Then do not play it.Sadly that's exactly what's going to happen.
Since 3e's release I can count the number of times I've done mount combat on 1 hand. Knowing how often I won't be on a mount means I know that I won't be using the character full potential most of the character's play life. Which to me means never playing the cavalier.
When I ran Rise of the Runelords, there was quite a bit of mounted combat. The fighter would have done even more if it weren't for how fragile the horse was. If the cavalier had been an option and he'd chosen it, he'd have totally gotten his bang for his buck.
There is a class to be a warrior with no mount. It's called a fighter. The caviler was made to be the mounted guy. Taking the mount out you might as well take spellcasting out of a wizard. Then give it rogue like ability but still call it a wizard.
Well who says we have to take away the mounted combat features of the Knight? I'm just saying there's not enough focus for other things (like a Cavalier's focus on using shields and armors or even when interacting with nobility).
I wouldn't mind if a few features where altered or altogether taken away (not the Mounted features mind you) and the following features could be added: Armor Training, Bulwark of Defense, Impetuous Endurance, Shield Block, Shield Ally (and Improved Shield Ally), Vigilant Defender
Well who says we have to take away the mounted combat features of the Knight? I'm just saying there's not enough focus for other things (like a Cavalier's focus on using shields and armors or even when interacting with nobility).
Heh, are we reading the same thread? Most folks in it and the other one before it want something in exchange for the mounted ability and features
The classic image of the cavalier is the chivalrous noble knight.
This is actually not accurate - your image is probably coming from the AD&D class. I think one of the underlying issues is how literally to take the name Cavalier, with the answer being "not very".
The classic Cavalier archetype would be an upper-class, cause-driven, court dandy/puffy shirt/swashbuckler type who was a mounted cavalryman and officer on the field of battle because of his station in life. Sword and shield doesn't suit them very well. A better non-mounted option would be to go the swashbuckler/dps route - off his horse a Cavalier would be a wealthy warrior-rouge type with fancy dress, a cavalier attitude (hint hint) and knee-deep in court politics. It would be interesting if this was the concept for the class, because it is more historically accurate and a rather unique concept when it comes to RPG classes.
However, the presented class is really more of a Knight archetype with the Cavalier title used loosely as a synonym (a la AD&D). They do touch on some more Cavalier-like ideas in the Order options and the description of being dedicated to a cause and their role outside of battle, but it's just lip service - those Cavalier-like ideas aren't reflected very well in the game mechanics of the class.
I think an unmounted heavily armored, sword-and-shield defender option is a good fit for a Knight. It also fills a niche and solves the only-good-on-a-mount problem, so ultimately I give the idea a thumbs up. If I had to make the final decision I would rename this class to Knight, add the sword-and-shield defender option and then save the more unique Cavalier archetype for a prestige class.
|
I realy feal after playing rpgs for almost 20 years. I can count on my hands the number of times we have done mounted combat. Thats way I'm in favor of given them somthing more then just mounted combat. Becous as writen curently there is litte to no reason to play one. I'm in favor of expanding there oaths, and banners. Personly I realy hate the Challenge ability if I hade my way I wold holy burn this ability and strengthin somthing else. Becouse a challenge to me is leting me know there coming. ( In real life if any one did this to me thay wold realy be disapointed. Meny years ago I hade some one call me out for a fight after school. I promply kicked him and put him to the groud in the midle of class. A challenge is a good way for some one that is not lawfull to take advantge of you. just my two cents on that one. ) I wold realy like to see some abilitys related to court like it gives in the discreption. I wold realy like to see more comand abilitys like banners to give them a nitch like a bard but more martal. I can see mounted combat being usefull but they should have unmounted ability to be a lesser ability.So thay can be usefull across the bord. I can see it being a real problem to balance. Thats why im not a game desiner.
So...Why can't we have a little of everything being mentioned here? (in fact they already do) Kill the oaths, strengthen Orders, tweak the challenge, don't mind the mount if you don't like it, it's not really that big of a feature as it is, and it's not like it kills to leave the mount behind, they get cool stuff.
