... lol, the necromancer's image wasn't actually changed, just the origins and the goals. When you look deep down the samurai, he's a pure warrior. They were "heavy tank" soldiers, almost machines... they mostly fill the warrior type class... the problem is... the spot has been taken by the barb, sadly cause the samurai is freaky sweet. Anyway, can you explan to me in what way can the samurai be adapted?
If they didn't make the stupid decision of putting the Barb back into DIII, I would have been all for the Samurai Equinox. Now, the cards have changed, there is not enough space for this kind of character in DIII. Adapting the samurai and changing the way he fights would just be equal to creating a new character. The samurai is the samurai, you can change his origins, his lore anything related to his persona, but not the personna himself. This is the difference between the Necromancer and this Noble Warrior. Necromancers, work with death and evil magik, they have always been decribed as such. In D2, I didn't see that change, every skill was oriented with this theme in mind. The samurai, on the other hand, is a warrior (lets face it). Skills like blades of ancients and death leap can be directly attached to this guy, just like the Barbarian. For the paladin, yes he is a warrior but a very different kind of warrior. Ya he fought into battles as fierce warriors, but they also fought dragons, looked for mystical items (The Graal for exemple), they were crusaiders, fought into religious battles. They are more like a religious monk than a warrior. Samurai, ya they are religious, but the way I see it, they were never part of a religious campaign and therefore never really attached to religion. Saxons, Mongols, Japaneses warriors/soldiers all the same to me. French, English, Portuguese warriors.... they were part in religious battles. English Vs. French (Protestants vs Catholics) ..... so it's normal to see a character such as the Paladin or the Crusaider or even the Zealot split from the generic warrior type.
Yes i doubt they will put a oriontal like class in the orig game
As you said if they wont to put it in, they will, but i just doubt that.
I guess the next two classes will be some sort of divine archer/ranger and a dark knight.
O.k. Guys there is nothing wrong with having a Samurai class Diablo is a fantasy, things are meant to be unreal so who the hell cares if theres a guy who's supposed to come from Japan, Barbarians come from all over the world, but they chose to put them in Harrogath. So I say yes, yes to the Samurai, they will pretty much be a mix between the Barbarian (for strength) and Paladin (because they obeyed the law). Also, they could make the Samurai a logical location, and equipment, there wasn't even a promise of keeping all the same weapons for all you know they could make a Katana, Wakizashi, A more powerful throwing knife the Kunai, higher or lower level belt an obi, Game Companies do this stuff all the time.
the European knight is superior. read that article and you will understand, and your biases will be washed away with fact.
also "Knights of the medieval era were asked to "Protect the weak, defenseless, helpless, and fight for the general welfare of all."These few guidelines were the main duties of a medieval knight, but they were very hard to accomplish thoroughly. Rarely, even the best of knights were able to fully meet these guidelines, which proves the difficulty in their lifestyle. Knighthood consisted of all kinds of training including hunting, fighting, and riding horses. Apart from with the physical training, knights were trained to practice courteous, honorable behavior, which was extremely important. Chivalry (derived from the French word chevalier meaning “skills to handle a horse”) was the main principle guiding a knight’s life style. The code of chivalry dealt with three main areas: the military, social life, and religion"
where as the samurai of the time just walked around and if you looked at one the wrong way he would kill you... samurai sound awfully retarded if you ask me, they have been glorified to be these warriors walking around wielding lightsabers, and saving the helpless...
the European knight is superior. read that article and you will understand, and your biases will be washed away with fact.
also "Knights of the medieval era were asked to "Protect the weak, defenseless, helpless, and fight for the general welfare of all."These few guidelines were the main duties of a medieval knight, but they were very hard to accomplish thoroughly. Rarely, even the best of knights were able to fully meet these guidelines, which proves the difficulty in their lifestyle. Knighthood consisted of all kinds of training including hunting, fighting, and riding horses. Apart from with the physical training, knights were trained to practice courteous, honorable behavior, which was extremely important. Chivalry (derived from the French word chevalier meaning “skills to handle a horse”) was the main principle guiding a knight’s life style. The code of chivalry dealt with three main areas: the military, social life, and religion"
where as the samurai of the time just walked around and if you looked at one the wrong way he would kill you... samurai sound awfully retarded if you ask me, they have been glorified to be these warriors walking around wielding lightsabers, and saving the helpless...
