Quote from: Venka on March 05, 2025, 02:16:35 AMThis means that samurai in 5e D&D are definitely pushed away from any of the ways of using a katana that a samurai class would normally incentivize.  The mediocre two-weapon fighting should be the ahistoric two-katana fighting style, the one katana case is best done with a shield instead of with two hands, and if you do go all in on the two-handed katana it's just an odachi with less damage or a naginata with less reach.

It's just a weakness of using a subclass to do what a class should do; or perhaps, having classes that are just generally too complete to glue pieces on.  You could glue on a bunch of bonuses to make the class good at their historical weapons, but it would use up pretty much all the power budget because a fighter subclass just isn't a lot.  More relevantly, by making a class you can just give them the flavorful stuff, be it weaker or stronger, then balance them versus the rest of the game with that. 

It's also a problem of how D&D differentiates weapons. In the real world, a samurai probably would pick an odachi (nodachi? not sure if that's the same thing) or naginata, yari, bow or even a gun as their main weapon in battle. All those things are a lot more inconvenient to carry around than a katana, less handy if you have to fight indoors (or in a cave in D&D), and less socially acceptable to be seen walking down the street with. D&D doesn't represent any of those factors, so there's no reason to use the katana if the other options are available.

Well 2e explored these differences, and I'm sure they had this exact same discussion, in actual play. It appears they landed on the base classes being universal, and rather than create more classes non-contextual to "D&D" writ-large, they made Kits to modify those base classes.

Personally? I understand why they went with Kits over new classes in terms of acknowledging that gamers, generally, *want* mechanical distinction for their character over "just roleplay it" - sorry, it's true. I hear this all the time even in Savage Worlds, but it manifests as complaints over saying "fighting is just fighting", the nuance is in the gear and your Edges. That's a hard pill to swallow if you just play "D&D" and players want that distinction.

Everyone has a different notion of how their pseudo-European/Asian classes should operate as well. I mean, look at this thread, people are debating over katana(!) and how their qualities of historical use happened as if this *should* matter mechanically, and never quite meets the satisfaction of the fantasy. When the question was really about the Samurai/bushi class. I don't agree that a pseudo-European Fighter is also a pseudo-Japanese Fighter is the same thing as a samurai. I think it is reductive *for fantasy* unless you're going for "realism".

This is one of the reasons the generic Kits seemed vaguely unsatisfying (of course the ones that had the best mechanical benefits like the Gladiator or Myrmidon), but the Kits that were specific for a setting seemed "more authentic" for my players simply by dint of having an in-setting direct reference.

In this regard, for the Realms, the Nimbral Warrior Kit is not just a pseudo-European Fighter by satisfying all the criteria discussed. It acknowledges setting, it doesn't create a distinct class, but it creates an in-setting mechanical distinction within the class to represent how it is expressed in whatever manner, within that culture. Of course it should be noted that not every single member of that class is that Kit and vice versa.

Of course 3e threw all this away...

I've put off replying to this thread because this is really a question where one size doesn't fit all, or even most. Also, class systems aren't exactly my forte, but I digress.

The thing with classes is that they tend to come in batches, usually with each splatbook being one batch (but sometimes splatbooks can have multiple batches) and you are better off identifying where one batch ends and another begins and what the logic of each batch of classes is. Generally, the initial system batch of classes like you will find in a PHB tend to be broad and mechanical in nature and splatbook batches of classes tend to be narrower and more about flavor. However, this is not necessarily universal.

As a matter of personal preference, I think it's awkward to combine classes which come from dissimilar batches within one party. I think this for two reasons; first, designers will design a batch to play well with other classes within that batch, and second, mechanical balance tends to remain relatively consistent between batches (assuming they are made by the same design team, anyways) but design teams tend to get better at designing flavor as they make more classes. Batches later in a game's life tend to have higher flavor content, which means that high flavor batches of classes tend to hog spotlights in actual play and mechanical classes tend to yield spotlight.

So while they are theoretically mechanically compatible, in practice that's something of a half-truth. The mechanical balance tends to be tight enough, but spotlight-cling is almost never factored into the balance equation.

Greetings!

I think that the base archetype of Character Classes are generally sufficient. At the same time, I think that there is certainly some room for crafting additional, new Character Classes. I think that process should be done very carefully though. One big reason that I use Skills in my campaign. Skills provide numerous points of differentiation and distinction, embracing and highlighting different environments, climates, technology, organization, history, and culture. Even the most simple can realize that while European Knights and Japanese Samurai are roughly similar--there are huge differences between them, in how they operated, how they were perceived within the culture, and so on. Just saying "Fuck it" and using a generic "Fighter" to represent them both--and many other types as well--just doesn't feel right, certainly for many.

I get that. Yes, my knowledge of History is always in the background, chewing on me, or screaming at me, as the case may be. *Laughing* That is the rub though--keeping quick simplicity, or adding extra mechanical crunch and historical realism. It is a fine line, and adding increased details brings additional fiddliness almost unavoidably. That is just a judgment call for every DM to make. I appreciate both angles--as both angles are always fighting with myself. *Laughing* I resolve such with generally "light" mechanical adjustments--and rely chiefly upon a detailed and distinctive Skill System to provide the required distinctiveness and historical realism and cultural dynamics. This way, I'm still using the basic Fighter as the chassis. In the basic function, European Knights and Japanese Samurai are essentially the same. They are noble, aristocratic warriors, provided with elite training, and significant cultural power, influence, and authority.

I'm always reminded of the expression, "Less Is More." *Laughing*

I'm also reminded of the "Long Wu"--the "Dragon Warriors" of the ancient Chinese Tang Empire. Hereditary warriors, elite training, awesome warrior skills, aristocrats and prestigious warriors of prominent wealth, power, and status. Same thing though. Fighter Class, with a few mechanical differences, and a different skill package.

As I said though, there is a worthy space for additional Character Classes. It is just cautionary though, and prudent, to be careful. Going crazy with Character Classes can bring in huge bloat, spiralling class powers, reducing other classes to being obsolete, and so on. 

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Quote from: jhkim on March 04, 2025, 06:06:35 PMA comment in the Mike Mearls thread about class proliferation made me think about the broadness / narrowness of classes. Especially, should significantly different cultures have different classes or at least subclasses?

Back in the 1E days, Gygax's _Oriental Adventures_ created new classes for "bushi" and "samurai" rather than using fighter. But what if your setting spans cultures as different as China and India and others? That's easily possible in Forgotten Realms or Mystara, or in Pundit's Silk Road setting.

Even if a fighter is generic enough, other classes like cleric or wizard are liable to be different for significantly different cultures. Obviously one can go crazy with proliferation of classes, but conversely it isn't necessarily crazy to split fighters up, or especially magic using classes like wizards and clerics.

In my last D&D campaign, I committed to using the standard core classes even though the culture was quite different than standard. I had some rules changes - like substituting quipu for spellbook and had special rules for heavy armor - but I tried to keep them minor. But that was a specific choice for that game. For a different game, I might want more variant classes.

Thoughts?

I think when you start veering into specific genres, it helps to have new classes. Ideally the GM is able to curate these to the setting (one of my pet peeves in teh 3E era is it felt like the GM had less say when it came to classes and world fidelity). But stuff like samurai, ninja, Shaolin Monks or Flying Swordsman, usually I've used those in the context of specifically trying to do a campaign emulating Shaw Brothers or something. I think where it gets murky is some people are going to want to run a fantasy world, that is more sort of grounded and things don't turn into a kung fu movie just because you are in "not-China". In those cases, just using a standard fighter for the Samurai is perfectly workable.