Make it so the orders give more powerful bonus to certain builds, and everyone can build their knights,cavalry,swashbuckler, courtly warriors, princes, and what have you, and you just pick your appropriate Order to reflect that build. I think that is what the class already hints at, but it just needs to be more pronounced.
Ditto. I dont think having him do horsey things is bad, but it should not be the main focus of it. At least give the class the option of being a horseman/defender type.Then do not play it.Sadly that's exactly what's going to happen.
Since 3e's release I can count the number of times I've done mount combat on 1 hand. Knowing how often I won't be on a mount means I know that I won't be using the character full potential most of the character's play life. Which to me means never playing the cavalier.
Maybe your DMs need to consider other types of adventures. The Paladins, Rangers and Druids would be fine with that. As would the Cavalier. I doubt it would impact the effectiveness of the Wizard or Cleric. Of course then someone would be saying their Rogues abilities weren't being used...
The point being any number of classes have "location" issues. Not every class, class ability, etc. is going to be universally useful. Few are although in any given campaign the ratio of utility to uselessness is going to vary. Everyone takes a hit in some circumstance. That's life.
Ditto. I dont think having him do horsey things is bad, but it should not be the main focus of it. At least give the class the option of being a horseman/defender type.Then do not play it.Sadly that's exactly what's going to happen.
Since 3e's release I can count the number of times I've done mount combat on 1 hand. Knowing how often I won't be on a mount means I know that I won't be using the character full potential most of the character's play life. Which to me means never playing the cavalier.
There is a class to be a warrior with no mount,It's called a fighter
The caviler was made to be the mounted guy. Taking the mount out you might as well take spellcasting out of a wizard. Then give it rogue like ability but still call it a wizard.
I really don't like this argument. There is a bigger difference between the Cavalier and the Fighter than just a horse.
I'd personally really like to see a mount-less option for the class, and for the people that say that the mount is an integral part of it can just choose the mount option.
Again the mount "option" was the entire point of the class. Every thing else was extra the whole point was the mount
|
Again the mount "option" was the entire point of the class. Every thing else was extra the whole point was the mount
I feel the point of the class was to have a knight complete with knightly orders and codes of conduct and such. I feel the class delivers that experience in the basic sense of things.
I do not feel that a mount is vital to the concept of a knightly order, or knights in general. I think the mount features should remain, but I think that there should a set of alternate features for those who wish to play a knight (with orders, oaths, and challenges) that are not interested in mounted combat.
Just as it can be argued that a campaign can be suited more to a mounted character, it can also be argued that a class that includes mounted options could also have alternate features to suit campaigns where there will be little or no opportunities for mounted combat.
Some fine campaign themes I could think of that would not be suited for mounted combat are:
an underdark type of campaign
a high seas campaign
an urban themed campaign (may get some use in the streets, but once its indoors its over unless you are small)
most campaigns involving planar travel to inhospitable campaigns
a mega dungeon campaign
Hell, take a look at ALL of the AP lines. Most of the fights are indoors or in locations that are otherwise non mount areas. I think the knights should be able to choose to have non mounted options in place of the mounted ones (like the paladin) or that those features should have non-mount capabilities wrapped into them.
love,
malkav
I feel the point of the class was to have a knight complete with knightly orders and codes of conduct and such. I feel the class delivers that experience in the basic sense of things.
Except from day one the point was the mounted side. The orders and challenges we have been told were added to have something to do for those times when you could not be mounted.
From the time they choose the name till they released it the class was about mounted combat. That was the stated point of the class.
So I really can not understand "we need a non mounted option" for a class built around the ideal of mounted combat, is like saying "We need non spell casting options" for a cleric
I feel the point of the class was to have a knight complete with knightly orders and codes of conduct and such. I feel the class delivers that experience in the basic sense of things.Except from day one the point was the mounted side. The orders and challenges we have been told were added to have something to do for those times when you could not be mounted.
From the time they choose the name till they released it the class was about mounted combat. That was the stated point of the class.