You're so completly wrong.
The chivalary code are a big joke. Help the weaks ? Theres so much historical documents of massive execution of peasant, wich lived in ridiculous bad life condition that noone with sense of charity would allow it, but the knights not just aproove their misery, but killed then when they react agains the extremy rigid and unfair medieval society.
Just read Leo Huberman books and you may understand europe in sec.X to sec. XVI...
The Japonese samurai are not very different. Except from the fact that Samurai honor code was respected and crimes like forced sex, murder and steal were forbidden and paid with death. The catholic code wich forbidden the same things were twisted and things like paid the Church for salvation allowed bastard to do any crime and recieve no punshment, at the same time the oposite accurs (ppl who have done nothing wrong were executed just for question church's and medieval society fairness).
And it' historically wrong to say some society or civilisation (or members of some society or civilisation) are superior or inferior. Theres so much factors to consider, so much research to be done that this kind of afirmative are not approved by cientific methods.
And it' historically wrong to say some society or civilisation (or members of some society or civilisation) are superior or inferior. Theres so much factors to consider, so much research to be done that this kind of afirmative are not approved by cientific methods.
i lol'd
yes there is so "much things wrong with what i said" (to put it in your words).....
anyways thats like saying that England wasnt industrially superior to China during the 1700's.... that is completely ridiculous.
the fact of the matter is that European knights had superior armour to deal with more diverse conditions, be it the wet environment in Great Britain (samurai armour became extremely heavy when it rained due to how it was kept together), or the hot arid landscape of the middle east. the armour was able to prevent nearly every type of weapon at the time excluding long bows fired from very short distances or crossbows, and naturally stabs from hand weapons to weak points in the armour, or finally massive blows from heavy weapons damaging internal body parts.
Katanas, even of the late 1700s (by the way i have been comparing people within the period of 1000-1400 BC) were not lightsabers. though they were superior in terms of sharpness and cutting ability they were by no means FAR superior to European swords. In the movies and in video games you see them cutting other swords in half, cutting shields in half etc. that is literally impossible ever for the sharpest katana ever made. While the edge of a katana is very strong with a sharp cutting bevel, it is a thick wedge shape and still has to move aside material as it cuts. Though this is devestating on a draw slice against flesh and bone, it is FAR less effective against cutting metal and armour.
then quote on quote from a War history expert: "Except for major interaction in Korea and encounters against the Mongols, the katana developed in comparative isolation and is not quite the "ultimate sword" some of its ardent admirers occasionally build it up as. The katana's exceptionally hard edge was prone to chipping and needed frequent re-polishing and its blade could break or bend the same as any other sword might (...and no, they won't slice through cars or chop into concrete pillars either). It was not designed to take a great deal of abuse, and is not as resilient in flexibility nor intended to directly oppose soft or hard armors as some forms of Medieval swords had to be."
Anyways aside from what you hear in movies and the like, medieval knight swords were literally about the same weight, ie less than 4 pounds. they provided superior effectevness while fighting with shields and were more easily able to thrust as it was a straight edge. also both sides were sharp providing greater flexibility when fighting.
anyways if the two opponents were to come face to face on an open field, the sun out. the knight would most probably win due to the fact that the shield would be nearly impossible to pass, and if it was passed his armour would deflect any blow inflicted by the Katana. If the samurai were to swing at the knight his sword would get momentarily wedged in the knight's shield and this would be a perfect oppertunity for the knight to cleave his head off or simply stab him. i could go on and on with different scenarios, but ultimately the knight would be victious, only luck would grant the samurai a victory.
