@greyhunter88 I think the Samurai IS just a fighter, it doesn’t need a specific class creating for it.  Samurai are, for all intents and purposes, the Japanese equivalent if knights.  They performed similar roles, spent most of their lives training to fight, they served lords through a feudal system of oaths and were an elite battlefield unit in Medieval Japan.  The only differences are in the weapons and tactics they use. However the fighter class is generic enough that it supports both Knights and Samurai equally by virtue of selecting different weapons, armour, feats and skills.  The same goes for Ninjas, it’s just a Rogue wearing different clothes and using oriental weapons.

I could easily make either of these two character types in the current D&D game using just the basic classes. A historical Samurai might be a fighter with Dexterity as a primary stat, strength as a secondary, bow as a primary weapon, longsword as a secondary weapon and medium armour use. A Romanticised version might do away with the bow, switch Strength to primary stat, Constitution to secondary stat and take longsword, short sword and dual wield (Katana/Wakazashi combo) and then go for heavy armour. Both of these characters can then be described as oriental in appearance including all their equipment. So that longsword is really a Katana which is fine given that in reality there’s very little difference between the two in terms of their effectiveness, certainly no differences that would affect the way they function within d&d’s combat system, which is an abstraction of combat not a simulation of it.

Generally speaking I am against the creation of new character classes to try and represent different cultures because aside from tactics and equipment, when look across cultures from across the world throughout most of human history, the exact same archetypes appear time and again. Beyond the purely aesthetic, it’s the cultures around those archetypes that create the difference.