So I really can not understand "we need a non mounted option" for a class built around the ideal of mounted combat, is like saying "We need non spell casting options" for a cleric
No, it's not. The Cavalier is different from the core classes in a number of ways, including challenge, oaths, orders and the banner and a more diplomatic oriented skill list than the Fighter. These are actually pretty major class abilities that help define the class.
Even though the "point" of the class from day one was the mount, the problem of him not functioning well within campaigns that don't support mounts has arisen in the playtesting period. The playtest is after all supposed to help mold the class into what he should ultimately be.
Nobody would be forced to take non-mounted option either, and hell, it could be a worse option, but I'd still like to see it there.
I still am not seeing the point. If you do not wish to play a mounted class then simply do not play the caviler. The class form the APG are not always as open as core classes. They are not core, they are made to fill a role that can not be done with the core classes. Mounted knight is not a role any other class save a paladin can pull off, and then your stuck with the baggage of being LG and all the rest.
The option is there not to take your mount inside, no one forces you to make a mount based class for a game it clearly is not suited for, just like no one forces you to play any class in a game it is not suited.
Still not seeing why the classes base concept needs ripped out
I still am not seeing the point. If you do not wish to play a mounted class then simply do not play the caviler. The class form the APG are not always as open as core classes. They are not core, they are made to fill a role that can not be done with the core classes. Mounted knight is not a role any other class save a paladin can pull off, and then your stuck with the baggage of being LG and all the rest.
The option is there not to take your mount inside, no one forces you to make a mount based class for a game it clearly is not suited for, just like no one forces you to play any class in a game it is not suited.
Still not seeing why the classes base concept needs ripped out.
If the class was just a fighter with an emphasis on his mount, I'd agree with you, but it's not. It has several other abilities that make it unique, as well as a different background from the other classes from a fluff perspective.
Also, I haven't seen another APG class that is so limited by campaign settings. They all seem to function pretty similarly to the core classes.
How is it limited? I have yet to be shown how it is unable to play in most games.
It is no more limited the a druids animal companion, yet that has not stopped folks from playing druids in just about every type of game for 9 years now
The other ability were added so you could act off the mount, but at the core the mount is the "base" of the class just as spells are for a cleric, or wildshape is for a druid. It's the concept of the class.
How is it limited? I have yet to be shown how it is unable to play in most games.
It is no more limited the a druids animal companion, yet that has not stopped folks from playing druids in just about every type of game for 9 years now
The other ability were added so you could act off the mount, but at the core the mount is the "base" of the class just as spells are for a cleric, or wildshape is for a druid. It's the concept of the class.
I've had campaigns where druids weren't a suitable choice because the animal companion wasn't going to fit in.
Anyways, Pathfinder (and the PHB2 in D&D 3.5) introduced alternative choices for rangers, druids and paladins instead of their mounts. For the most part, they're usually worse (except for the paladin), but at least they're there if somebody would prefer it.
I guess this all comes down to the point of view. Some see the mount as an inseparable part of the cavalier, others don't.
Yep that is the point, but as long as you call a class caviler he best damned well have a mount and be good at using it or call him something else
|
|
How is it limited? I have yet to be shown how it is unable to play in most games.
It is no more limited the a druids animal companion, yet that has not stopped folks from playing druids in just about every type of game for 9 years now
The other ability were added so you could act off the mount, but at the core the mount is the "base" of the class just as spells are for a cleric, or wildshape is for a druid. It's the concept of the class.
Yes but druids don't have to take a large animal and use it as a mount to do their thing. They also have a wide variety of animals to choose from. And more importantly:
(from the prd)
"Nature Bond (Ex): At 1st level, a druid forms a bond with nature. This bond can take one of two forms. The first is a close tie to the natural world, granting the druid one of the following cleric domains: Air, Animal, Earth, Fire, Plant, Water, or Weather. When determining the powers and bonus spells granted by this domain, the druid's effective cleric level is equal to her druid level. A druid that selects this option also receives additional domain spell slots, just like a cleric. She must prepare the spell from her domain in this slot and this spell cannot be used to cast a spell spontaneously.