yes there is so "much things wrong with what i said" (to put it in your words).....
anyways thats like saying that England wasnt industrially superior to China during the 1700's.... that is completely ridiculous.
the fact of the matter is that European knights had superior armour to deal with more diverse conditions, be it the wet environment in Great Britain (samurai armour became extremely heavy when it rained due to how it was kept together), or the hot arid landscape of the middle east. the armour was able to prevent nearly every type of weapon at the time excluding long bows fired from very short distances or crossbows, and naturally stabs from hand weapons to weak points in the armour, or finally massive blows from heavy weapons damaging internal body parts.
Katanas, even of the late 1700s (by the way i have been comparing people within the period of 1000-1400 BC) were not lightsabers. though they were superior in terms of sharpness and cutting ability they were by no means FAR superior to European swords. In the movies and in video games you see them cutting other swords in half, cutting shields in half etc. that is literally impossible ever for the sharpest katana ever made. While the edge of a katana is very strong with a sharp cutting bevel, it is a thick wedge shape and still has to move aside material as it cuts. Though this is devestating on a draw slice against flesh and bone, it is FAR less effective against cutting metal and armour.
then quote on quote from a War history expert: "Except for major interaction in Korea and encounters against the Mongols, the katana developed in comparative isolation and is not quite the "ultimate sword" some of its ardent admirers occasionally build it up as. The katana's exceptionally hard edge was prone to chipping and needed frequent re-polishing and its blade could break or bend the same as any other sword might (...and no, they won't slice through cars or chop into concrete pillars either). It was not designed to take a great deal of abuse, and is not as resilient in flexibility nor intended to directly oppose soft or hard armors as some forms of Medieval swords had to be."
Anyways aside from what you hear in movies and the like, medieval knight swords were literally about the same weight, ie less than 4 pounds. they provided superior effectevness while fighting with shields and were more easily able to thrust as it was a straight edge. also both sides were sharp providing greater flexibility when fighting.
anyways if the two opponents were to come face to face on an open field, the sun out. the knight would most probably win due to the fact that the shield would be nearly impossible to pass, and if it was passed his armour would deflect any blow inflicted by the Katana. If the samurai were to swing at the knight his sword would get momentarily wedged in the knight's shield and this would be a perfect oppertunity for the knight to cleave his head off or simply stab him. i could go on and on with different scenarios, but ultimately the knight would be victious, only luck would grant the samurai a victory.
lol i'm not talking about battles, once i really don't kno nothing about, i'm talking about history. I'm not talking about your afirmative of battle superiority, once there was never a conflict betwen those two historical characters. I'm talking about what you said about knights wich was totally insane once knights were just barbarians under the Church's domain.
anyways if the two opponents were to come face to face on an open field, the sun out. the knight would most probably win due to the fact that the shield would be nearly impossible to pass
a knight wearing all that heavy armour is not as agile as a samurai wearing fairly light weight armour, a shield isnt everything the samurai is faster
Quote from "Num3n" »
if it was passed his armour would deflect any blow inflicted by the Katana.
that would depend on what armour the knight was wearing armour as light as chainmail could easily be pierced by an arrow and armour has heavy as plate could be pierced with a well aimed stab
Quote from "Num3n" »
If the samurai were to swing at the knight his sword would get momentarily wedged in the knight's shield and this would be a perfect oppertunity for the knight to cleave his head off or simply stab him.
you do know that some samurais did use shields
"There's one culture's mail armour that I've just touched upon so far: Japanese mail. It is highly variable in pattern, superior to European mail in many ways and also inferior to European Mail in some ways
The common Japanese patterns were lighter and more open than European, but they were made of superior quality tempered wire that wasn't riveted. Some links in Japanese mail were double or even triple wrapped for strength. Like the best European Mail Makers, the Japanese also paid attention to which parts of the body the armour was supposed to be protecting. Mail over one's chest would be thick and strong, but on an elbow where flexibility was more important, it would be lighter."
