KoboldSorcerrer's page

The entire Silver Mount area of Numeria is a reference to the old adventure Expedition to the Barrier Peaks , which was a vessel to sell the TSR game that would later be known as Gamma World.

Sadly true (they're not OGL to the best of my understanding) -- but I always wonder with something like that how different would it have to be to not qualify as copyright violation. I mean other names can be found for a sword of elven make that has very similar stats as a thinblade or a lightblade or is the entire idea of a race-specific weapon that qualifies as a rapier but does damage a sword class bigger what is copyrighted?

I would only want to see a Pathfinder 2e if it were because Paizo contacted Wizards of the Coast and told them "the best thing you can do is just sell the entire Dungeons & Dragons franchise <with all it's content and copyrights, etc.> to us now for a bargain rate" and WotC said yes.

Otherwise, I would hope for a much longer cycle as many others have said between editions.

I thought the issue was with breath of life's inability to overcome death effects?

The OP was, the conversation has diverged and I think I may make a new thread dedicated to the specific situation and question of "whether coup de grace/massive damage/death attack" would count as "death attacks", etc.

In my own game, coup de grace would NOT count as a death attack for numerous reasons discussed above.

But I'm not DMing right now, so if I needed to argue with my DM, who lets say takes a coup de grace or massive damage or other similar attack (assassin's death attack) as a back of the book death attack (pg. 562 Core), should the wording of the spell Death Ward that specifically states that it helps in checks related to magical effects and attacks apply or not?

To Merck: The spell Death Ward in its first sentence says that it helps saves against magical attacks and effects. A coup-de-grace could be delivered by a mundane dagger in the hands of a thief using the extraordinary ability of sneak attack <not magical>.

It matters to in the "what if something is immune to death attacks but not critical hits" sense -- if coup de grace is a death effect they are immune, if it is just a special rule of a critical hit, they may still die.

<see previous post for specifics>

In which order do the rules override (see below), assuming that we take a CdG as a "death effect?"

Death Ward in first line of spell description states "The subject gains a +4 morale bonus on saves against all death spells and magical death effects." and ends with "Death Ward does not protect against other sorts of attacks, even if those attacks might be lethal." (Core 264-265) but then main Death Attacks entry in back of book (Core 562) states as the last bulleted point of Death Attacks that "The spell death ward protects against these attacks."

So, does the spell specific entry, stating Death Ward only protects against magical effects override the main entry in the back about Death Attacks? Or vice versa?

Seems that you should apply rules across the board for fairness (a lame argument for some) otherwise there is no way to prevent or help prevent death by coup de grace and possibly other similar attacks (assassin's death attack, massive damage, etc.)

I guess immunity to crits would prevent, right?

You amazed me -- not just by your excellent prose, but because you've made me actually care at least a little bit for once about some of the generic/iconic stand-in characters that all RPG rulebooks need to use for fluff.

Well done, I'd almost pay (or maybe just download for free) a copy of the poems with a high quality image of the character in series.

Current set up allows for quite a few ways to make useful mounts.

Paladins, Rangers and Druids all have the "animal companion" option, the basis of the cavalier's mount. Clerics of the Animal Domain can gain an animal companion.

Then there are two creative routes to getting around your 2HD horse concern.

First off, the only thing stopping a wizard from taking a mountable familiar is your DM. A level adjustment for the familiar's abilities might be appropriate (think of how D&D 3.5 had options). But a sorcerer could easily have a pony as his hyper intelligent familiar mount.

Then also, why would a level 20 fighter be riding on a 1st level horse? Why a horse at all? Why not something a bit more meaty? Allow them to take Leadership and use a mountable animal as their cohort? Or just allow them to try to mount a bigger, badder animal. The bestiary is full of nasty monsters that one could ride with enough skill in ride and handle animal.

The big benefits of being a cavalier are about getting a regular horse to be stronger and then charge attacks. Its not even about getting a better mount then -- like be a dark knight riding a nightmare into battle.

Other options and work arounds exist as well.

Just a thought: Cavalier, in the origin of the word means exactly the same as horseman. I believe the class really should be inclined to mounted combat, and its power already is not very diminished when without a mount.

etymology argument isn't necessarily the greatest as the source of some classes abuses the term.

For instance, Paladin
from http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?search=paladin&searchmode=none
1592, "one of the 12 knights in attendance on Charlemagne," from M.Fr. paladin "a warrior," from It. paladino, from L. palatinus "palace official;" noun use of palatinus "of the palace" (see palace). The O.Fr. form of the word was palaisin (which gave M.E. palasin, c.1400); the It. form prevailed because, though the matter was French, the poets who wrote the romances were mostly Italians.
Or look to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paladin

Regardless, "paladins" were soldiers of Charlemagne, whom was a religious king but it would not HAVE to include "holy, LG or the code" in the way Pathfinder uses those terms...