The second option is to form a close bond with an animal companion. A druid may begin play with any of the animals listed in Animal Choices. This animal is a loyal companion that accompanies the druid on her adventures."
The druid does not have to take an animal companion, they can choose to get a cleric domain instead. Its not as good of an option (IMO) as an animal companion, but if an animal companion is not appropriate or unwanted they have an option to get something else instead. In fact EVERY single class that has access to a companion/familiar/mount in the game thus far has the option to substitute companion creature types of abilities for something else.
I do not understand why you have a problem with the idea of knights that don't ride horses and charge things from atop them being in the game. Its not like its being asked that the mount be dropped out of the class altogether. Whats being asked is that this class follows the precedent set by ALL of the other companion creature classes and have an alternative class feature that does not rely on a companion.
Maybe I have a player who does not want to worry about what happens to his horse when hes at the inn, or that doesn't want to spend the lionshare of their gold on exotic mounts for whatever strange place the group is adventuring in at the time, or play a small character to take their mount into the adventure site instead of leaving it tied up outside to be eaten, who still wants to belong to a knightly order as presented in this class, or use oaths, and challenges. It makes perfect sense for an alternate class feature to be available for those players.
Then everyone can be happy. Those players who are into micromanaging a companion and are in a campaign that has lots of room for mounted encounters can enjoy the class from the back of a horse, and those players who are not into mounted combat or taking care of animals can have a very flavorful knight class to play on foot. Both audiences can be pleased by the same class and it eliminates the need to make yet ANOTHER knight class for unmounted knights in orders. This class could easily fill both roles.
Can I ask you why you don't want alternate features available for this class?
love,
malkav
|
The classic image of the cavalier is the chivalrous noble knight.This is actually not accurate - your image is probably coming from the AD&D class. I think one of the underlying issues is how literally to take the name Cavalier, with the answer being "not very".
I was actually thinking "Le Morte d'Arthur" by Sir Thomas Mallory. When I say noble, I don't mean the quality, I mean actual bred nobility and chivalry in a romantic literary sense, not a historical one.
The term has several meanings, one being "Knight" which common literary diction points to Arthur and romantic chivalry, which is where I'm coming from as far as a fantasy game. The other comes from Spanish and means specifically "horseman", which is why I'm not trying to take mounted combat away but rather include options to vary the focus from 75% mounted and 25% melee to 50/50% or even 25/75%
Simple, it is a mount based class. Once you take that out you might as well not even print the class. If you guys do not want to play the class, then do not but taking the mount out of the class kills the whole point of the class
And it's way more intertwined with the class then druids animals companion is, or a rangers for that matter, it's not 1 class feature its 5. You gain mount based ability at 1st, 3rd,4th,11th and 20th
All 3 classes that gain other ability it is 1 class ability, just one they are replacing not 5. It is a total rebuild not a simple 1 option change.
|
I think this argument is extremly simple. Giving the Cavalier an alternative to mounted combat DOES NOT take anything away from the fun/experience/power/rol of a player using a mount oriented Cavalier.
However, not giving them an alternative ability to the mount does take away from the fun/experience/power/rol of a player who loves the other mechanical aspects of the class (callenge, oaths, banners) and chooses to play a cavalier.
So logic indicates that unless for some reazon, that I fail to fathom, a person´s fun would be ruined by another person getting also what they want without taking anything form the first person´s experience, there should be an alternative.
You you want them to print up 5 new ablitys for 5 levels, one being a cap stone, all because someone does not like the class as written?
If this was any other class and a player goes "ya know I want to change 5 ablitys, to this" you might allow it, does not mean it should be standard
|
|
Animal companions do progress and develop class abilities as the master levels up, so it´s not a single ability. The alternatives also have improvements over the caracter´s career, hunters bond increases with level, druid domains give abilities over levels on top of the spells.
I understand that it is your image/idea that Cavaliers are irrevocably tie to their mount, however tolerance to ward other points of view is important. Personally I dislike the druid domains, i think a druid NEEDS an animal companion to ¨feel¨ right. However if there are enought people who like the druid but not the animal companion the so e it.