"Sword edges could not penetrate even relatively thin plate (as little as 1 mm). Also, although arrows shot from bows, crossbows and early firearms could occasionally pierce plate especially at close range, later improvements in the steel forging techniques and armour design made even this line of attack increasingly difficult. By its apex, hardened steel plate was almost impregnable on the battlefield. Knights were instead increasingly felled by polearms such as the halberd and blunt weapons such as maces or war hammers that could send concussive force through the plate armour resulting in injuries such as broken bones, organ haemorrhage and/or head trauma. Another tactic was to attempt to strike through the gaps between the armour pieces, using daggers, spears and spear points to attack the man-at-arms' eyes or joints."
"Contrary to common misconceptions, a well-made suit of medieval 'battle' armour (as opposed to the primarily ceremonial 'parade' and 'tournament' armour popular with kings and nobility of later years) hindered its wearer no more than the equipment carried by soldiers today. It should be remembered that an armoured knight would be trained to wear armour from his teens, and would likely develop the technique and endurance needed to comfortably run, crawl, climb ladders, as well as mount and dismount his horse without recourse to a crane (a myth probably originating from an English music hall comedy of the 1830s, and popularised in Mark Twain's A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court). A full suit of medieval plate is thought to have weighed little more than 60 lb (27 kg) on average, considerably lighter than the equipment often carried by the elite of today's armies. (For example, SAS patrols have been known to carry equipment weighing well over 200 lb (91 kg) for many miles"
as i already quoted in the other thread.
and upper-class Japanese warriors (bushi or samurai) never used a shield since both hands were needed for the bow, spear or sword.
and from your very own source
"The highly developed weight distribution that became possible with the era of Articulated Plate was simply amazing. A warrior clad in a suit of properly made Articulated Plate would have been able to do cartwheels in his armour. Each plate balanced perfectly to a part of his body. This effectively dispels the myth of knights in armour falling off their horses and not being able to stand up. Such stories must have developed from certain examples of Tournament Plate Armour. Tournament Plate was specially designed to take the incredible impacts of jousting, so that it was very, very heavy."
also i cannot find your quote about japanese vs european mail
*edit k i found it but also this which followed it- "Of course, it's not really fair to compare Europe to Japan, as the fighting styles of each evolved on completely different tangents. European armour needed to be heavier to deal with the bigger, crushing weapons common in their battles, even if heat exhaustion from the thicker, less breathable armour was common. Japanese combat techniques used lighter, faster weapons and thusly mobility was more of a concern."
but we arent discusing chain mail we are discussing plate armour and its superiority to japanese samurai armour.
now look at this, look at the many gaps in the japanese armour compared to the european armour
Anyways You guys sure are thinking hard about this like holy shit lol.....Either way I did think it would be a dumb idea...but they probably have some asian themed cultural place in sanctuary that a class like this could come from. Would probably work well in d3....tho knows if something like it will make it in
The stance of a samurai does not leave the chest open to attack. They stand sideways with their shoulder guard facing their opponent so those gaps are irrelevant.
If there is a samurai class he should have a stance skill tree. They would work like an aura, only instead of an aura his stance changes and physical attacks change. The stances would come with all sorts of buffs. Stance of the Phoenix gives fire enchantment, Stance of the Bear gives knock back, and Stance of the Scorpion poisons the blade for example. He would also have bow and javelin/sword and spear skill trees. I know that I've said this already but possibly a summon steed that you can mount and run through ranks of enemies, running them down while slashing, lancing, shooting arrows, and hurling javelins at them.