Other class names like "Barbarian" essentially translate or etymologically mean "foreigner" or "not Greek". Nothing in there about "rage" -- "Beserker" would be a better term for the barbarian
1822, introduced by Sir Walter Scott, from O.N. berserkr (n.) "raging warrior of superhuman strength," probably from *ber- "bear" + serkr "shirt," thus lit. "a warrior clothed in bearskin." The -r was O.N. masc. singular ending, mistaken for agent noun suffix. The adj. is 1867, from such phrases as go berserk.
from: http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?search=berserk&searchmode=none

KoboldSorcerrer wrote:

stuff

I would say you are bolding what you want to be most important and tossing the other part out. It places as much importance on Mounted skill in that as it does anything else

How about a breakdown by class level:

8 times -- Challenge Ability -- 7 levels +1d6, +1 level for Demanding Challenge

5 times -- Oath Ability -- 5 levels
5 times -- Mount & Charge -- 1st level + 4 specifics
5 times -- Bonus (Combat) Feats -- 5 feats

4 times -- Order Ability -- 1st level + 3 Specifics
4 times -- Banner Ability -- Gained at one level, but increases every 5

The emphasis is first and foremost on the Challenge ability. Then, equally weighted would be Oaths, Bonus Feats and Mount specific abilities. Then Order and Banner abilities.

KoboldSorcerrer wrote:

Was that really Pathfinder's intention, to create a mount-specific class? Where do the designers say that?

It was said a few times, in chat for one long ago when the name first came up was another

I don't mind folks disagreeing, be boreing if we all hummed long liek happy little drones

I do think it is not gonna happen in the first book, it's to be a change for a base option. However as I have said before when a OA book comes out I think the caviler reworked into a Samurai would be cool as of all the classes we have seen so far that best matches it with some reworking just like Rogue is a ninja with new talents

Samurai, real samurai, quite often were mounted troops, so realistically "samurai" isn't even a modification from "cavalier" just a name switch.

As for their comments that it is meant to fill the mounted gap, the description in the book is:

CAVALIER
While many warriors strive to perfect their art, spending
all of their time honing their skill at martial arms, others
spend as much effort dedicating themselves to a cause.
These warriors, known as cavaliers, swear themselves to
a purpose, serving it above all else. Cavaliers are skilled
at fighting from horseback, and are often found charging
across a battlefield, with the symbol of their order trailing
on a long, fluttering banner. The cavalier’s true power
comes from the conviction of his ideals, the oaths that he
swears, and the challenges he makes.

<emphasis added>

Role: Cavaliers tend to marshal forces on the battlefield,
using their mounted talents and challenges to control
the flow of the fight. Outside of battle, cavaliers can be
found advancing their cause through diplomacy and, if
needed, subterfuge. The cavalier is no stranger to courtly
intrigue and can hold his own in even the most delicate
of social situations.

italics comments are about mounts specifically, the dedication to a cause is bold.... dedication seems to be the stated purpose, not so much mounted?

One thing to consider, if you were going to do some kind of "tactical advice" change, then you'd want to keep in mind, since this is not just a "mount as animal companion" but also has 3 or 4 other dedicated abilities, it is fairly strong (i.e. stronger than just Ranger's switch).

I would suggest you first look to the Bard's "Inspire X" ability... Courage and Heroics for instance...

Also, you could consider him giving additional bonuses to the various actions they take. For instance, in a 30' radius and able to hear the Cavalier, all allies gain +1 competence bonus in addition to normal bonuses when they are flanking an enemy or taking a defensive stance. This would account for the Cav giving them specific advice. Perhaps make this cost a move action or a at least a swift action. If you are going to have it require an action though, could be better still.

Example:
As a full round action, the Cavalier can give advice to allies within earshot. Anyone that takes his tactical advice gains a +1 dodge bonus to AC and +1 morale bonus to attacks. This ability lasts for a number of rounds equal to the cavalier's Chr modifier +3.

Stickman wrote:

I just don't want to see the class that severely limited in a mountless situation.

It's a pretty big class feature.
It also makes sense thematically in that many a knight has charged among his companions on foot on the field of battle.

An "on foot" appending to the charge would be a great move in this direction.

It would not be an "alt" to the mounted, just, in addition to...

I think this is a good compromise, keep everything the same, just make his abilities not specifically tied to the mount by appending the charging abilities. His mount is still worthwhile this way, and the features still work on foot. (although I don't know if increased threat range on charges makes a lot of sense on foot...)