You will never find me playing a domain druid, but i will not judge those who do.
And ironiclaly enought every class (except for the summoner) who has some kind of animal companion/mount has an alternative to it (and that includes familiars even).
Yep that is the point, but as long as you call a class caviler he best damned well have a mount and be good at using it or call him something else
I like the idea of this class, and yes, mounted combat is at the heart of it, but the challenge and oath features are what "define" it, like the barbarian's rage powers or the rogue talents. The cavalier is a typically well armored fighter with a specific set of skills. Not having to be LG like a paladin is a major draw to play this class for me.
Does no one posting on here remember the cavalier in the Dungeons and Dragons cartoon? He was never mounted, but carried a magic shield and protected the rest of the party when needed. I would like to see a magic shield option much like the paladin's spirited weapon. An option to make the mount stronger or the shield stronger as mentioned before is preferable to me.
I won't be playtesting this class specifically, as I'm playing a fighter officer now that is basically a cavalier, but I totally agree that there are WAY more environments that don't lend themselves to mounted combat as well as others. My character's party has been banished to the wild lands, a jurassic environment. Other than the halfling fighter and bard, who are riding every dinosaur they see pretty much, riding a mount into the caves to fight troglodytes just isn't going to happen. I'm curious to see how they fine tune the cavalier for sure.
|
|
You you want them to print up 5 new ablitys for 5 levels, one being a cap stone, all because someone does not like the class as written?
If this was any other class and a player goes "ya know I want to change 5 ablitys, to this" you might allow it, does not mean it should be standard
I get it, you like the idea of a mounted class. But just because you don't want to play it any other way does not mean that everyone shares that opinion.
There are many others that like the idea of the class with out the mount and feel that yes they should bother to print it with non mount options. I do not feel that your opinion is any more valid than theirs.
And more importantly, I don't think Paizo would enjoy spending the money they would give to have such a class any less than your money.
To reference some of your other points in following posts:
They don't have to make 5 new abilities. In the druids case the alternate feature to the animal companion takes up a single paragraph, it does not dilute the 3 plus pages devoted to the animal companion. Almost the same could be said for the familiar ability vs. the item familiar.
Just because some of the population wants mounted combat features does not mean that all of it does. If we are all customers then there is no harm in adding a paragraph or two for alternate features for players who don't want to play My Little Ponies & Dragons, and actually want to go into dungeons and other places where the mount would not fit and have to lose access to their capstone as a result.
While I agree that the class should have options for being the best at mounted combat, I disagree that other options should not exist to suit other playstyles that don't involve riding a pony and poking things with a stick. The flavor of knightly orders and the idea of a chivalric knight should not be limited in scope to horseback only. There is plenty of room for both in this class. And I would much rather them add a paragraph or two of alt features and settle the matter once and for all, than have to print another base class that is basically: This is pretty much like the cavalier, except you don't have to have a mount.
love,
malkav
save the mount again is not one thing, it's 5, when folks say take the mount focus out thats not one simple thing, although the mount is the object that lets you pull off 3 of the other 4 mount related class features
Look, Druid/ranger/paladin is one class feature, just the one. The caviler is 5, spread over 20 levels, it take up a bit more then one simple paragraph
Your asking to replace not 1 but 5 features spread over the whole of the class. This is not a simple "oh well lets change this one" this is an alt build"hey lets change all these to be something else" more akin the the Templar/anti-paladin builds then to the alt class ablitys of a druid,paladin or ranger
I also get you guys are wanting to play something other then a mounted class, I am still unsure why you pick a class made around the ideal of being mounted then
But the druid is not built around the mount. Compare it with giving up wildshape, your not giving up one class feature. Your giving up a core aspect of the class a very base part of it. It's not 1 feature but again 5
|
|
save the mount again is not one thing, it's 5, when folks say take the mount focus out thats not one simple thing, although the mount is the object that lets you pull off 3 of the other 4 mount related class features
Look, Druid/ranger/paladin is one class feature, just the one. The caviler is 5, spread over 20 levels, it take up a bit more then one simple paragraph
Your asking to replace not 1 but 5 features spread over the whole of the class. This is not a simple "oh well lets change this one" this is an alt build"hey lets change all these to be something else" more akin the the Templar/anti-paladin builds then to the alt class ablitys of a druid,paladin or ranger
I also get you guys are wanting to play something other then a mounted class, I am still unsure why you pick a class made around the ideal of being mounted then
Because the aspects of the class that have nothing to do with mounted combat are appealing to us.