i would prefer no samurai or ninja or w/e. there just too generic and mainstream. blizzard has gone to many lengths to come up with new ideas and names and stuff and it would be really lame to just toss in a character like ninja/samurai which already has so much developed for it. you might have guessed im not pleased about the ''wizard'' title. harry potter is a wizard, the character they made is sooo much more diabolical its insulting to call it a wizard
The stance of a samurai does not leave the chest open to attack. They stand sideways with their shoulder guard facing their opponent so those gaps are irrelevant.
how the hell do you think knights stand? obviously sideways as well...
and lmfao if you knew anything about samurai armour you would know that when their armour got wet it became EXTREMELY heavy. neither samurai or knight would be able to swim in their armour.
and to kenzai, you do realize we are talking about if someone were to pick up a knight and samurai and drop them together in some open field right.
and in response to this
Samurai would have used weapons capable of piercing the knight armor etc., you know what i mean.
so what would they develop? guns? ak-47 assault rifles? you dont just automatically develop something to counter it. at the prime of medieval armour, it was almost completely inpenetrable by weapons other than a longbow at extremely close range. so that is a mute point.
It doesnt say the knight is superior or something.
i realize that and from reading that it is readily and easy to see that the knight would in most cases have the advantage. he just did not want to say so at the end to insight arguement, he kept it objective.
The last ones bolded part is very important. Just like samurai vs. knight, any discussion on "x martial art vs. y martial art" (which is just as common) is ridiculous. They may have advantages in what they were meant to be used for (attention to "intended purpose") but in the end its just personal skill.
no it isnt, if you took 2 masters. one of muay thai, and one of tae kwon do, i am almost 100% certain the muay thai fighter would win. simply because it is a better fighting style for actual combat.
and to the whole middle part of your post, that is all a mute point as we arent discussing how each weapon is great for its own environment, we are discussing to see which would surpass the other when facing off against one another.
and finally please stop mentioning other weapons. the fighters have the following gear. if you want to think the samurai has a bow and other weapons then the knight has a crossbow and he then automatically wins because its the medieval equivelant of an ak-47 assault rifle.
samurai:
-katana
-armour
knight:
-armour
-shield
-longsword/bastard sword
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
It can be adapted in whatever way Blizzard feels like. Personally, the real samurai is fine.
The only issue I see is samurai overlapping with the wizard, but this thread was created way before that.
As you said if they wont to put it in, they will, but i just doubt that.
I guess the next two classes will be some sort of divine archer/ranger and a dark knight.
Do you, by any chance, play the L5R RPG?
I was talking about this. It's a sick game. I'm GMing a campaign right now.
It was a South Park related joke!
the European knight is superior. read that article and you will understand, and your biases will be washed away with fact.
also "Knights of the medieval era were asked to "Protect the weak, defenseless, helpless, and fight for the general welfare of all."These few guidelines were the main duties of a medieval knight, but they were very hard to accomplish thoroughly. Rarely, even the best of knights were able to fully meet these guidelines, which proves the difficulty in their lifestyle. Knighthood consisted of all kinds of training including hunting, fighting, and riding horses. Apart from with the physical training, knights were trained to practice courteous, honorable behavior, which was extremely important. Chivalry (derived from the French word chevalier meaning “skills to handle a horse”) was the main principle guiding a knight’s life style. The code of chivalry dealt with three main areas: the military, social life, and religion"
where as the samurai of the time just walked around and if you looked at one the wrong way he would kill you... samurai sound awfully retarded if you ask me, they have been glorified to be these warriors walking around wielding lightsabers, and saving the helpless...
You're so completly wrong.
The chivalary code are a big joke. Help the weaks ? Theres so much historical documents of massive execution of peasant, wich lived in ridiculous bad life condition that noone with sense of charity would allow it, but the knights not just aproove their misery, but killed then when they react agains the extremy rigid and unfair medieval society.
Just read Leo Huberman books and you may understand europe in sec.X to sec. XVI...
The Japonese samurai are not very different. Except from the fact that Samurai honor code was respected and crimes like forced sex, murder and steal were forbidden and paid with death. The catholic code wich forbidden the same things were twisted and things like paid the Church for salvation allowed bastard to do any crime and recieve no punshment, at the same time the oposite accurs (ppl who have done nothing wrong were executed just for question church's and medieval society fairness).
And it' historically wrong to say some society or civilisation (or members of some society or civilisation) are superior or inferior. Theres so much factors to consider, so much research to be done that this kind of afirmative are not approved by cientific methods.
i lol'd
yes there is so "much things wrong with what i said" (to put it in your words).....
anyways thats like saying that England wasnt industrially superior to China during the 1700's.... that is completely ridiculous.
the fact of the matter is that European knights had superior armour to deal with more diverse conditions, be it the wet environment in Great Britain (samurai armour became extremely heavy when it rained due to how it was kept together), or the hot arid landscape of the middle east. the armour was able to prevent nearly every type of weapon at the time excluding long bows fired from very short distances or crossbows, and naturally stabs from hand weapons to weak points in the armour, or finally massive blows from heavy weapons damaging internal body parts.
Katanas, even of the late 1700s (by the way i have been comparing people within the period of 1000-1400 BC) were not lightsabers. though they were superior in terms of sharpness and cutting ability they were by no means FAR superior to European swords. In the movies and in video games you see them cutting other swords in half, cutting shields in half etc. that is literally impossible ever for the sharpest katana ever made. While the edge of a katana is very strong with a sharp cutting bevel, it is a thick wedge shape and still has to move aside material as it cuts. Though this is devestating on a draw slice against flesh and bone, it is FAR less effective against cutting metal and armour.
then quote on quote from a War history expert: "Except for major interaction in Korea and encounters against the Mongols, the katana developed in comparative isolation and is not quite the "ultimate sword" some of its ardent admirers occasionally build it up as. The katana's exceptionally hard edge was prone to chipping and needed frequent re-polishing and its blade could break or bend the same as any other sword might (...and no, they won't slice through cars or chop into concrete pillars either). It was not designed to take a great deal of abuse, and is not as resilient in flexibility nor intended to directly oppose soft or hard armors as some forms of Medieval swords had to be."
Anyways aside from what you hear in movies and the like, medieval knight swords were literally about the same weight, ie less than 4 pounds. they provided superior effectevness while fighting with shields and were more easily able to thrust as it was a straight edge. also both sides were sharp providing greater flexibility when fighting.
anyways if the two opponents were to come face to face on an open field, the sun out. the knight would most probably win due to the fact that the shield would be nearly impossible to pass, and if it was passed his armour would deflect any blow inflicted by the Katana. If the samurai were to swing at the knight his sword would get momentarily wedged in the knight's shield and this would be a perfect oppertunity for the knight to cleave his head off or simply stab him. i could go on and on with different scenarios, but ultimately the knight would be victious, only luck would grant the samurai a victory.
lol i'm not talking about battles, once i really don't kno nothing about, i'm talking about history. I'm not talking about your afirmative of battle superiority, once there was never a conflict betwen those two historical characters. I'm talking about what you said about knights wich was totally insane once knights were just barbarians under the Church's domain.
a knight wearing all that heavy armour is not as agile as a samurai wearing fairly light weight armour, a shield isnt everything the samurai is faster
that would depend on what armour the knight was wearing armour as light as chainmail could easily be pierced by an arrow and armour has heavy as plate could be pierced with a well aimed stab
you do know that some samurais did use shields
"There's one culture's mail armour that I've just touched upon so far: Japanese mail. It is highly variable in pattern, superior to European mail in many ways and also inferior to European Mail in some ways
The common Japanese patterns were lighter and more open than European, but they were made of superior quality tempered wire that wasn't riveted. Some links in Japanese mail were double or even triple wrapped for strength. Like the best European Mail Makers, the Japanese also paid attention to which parts of the body the armour was supposed to be protecting. Mail over one's chest would be thick and strong, but on an elbow where flexibility was more important, it would be lighter."
my source?
http://www.artofchainmail.com/history.html
"Contrary to common misconceptions, a well-made suit of medieval 'battle' armour (as opposed to the primarily ceremonial 'parade' and 'tournament' armour popular with kings and nobility of later years) hindered its wearer no more than the equipment carried by soldiers today. It should be remembered that an armoured knight would be trained to wear armour from his teens, and would likely develop the technique and endurance needed to comfortably run, crawl, climb ladders, as well as mount and dismount his horse without recourse to a crane (a myth probably originating from an English music hall comedy of the 1830s, and popularised in Mark Twain's A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court). A full suit of medieval plate is thought to have weighed little more than 60 lb (27 kg) on average, considerably lighter than the equipment often carried by the elite of today's armies. (For example, SAS patrols have been known to carry equipment weighing well over 200 lb (91 kg) for many miles"
as i already quoted in the other thread.
and upper-class Japanese warriors (bushi or samurai) never used a shield since both hands were needed for the bow, spear or sword.
and from your very own source
"The highly developed weight distribution that became possible with the era of Articulated Plate was simply amazing. A warrior clad in a suit of properly made Articulated Plate would have been able to do cartwheels in his armour. Each plate balanced perfectly to a part of his body. This effectively dispels the myth of knights in armour falling off their horses and not being able to stand up. Such stories must have developed from certain examples of Tournament Plate Armour. Tournament Plate was specially designed to take the incredible impacts of jousting, so that it was very, very heavy."
also i cannot find your quote about japanese vs european mail
*edit k i found it but also this which followed it- "Of course, it's not really fair to compare Europe to Japan, as the fighting styles of each evolved on completely different tangents. European armour needed to be heavier to deal with the bigger, crushing weapons common in their battles, even if heat exhaustion from the thicker, less breathable armour was common. Japanese combat techniques used lighter, faster weapons and thusly mobility was more of a concern."
but we arent discusing chain mail we are discussing plate armour and its superiority to japanese samurai armour.
now look at this, look at the many gaps in the japanese armour compared to the european armour
Aahhh never mind ;|
Close this thread already.
GREAT POST THANKS FOR SHARING!!!!:offtopic::spam:
Anyways You guys sure are thinking hard about this like holy shit lol.....Either way I did think it would be a dumb idea...but they probably have some asian themed cultural place in sanctuary that a class like this could come from. Would probably work well in d3....tho knows if something like it will make it in
Fuck you, I'm a dragon.
Fuck you, I'm a dragon.
and lmfao if you knew anything about samurai armour you would know that when their armour got wet it became EXTREMELY heavy. neither samurai or knight would be able to swim in their armour.
and to kenzai, you do realize we are talking about if someone were to pick up a knight and samurai and drop them together in some open field right.
and in response to this
so what would they develop? guns? ak-47 assault rifles? you dont just automatically develop something to counter it. at the prime of medieval armour, it was almost completely inpenetrable by weapons other than a longbow at extremely close range. so that is a mute point.
i realize that and from reading that it is readily and easy to see that the knight would in most cases have the advantage. he just did not want to say so at the end to insight arguement, he kept it objective.
no it isnt, if you took 2 masters. one of muay thai, and one of tae kwon do, i am almost 100% certain the muay thai fighter would win. simply because it is a better fighting style for actual combat.
and to the whole middle part of your post, that is all a mute point as we arent discussing how each weapon is great for its own environment, we are discussing to see which would surpass the other when facing off against one another.
and finally please stop mentioning other weapons. the fighters have the following gear. if you want to think the samurai has a bow and other weapons then the knight has a crossbow and he then automatically wins because its the medieval equivelant of an ak-47 assault rifle.
samurai:
-katana
-armour
knight:
-armour
-shield
-longsword/bastard sword