Someone who specializes in a combat style (be that charging on foot or on horse) could still learn to be better at applying that combat style -- so i would say the increased threat range would be appropriate. It wouldn't break the mechanics I don't think.

Mr. Subtle wrote:

Stickman wrote:

You could probably clear up most of the balancer and playability issues by simply doing the following...

Cavalier Charge (Ex):
A cavalier learns to make more accurate charge attacks either on foot or on his mount. The cavalier receives a +4 bonus on melee attack rolls on a charge while on foot or mounted (instead of the normal +2). In addition, the cavalier does not suffer any penalty to his
AC after making a charge attack while mounted.

I almost posted this exact thing, but decided against it. Good idea though, it could work with all the mounted abilities....

thats not a bad change at all, I would not add it to the other ones as it does not fit but it does fit that one well and would make it more useful

heh "I challenge the big orc..then Charge!!"

Regardless of all other aspects of this discussion, that addition would be appreciated. One problem I saw in playing with this was that teh challenge mechanic is useful but it would be nice to be able to cross the gap or battle with a bit more power backing you, instead of just the standard "charge" rules.

Was that really Pathfinder's intention, to create a mount-specific class? Where do the designers say that?

I agree with Kolokotroni, and disagree with you SeekerofShadowLight.

Paizo in their rewrites of many of the classes for Pathfinder (Cleric & Sorcerer, for example) offer a kind of option with many variations -- so there could be a precedent for a drastic alteration of a "core" that may or may not be a total rewrite. I would guess that what Pathfinder/Paizo wants more than anything is a class that is most playable... In fact, within the design of the class now a many varied option already exists with the "Orders". Some orders could be dedicated to having something like a type of mount, others to having an empowered cohort (squire idea of Kolokotroni's), or a single weapon that he gains mastery over (my idea above, using the gaining of access to feats with the one bonded weapon, non-magical). Use the three or class features you are talking about as "Order Power" slots and up their magnitude.

Perhaps the better question would be not "Is the cavalier good?", it may be "Is there a need for the cavalier?" Mounted combat and mounted games (games where mounts would be most useful by design) has a decent and fair method of existing as is with Druids or Rangers taking the right animal companion, a paladin's mount or the "mounted combat feat" choices open to all classes (familiar as mount may be do-able as well).

That being said, the concept of a honorable soldier or rather a warrior that is empowered not by a god (Paladins) or pure skill (Fighter) but conviction and oath swearing I think doesn't exist. Perhaps a renaming is in order, drop or recreate the cavalier. Instead have one that allows for Samurai, Noble Warrior, Knight, etc. to exist.

I REALLY like what I consider to be the true "core" of the cavalier -- the Challenge, Oaths, Banner and Order abilities --- but am non-plussed by the mount specific area. I don't think it is as needed, then again, I rarely DM or play in campaigns with lots of emphasis on mounted combat (because it is kind of limited).

If nothing else, I hope Paizo considers adapting the Challenge and Oath system TO a samurai/honorable warrior (I don't like honorable because it doesn't allow for the "Oath of Vengeance/Greed", etc. angle, which I love that they added.)

This class also helps for those that are interested in playing or running a magic-lite world where not everyone is running around with +5 swords and wands of butt-kickery.

A response to a number of your...

First off, I would like to see a non-mounted version. An alternative like Paladin has for it's mount and Druid for its animal companion would be appreciated.

Against the argument that "cavalier means 'mounted soldier'" I would like to point out that "Druid" was a term ascribed to a specific religious group that existed in the real world in a specific era. The game has co-opted the word and made it its own, totally unrelated thing. Almost all the terms have this kind of thing, so an etymological argument seems silly.

And, if needed, we could just rewrite the thing...

I think the cavalier fulfills a need. Specifically, "the non-paladin paladin". It is someone whom could charge off to battle, with his convictions not his god protecting him. I like the non-alignment basis of the cavalier and the essential lack of magic in its design. Mythology and fiction is full of heroes that weren't magical as much as they were driven by a cause.

To that end, and looking to a similar source, how about as an alternative to a mount we use a "Weapon Affinity" (all terms are just suggestions)

They declare a kind of oath, dedicating themselves to a specific sword/spear/weapon, etc. As such, they gain benefits when wielding it.

To stick with the "non-magic" aspect, you could have these benefits be a quick list of feats gain. For instance, at first level, they gain "Weapon Focus" with only that one specific weapon. Later, they gain "weapon Specialization" and continue on gaining feats, "Critical Focus" "Deafening Critical" "Blinding Critical" etc.

Would be different from a fighter in that they still have the challenge and the oath features (what I think are the highlight of the class).

Sorry this is so long.