And I am not worried about 5 featues. They only one they really need is the capstone. They could do something as simple as choose one feat from this list (or even just give them a combat feat) on the levels when they get mounted features.
In short they don't need to write 5 new abilities, an extra feat at those levels or some other small word count alternative would be just fine. I don't know about the other folks wanting non-mounted options but for me I just want an alt feature for non appropriate campaigns.
As it stands the cavalier as printed is the only class that HAS TO HAVE a companion to get access to its abilities (barring the summoner but I don't have an issue with an alternate summoner package either).
But thats cool, I think I am almost at the agree to disagree point in this debate unless something new comes up.
love,
malkav
This is absurd.
"I want the horseman to have less of a focus on mounted combat."
Do you have any idea how silly that sounds?
It's like saying "I want the fighter to be less combat-oriented, the sorceror to be less magical, the bard to be less performance centered, and the rogue to be more lawful."
|
|
The classic image of the cavalier is the chivalrous noble knight.This is actually not accurate - your image is probably coming from the AD&D class. I think one of the underlying issues is how literally to take the name Cavalier, with the answer being "not very".
The classic Cavalier archetype would be an upper-class, cause-driven, court dandy/puffy shirt/swashbuckler type who was a mounted cavalryman and officer on the field of battle because of his station in life. Sword and shield doesn't suit them very well. A better non-mounted option would be to go the swashbuckler/dps route - off his horse a Cavalier would be a wealthy warrior-rouge type with fancy dress, a cavalier attitude (hint hint) and knee-deep in court politics. It would be interesting if this was the concept for the class, because it is more historically accurate and a rather unique concept when it comes to RPG classes.
However, the presented class is really more of a Knight archetype with the Cavalier title used loosely as a synonym (a la AD&D). They do touch on some more Cavalier-like ideas in the Order options and the description of being dedicated to a cause and their role outside of battle, but it's just lip service - those Cavalier-like ideas aren't reflected very well in the game mechanics of the class.
I think an unmounted heavily armored, sword-and-shield defender option is a good fit for a Knight. It also fills a niche and solves the only-good-on-a-mount problem, so ultimately I give the idea a thumbs up. If I had to make the final decision I would rename this class to Knight, add the sword-and-shield defender option and then save the more unique Cavalier archetype for a prestige class.
Of course, if I weren't at work and took the time to read this more thoroughly, I'd have seen your point that you are leaning more toward the classic/renaissance era when the term really took off. In which case, I might be more inclined to agree.
However, at this point the term has taken on a life of its own in the literary community and regardless of its origins has become synonymous with Knight, right down to definition of the word. To belabor the point would be dragging us into a debate that has less to do with a character class and more a history lesson... at which point I would hop forums and begin blog-blasting about how utterly un-PC it is to have a "witch" class with "hexes" and drag myself into a devils advocate debate... with myself.
Sadly, I think we will just have to accept that this Cavalier is meant to be a mounted knight.
Also, in AD&D, the noble gentleman was not a Cavalier, he was a Chevalier. A Cavalier is a cavalry trooper, a horseman. A Chevalier is a gentleman warrior - an adherent to chivalry.
Again the mount "option" was the entire point of the class. Every thing else was extra the whole point was the mountYou have a cite for that from Jason? Because, to me, the mount is the least interesting thing about the class, and I'd gladly give it up.
Go back and watch the stuff from gencon OZ, it was said a few other times before that as well. The mounted archetype was the point of the class, he stated he would add other ablitys so you would not be useless when not mounted
He has done so, but still being mounted is a core part of the class