things, it seems to me that in this case, it means the martial art that the Monk class is trained in, which has a specific list of weapons they can use with it. If the game developers had intended for any other weapon to be on that list, they would have included it. And while a Monk can certainly become proficient in other weapons, that does not mean they can employ that weapon in the same way they would the weapons of their particular martial art.
didon002 wrote:
Thoughts_My_Aim wrote:
Thoughts_My_Aim wrote:
I've been following this thread for quite a while now and I fail to see everyone's problem... To me it seems very easy to build a Samurai. Start out at level 1 as a Fighter and take the rest of your levels in Monk. If I didn't already have a solid character concept for my monk, I would totally make this as my monk character and wield a longsword as a katana. Are people really complaining that their unarmed strikes might potentially do 3 less damage while wielding a longsword that you have a guarenteed +2 damage with? See how it balances out? You get a bonus with your longsword, and a penalty with your unarmed strikes and it almost evens it out. Where is the problem?
Monks get Short Sword prof. The damage of it goes up with level. Call it a katana, and as you gain more experience, you get better and better using it. Done. Can do the '1 strike 2 cuts' move with flury of blows. Good in or out of armor. I really don't see a problem here! ;)
reddaemon wrote:
"Rules that reign in the DM's power" is a concept that I am really rather confused by.
Very different style and attitude to gaming from their groups I guess.
reddaemon wrote:
Kalani wrote:
h347h50 wrote:
I love how the thread got hijacked almsot from the get-go to adapt a decent Samurai using the rules as-is. I wish there was a way to change the title of the thread to just cross out the last part. "The Samurai (snip)"
didon002 wrote:
reddaemon wrote:
Kalani wrote:
Duelist vs GWF style the damage comes out to about the same. The difference lies in if you want to have the following feats available to you: Defensive Duelist, Great Weapon Master. Granted Great Weapon Master requires a heavy weapon, so you'd have to go with a greatsword (daikatana) instead of a longsword (katana). Defensive Duelist would give you a significant boost to your AC when you need to avoid getting hit. I see what you're saying with the Fighter vs Monk multiclass comparison, I would probably go with Fighter 3/Monk x. I forgot how awesome superiority dice were. You'll miss out on one ability score increase/feat but the way I see it you only need to get your STR maxed and then get one maybe two feats to make it all come together.
reddaemon wrote:
Thoughts_My_Aim wrote: