Korpen's page

Bellow is the oath of a Teutonic knight. Notice it never mentions obeying any worldly authority, but does mention strict obedience to its own hierarchy.

The Teutonic order WAS a worldly authority. It controlled land in the same way as any independent king, bishop, abbot, city, duke or prince did.

Well a feudal system is in no way inherently evil, so I think that it would require some really convoluted thinking to try and square rebellion with Law under those circumstances.
However a Paladin should have no problem engaging in a revolt to replace a specific evil lord, as long as the system is preserved.
In that case much depends on the specific details, feudal societies have a tendency to have lots of rights, freedoms, privileges, obligations and duties for everyone involved in them. In a feudal society everyone has a place.

- Cavaliers were a huge disappointment to me (so...you guys SURE I have to leave the mount behind when we go in there? I mean... there's at least one one-trick-pony between me and this horse). Conceptually and historically I've always considered Samurai and Knight to be two cultural sides to the same coin, and I thought Samurai were what Cavaliers should have been with a couple of minor exceptions like mounted archery. My 'Knight of the Round Table' types would likely be basically Samurai.

A good advice for a character playing a cavalier is to have the device “I will not go anywhere my mount cannot go”. There is hardly ever necessary to head into underground stronghold on a regular basis, and the sooner one get around that gaming troupe the better.

- There's an old-, old-, old-school British King Arthur pnp game I sadly can't remember the name of, but I remember it being really creatively inspiring... anyone know it?

Pendragon, there is something like five versions of it; the latest one is just 5-6 years old. It is a really good game, and by far my favourite among the BRP-type of games.

Zed Corvin wrote:

The only issue I have with the bandit stealing the mount is that it's a trained warhorse. It's not going to just let itself be stolen. It will fight back and may leave the bandits no choice but to kill it. Plus, it's already killed several of the bandits during previous encounters.

So it is exceptionally valuable. The bandits might have geared up specifically to steal such an animal. They might have a guy to UMD a druid spell scroll to make it possible. Charm, dominate, hold, etc...

That is just as likely as a tree falling over killing all the horses or a wandering tribe of giants going past and stealing the horses. From the perspective of a player it amounts to the same thing; what sort of justification the GM choose is rather irrelevant.

As the GM makes the world, it can always make up justifications for precisely anything, so that is not really the issue.
The issue is really if the GM should take recourse away from the players without them being able to do anything about it.

Bit of a GM advice question. Not quite sure where to put it.

Anyway, the party I GM for chased some mounted bandits overland to a kobold cave. The party scared off the bandits' mounts, then tied up their own to investigate the cave.

Long story short, a long running enemy of the party has escaped from the kobold caves and the PCs are stuck tending to their wounded. He's going to steal the PCs' mounts; he's done this before, so they should be used to it. I'm torn, though, on whether or not he should kill the cavalier's bonded mount.

The PC's are nowhere near leveling, so the cavalier would be inconvenienced for a good long while, but I feel it would be an appropriate thing to have happen.

Thoughts?

Pretty much purely a”now I will mess with the players because that is fun for me” –move.

A warhorse is a temperamental beast, and bounded mounts even more so; it would not simply follow along with a stranger that pops up. Not would any horse just happily stand around and let its throat be slit, so if someone wants to kill it, that one needs to fight it. Looking at it from a gaming perspective an animal companies is though enough that it is highly unlikely to be killed without at least the opportunity to run away first.
Also, look at it from the bandits perspective, he have no idea if the party is one round or one hour away from him and considering how loud a horse can scream (if he does attack the players should get a perception check to hear it in the cave) it is quite likely that the noise will alert the adventures in the cave. If he simply sneaks off no one will be looking for him while trying for the horses are a high-risk venture that will bring a chase down on him.

Horses are not cars, they can be very particular about who they allow themselves to be handle by.

From a more general perspective I would advice against any such line of action, especially when it seems you make routine out of it.
The Players have left a capable guardian (the AC) that is usually tough enough to be a real deterrent for most dangers. This should be more then enough for most occasions.
Ask yourself; what could the players reasonably have done to protect the horses even more then they did?

If you start to steal and/or destroy the players possession as soon as they let it out if their sight (despite the fact that they have made sure it is guarded) you will end up with players that never even go to the toilet without all their possession with them, and when you get that sort of feeling around the table it is not fun for anyone.
If the players start to get a felling that you are a sadistic prick whose main source of fun is screwing with them, it can take YEARS to work that reputation off, if ever.

Cavalier with the Emissary archetype sounds pretty much spot on.
As the emissary loose heavy armour and the support abilities in return for more mounted mobility feats (for both mount and rider) it is very much in the spirit of a Cossack.
Especially when one considers that the lance is the weapon the Cossack cavalry is most famous for.

The clan system is to be rewritten to be less clunky and feel more like a clan bades system, and rural areas are not to be ignored. Thanks to magitech some circumstances are different, but I am trying to be logical.

About the clan system I am still asking the question. What effect do you seek when introducing it?

In Albhonna's case, the navy is mostly quick moving sloops and brigs, designed to be fast enough to chase a pirate or privateer down or respond to a trouble area quickly. It doesn't possess many men-o-war aside from a few lighter frigates, as large warships don't fit their mission. It numbers in the line of, about 50 sloops, brigs, and frigates and around 20 armed merchant ships (these are designed as bait ships, hiding their military nature and waiting for pirates to snap at what looks like a nice prize, then overwhelming them with a large marine complement).

I think you are underestimating the level of combat power a normal merchant vessel could have. Several East Indiamans in this period were armed to the level of frigates, and some were refitted as ships of the line. Assigning ships as bait as routine sounds highly cost-inefficient.

If you have a clan system, you could perhaps use that in relationship to the fleet. Basically with a fairly small, but high-quality “royal” navy supported by armed merchantman “clan” fleets in times of duress. A bit like the 17th century Dutch navy perhaps?

Finally, this is a very high magic world, so not all the circumstances are as IRL.

Some first thoughts.
I do think the clan system you sketched out would be dysfunctional to say the least, but before going into detail I would ask a question. What is it you want to achieve in game?

A general advice: Do not ignore the countryside. When you described geography I got a Scandinavian feel, with the sort of forestry, mining and fishing that was common in what are now Norway, Sweden and Finland. In the 19th century prior to the industrial revolution from 1860 more then 90% of all people lived outside towns and cities. So put plenty of work into describing a vibrant a living rural area; far too often areas outside of walled towns just end up as areas for monsters in many fantasy countries. As you seem to imagine an economy were most exports are in metal, timber or fish it makes sense that the export would be shipped to the closest port, rather then concentrated to a few big ones. It would also encourage farmers (bondi, peasant, and yeomanry, whatever they are called) to perhaps do their own trading (as was common historically).

About the navy; unless there is a major war there is a fairly small need for major warships to be around. Unless the pirates are actually privateers they should be really be capable to make do with fairly small ships, as speed and manoeuvrability counts more then the raw power (if it is a major event, one send more then one ship). As a comparison, the navy of Henry VIII of England in 1540 had 16 ships over 200 ton and a similar number below 200 ton, galleys and galleasses. England at that point had more then twice the population, but perhaps less focus on naval matter then Albhonna, so I think something like 10-15 smaller warships, and 5-10 major ones seems reasonable for Albhonna. The major ones would most likely spend their time in mothball, and they are very expensive to man fully (a to build and equip a renaissance war galley as about equal to 6-8 months pay for the crew to man her).
In times of war, one would simply arm a lot of merchant ships, and add them to the fleet.

Piracy is however really not a naval problem, but a land one that spills over to the sea.

Another Beast rider question-At 7th level, it says to apply this template:

"Size Large; Ability Scores Str +2, Dex –2, Con +2. Increase the damage of each of the mount's natural attacks by one die size."

But the 7th level enhancement of the ankylosaurus, for example, is this:

"Size Large; AC +2 natural armor; Attack tail (2d6); Ability Scores Str +8, Dex –2, Con +4; Special Qualities stun."

Which one is the appropriate template?

The first one is for making animal companions that normally (as in bestiary) is large, but only is medium after the animal companion advancement, such as the Bear. So it is only applied to mounts that have already had an advancement.

Human

Archetypes - Beast Rider(because there's no reason not to), Gendarme (to cover mounted combat, i took this over emmisary since i wanted to keep banner)

There are two reason (well three, see below) for not going beast rider: One is that the mount do not get armour proficiency meaning you need to spend more feats if the mount should fight in barding, the other is that the lack of heavy armour for yourself matter if away from the saddle.

At level 4 my dm is letting me take the cooler mount that im able to but making it large instead of waiting till 7. Planing on getting a lion/tiger. Pounce/grab/rake is a silly set of abilities from what it looks like.

You are getting the 7th-level advancement early? If not the fairly low strength of the mounts is going to be a major problem due to encumbrance.

Feats
1- Power Attack, Human - Ride By Attack - Gendarme - Mounted Combat
3 - Two Weapon Fighting
5 - Weapon Focus (Longsword) Gendarme -Spirited Charge
7- ?? this is where i start needing help maybe quick draw? i dont know if theres anything better for this level.
8- Double Slice?? Gendarme-Improved bull rush(only one i qualify for at this point) Order of the sword - trample
9-?
11-? Gendarme - unseat (again the only one ill qualify for)
13-?

Personally, I would not bother with TWF, it require that you pump allot of points into DEX without getting much in return, better to raise your Str or con more (or perhaps Chr and Int, depending on what out of combat functions you want to have). While it can be nice in combination with a challenge, you have so few challenges per day that it is not really worth it.

Something I would recommend is to invest in a few ranged combat feats; deadly aim at least, as there are plenty of times were a charge is not an option. At those times it can be really nice to be able to skirmish, staying out of melee range and pelting the enemy with javelins (for when you want to hold on to the lance) and arrows.
If one want to go wild down that route it should be noted that mounted mastery stack with thrown weapons if you got the charging hurler feat, not very efficient build, but very cool.

As far as the mounts skills go im not sure

something like Power attack, agile maneuvers, improved overrun, charge through, ??
any help would be appreciated.

A drawback with the Emissary is that you also lose the banner ability.
While I do not think the tactician ability is any real loss, the banner can be a real loss (granted it matter much more if one is human and get a banner bonus from favoured class).
If starting from first level I would actually recommend Gendarme, it allows you to start with power attack as well as mounted combat, somewhat closing the gap to the medium sized fighters (granted, Emissary does that as well). Just talk to your GM about whether or not spring attack should be on the list, as it prerequisites fests are not on the list, so there is possible to end up with a two feat tax simply to be able to pick other feats.

Order of the sword is the one I would recommend; the ability that allows you to add your mounts strength to your charge damage can often be huge. The point of being small is that there are very few times you will not have your mount within reach, after all a big dog is rarely out of place in an inn or a castle. If small that ability can be expected to add at least 20+pts of damage on a charge at level 8.

For race, I would recommend Halfling, but not the outrider trait. Instead take the trait that allows for reloading slings as a free action. A mounted combatant want some ranged attack options for the cases when charging is not an option and the Halfling sling is superior to the longbow for a non-dedicated archer (as it allows for full strength bonus and can function as a melee weapon).

In the end I think one can sum it up lie this: Slaver is no different to other forms of violence (and taking away someone’s freedom is violence in the broad sense). It is defiantly not good; but if it is evil or not depends entirely on context.

One thing missing so far is another important question; What is the alternative to enslavement?
There are plenty of circumstances were enslavement is the lesser evil to killing. If a thief and robber is about to be hanged for stealing bread from an old women, would not the GOOD thing to do to enslave the thief, either to the woman, or allow her to receive the proceeds?

Or if a band of violent outlaws are hunted down in the outback, and surrender to the PCs; should they be strung up? Or should they be given as slaves to the local community to work for their repentance (or sold off as a way to pay for the damage they have done)? And what if they are orcs that surrender?

Basically in any case were it might be motivated to kill someone, it is probably less evil to enslave them.

The distinguishing traits of prisoners vis a vis slaves are that prisoners (A) are serving a predetermined sentence delivered by lawful authority for crimes of which they have been duly convicted, (B) retain rights: at the very least they cannot be executed unless that is their sentence and usually have rights to adequate nutrition and often even visitation, (C) are not considered property and cannot be sold, and (D) are not held for profit.

Point D is negotiable in theory, but in practice would spawn corruption in any society not governed by good outsiders.

Slaves are either born in slavery, sold for the payment of debts, or taken as prisoners of war. Slaves can usually be punished corporally or capitally at the discretion of their owner. Slaves can be bought and sold. Slavery is only ever practiced for profit.

Unless you define ”profit” very widely, there are more reasons for using slaves then only pure economic profit. The most famous is the Janissaries, Mameluks and Ghilman in the west (or Middle East if you want), south and central Asian armies were those slave-soldiers often formed the core of the army due to their loyalty. However in a legal sense they were just as much slaves as sugar plantation slave in the Caribbean.

But again we are back to the fact that “slavery” has varied allot throughout history, there are occasions of people selling themselves into slavery for a fixed period of time, or people becoming a slave as punishment for a crime (were they were enslaved to their victims family) and there are plenty of cases of slaves having rights (in fact I would say that it was the norm in post-antiquity). At least in Islamic law (or rather: the law practiced by the largely Arab and Turkish states) it was stipulated that if an owner could not feed his slaves he had to sell them or set them free, as an example.
While slaves usually had weak rights, they hade some, enforcement of those rights is somewhat another matter.

As for corporeal punishment, of course they were subject to it; why should they be the exception to everyone else in a pre-modern society?

That said; it is far from uncommon from people to be sentenced to prison/hard labour/slavery largely for economic reason, one have the Gulag archipelago, modern USA prison industry or Chinese labour camps. In all those cases there are people who get economic gains from incarceration.

At least in the country I live in, I'll accept that argument when I can buy an inmate, sell him, prevent him from marrying, deny legal recognition to any marriage he might already have had, change his name if I like, or whatever else I might legally be able to do to, say, a draft animal.

Till then, prison isn't slavery.

In prison the name is often changed to a number, and at least in the US it can happen that inmates are “traded” between institutions. As for buying and selling yourself as a private citizen, it was pretty common (at least in Italy) that slaves were property of the State and not for sale on the open market. If you want to marry while incarcerated you will need institutional consent in practice (or else the practical details can be made impossible), and at least in Islamic slavery the owner had no right to nullify an existing marriage, nor should slaver be inheritable there.

The problem with the definition you mention is that to a large degree excludes an awful lot of the historic cases of slavery. Slaves have often have had rights and privileges and usually far greater legal protection then a cow.

Korpen wrote:

Only they are called “inmates” or “prisoners” instead of slaves, but the difference is mainly of what one chooses to call it rather then a difference in practice.

I think you will find that there are vast gulfs in practice. Most of which stem from a fundamental difference that a prisoner traditionally does not lose legal personhood while a slave does.

And while the gulf can be narrowed by making prison conditions harsher, the more it is narrowed, the more likely the prison system is institutionally evil.

There is no “gulf” between slavery and imprisonment. Modern imprisonment is simply a subset of slavery, as slavery can cover everything from Ottoman janissaries (who often held the highest positions in the realm) and other elite slave soldiers to Caribbean plantationslaves (both white and black). Most slaves throughout history probably had a great deal more freedom then most inmates in closed prisons have today.

First, slavery is not recent; it has always existed and quite likely will always exist. Slavery was even common in most of Europe for most of the middle ages; but it was not restricted to any particular ethnic groups (tough slave from the Balkans were the most common around the Mediterranean.).

Secondly: Much depends on what one defines as slavery; if by it you mean someone that is unfree, no right to vote or other political representation, stripped of most rights, forced to work, and subject to punishment if failing to do so while receiving no real wage as well as not being allowed to meet members of their family unless the master gives permission. By that definition there is about 2.3 million slaves in the USA today.
Only they are called “inmates” or “prisoners” instead of slaves, but the difference is mainly of what one chooses to call it rather then a difference in practice.

So I think the question is really easy; is putting people in prison always an evil act? If so, so is slavery.
If it is sometimes ok to put people in prison, then one should be ok with sometimes enslaving people as well.

Pathfinder isn't 3.5 tho.

When the mount uses it's move action to move, that leaves you with your move action and can therefore still take a full round action

However, the rules on mounted combat in the rules section clearly states that if your mount move more then five feet you can only make a single melee attack, so full attacking is out.

I really of like the ”all dwarfs have beards”-norm, as for me it is something that make them less of just short humans that like beer. Personally, I do not see it as a funny thing or comic relief but something that helps me immerse in the world.

So why NOT bearded?

Thematically they were always a classic staple weapon used by at least 1 party member back in the day,

Back in the day everyone was a dirty, optimizing powergamer. As the longsword was the by far best weapon, it was the weapon everyone used (unless they went for inferior themed weapon) when optimizing.

Thing about the ”longsword” is that it back in ADD was much superior to all other weapons, so it was seriously over-used, PF simply move it closer to were it IMO should be; a good auxiliary weapon.

It is still used widely, but rarely as the main weapon for dedicated fighters; First two-handers are more useful as primary weapons use to better damage. Secondly from level 4-6 somewhere the pluses (and hence the crit chance) become more important.

Luckily, she and I know better than to build one-trick characters. My dwarf carries a chain shirt for the times his heavy armor is inappropriate attire.

So, a wizard relying on being able to cast spells is also a one-trick pony.

What reason would he have had to deny a wizard his component pouch on a ship? Doing so just because the cavalier had to leave her horse behind is showing favoritism to the cavalier, by punishing the wizard without reason.

In both cases you are removing class features for thematic reasons. A component pouch could easily be lost/destroyed in a shipwreck, and unlike a horse it cannot swim ashore on it own.

As I said it is all about expectations, if one know that one can expect to “stripped of possessions”-start it works fine, if it just dropped in often seriously backfires.
Before making characters any good GM should give some info about what sort of adventure to expect for the enjoyment of all involved.

I tend to like to isolate the PCs if it's a new gaming group. For example, shipwrecks are great for this. It lets me put the characters in an isolated situation so I can see how the players react to having their expectations changed. For example, is the cavalier player going to throw a hissy fit that his horse is back on the mainland in a stable or drowned? Is the tank character going to whine and moan if his heavy armor got lost at sea? I'd rather know about the players up front and who's going to take things in stride and who's going to throw hissy fits. It also let's me concentrate more on the player's the first game or two, to get to know them.

You should be very careful with things like that, or the first game with the group will be the last.

This I think is misleading. It's suggesting that raw stats are all that make a suitable mount. It depends more on what you desire in a mount. Boars are great for the levels they are great but they don't have extra options beyond the raw numbers beyond some durability (scent being relatively common as it is). Wolves can trip, Ankylosaurus's have high AC (starting at 21 without armor, or stat boosts, easily hits 25 at level one). Some provide multiple attacks (elephants, glyptodons). Others have alternate movment modes (turtles can swim) Later on all of these options get better. That's something of the point I'm emphasizing. Raw numbers are great but no amount of numbers will make up for those extra things.

However, the Boar got ferocity, allot more hitpoints, and is a superior ”compromise” in that it is faster and offensively much stronger then the ankyl, du to its much higher strength much more likely to hit then the glyptodon or the elephant while having as good or better AC (and HP).

Keep in mind the mounts suggested are also gained through Leadership.

After thinking a bit, this bit (leadership) is something I think should be toned down.

I would not say pretty useless but I would say not good either. And in fact I did talk about that. Plus I have not talked about much that is level specific. If it feels like I'm talking about high levels a lot that's because the class doesn't really start until later levels. Most full Bab classes come into their own by 6th. Cavaliers feel like they don't hit the sweet spot until 8th.

I get the feeling that it mainly a focus on leadership-based high-level flying mounts, with almost not a word about mounts and their design before the 7th level.

The emphasis on flight comes from a simple issue. No matter what you do a mount still gets screwed by terrain. Walls still need to be gotten over, cliffs crossed, enemies gotten over etc, etc. Even in an open area you won't be able to get the charge lanes you need. You can load down on mobility abilities and still find your self stifled by a knee high wall.

Now you mention being useless in non-open areas. I think that's a narrow way of thinking as even a land bound mount can be more useless in a cramped environment. Remember my emphasis the whole time is finding a balance between being mounted and unmounted. A flying mount might not be that great in the dungeon but the MArtial Artist pegasus is still a martial artist pegasus if he can't make use of his flight.

Some of the terrain problem flight will take away, but flight will not allow you to ignore all of them, and it puts it own restrictions on movement (especially if one has a GM that note the wingspan on large flying creatures). As you noted, the horseshoes of zephyr gets rid of allot of the problems on the ground, and the odd scroll of airwalk can probably take care of the rest. Flying is useful, not game-changing.

Read it again. While you are correct about the change of feats on the mount (which will be mentioned in the archetpe write up) you are wrong about everything else (save the T-Rex).

Medium cavaliers get the following options at 4th; allosaurus, ankylosaurus, arsinoitherium, aurochs, bison, brachiosaurus, elephant, glyptodon, hippopotamus, lion, mastodon, megaloceros, giant snapping turtle, tiger, triceratops, or tyrannosaurus. Granted I will say most of these options start at medium and don't get large until 7th which is what I think you mean.

At 7th level he gets practically nothing; Bear and Crocodile. But at this point you're riding around on an Ankylosaurus or T-Rex so it doesn't matter.

Plus Small cavaliers actually have a very good option in the Deinonoychus. And you know those mounts at 4th? They don't get large until 7th. At which point you can switch if desired. :)

Will split this in several posts, easier to read and quote that way.

But as the beast rider in effect notes, unless they are large, they cannot be selected, so in effect, only at the 7th level can the medium cavalier take them as mounts (I think we all agree that the beast rider archetype need an errata).

While the small one can select from all those beast, due to them getting no stat increase at 4th they are in pretty much all ways inferior to the Boar that gets a 4th level boost.

Except the point where you're using a consumable to make up for a weakness. Said consumable being easy to dispel, expensive, and impossible to use unless you invest heavily into UMD, are high level Order of The Tome, or have someone else cast it.

I would not put it like that, as the same thing could be said for all characters. Flying is useful sometimes, but I simply do not see it as big drawback.

Well, well, were to start?
Some thoughts in no particular order:
Beastrider: It should be mentioned that mounts from that archetype do not start with armour proficiency (they get endurance instead). Also if you are medium it do not provide you with any additional options until level 7, and for a small cavalier most options are inferior to the boar unless you accept a large mount (and if you wanted a large mount, why are you not medium?).
However, for medium PC the t-rex can do an ungodly amount of damage, with improved natural attack and PA, one is looking a something like +15/10 and a damage of 3d6+26 at level 9.

Lack of permanently flying mounts is no big drawback, by the time that it matter having some scrolls of airwalking should be standard. Also, it is rare for there to be any need to be able to fly other then for fairly specific occasions, so in practice the limited (but still long) duration of spells is not limitation. Several of you suggestions for flying mounts are also totally useless in any kind of non-open areas. So why the very strong focus on flying?

As for riding other players characters; I do not really see that as a good option, as that basically means they have no control over what their PC does (if they had control they would not be mounts).

On top of all that, some mounted abilities only work when riding you own mount, such as lack of armour check penalties or the order of the sword mount str on charges.

In a way I feel that you are putting a very strong focus on what is good at vey high levels (15+) while not saying anything about how things work below level 10 (for example tactician, which is pretty useless for the first 5-10 levles).

Facts:
http://www.lloydianaspects.co.uk/weapons/sling.html
Slings can be loaded 1 handed in reality( but not in PF, you need both).
"Arrows can be seen raining down upon an enemy, and even when they are flying on a fairly flat trajectory, are visible to an enemy expecting them. Sling stones are much more difficult to see in flight, especially from a distance. It is also more difficult to judge which way they are going, as they are seen as a dot rather than a line. Sling bullets, which are cast lead shot, are especially difficult to see"

Which also makes it almost impossible for the slinger to see were his shot goes…

Serioiusly, slings had better accuracy (regarding air resistance) and they had more power because sheer force beats piercing regarding armor (maces are better than rapiers vs armor in same aspect).

As for more power, like I said, they can have more then, it depends on the bow, different bow for different ways to fight.

Taking a PC's stuff is a very drastic step to take in a campaign. It should be weighed very carefully and the GM should be absolutely sure that doing so will not cause the player to become frustrated and not have fun.

Not necessarily, it is all about expectations.

But that only works if there is an expectation that it is not really that hard to replace (more or less) what is lost. So there really need to be a common level in a campaign, either equipment should the hard to get and not lost, or easy to get, but also easy to loose.

It can be pretty much anything, but I would avoid “sergeant” as that is a relatively modern term for under-officers.
Head Constable or First (fire) Watcher (as I take it fire guard is the main job).

I destroy stuff all the time when i DM. The players know that tools break, sooner or later. Swords sundered, cloaks ruined by vats of acid, spellbooks burned to crisps.

I dont get why many people on this board seem to think a dm that uses sunder is unfair while not killing pcs is being too soft.

My feeling is “easy to get, easy to loose”.

No. they not not get that for free: Errata

There could also be a bunch of evil people around. Make like 5 evil NPCs that have nothing to do with anything.

Such an old lady that seems so nice and kind, but who quite intentionally mixes in huge amounts of garlic and old eggs in the chocolate cookies she gives the adventures, and then have fun seeing them trying to not throw up.

Put them up against a pair of halfling bandits on dog or pony (of Goblins on some mount), it can be very frustrating for the players to fight enemies that never comes closer then 60ft.
Most parties that are not mounted or have lots of missile fire capability will struggle against mounted archery/sling/crossbows in the open.

Mounts should have more health to make up for their abysmal AC. Seriously, 2d8? That's crap. They should have a full d8 to start at least, with 2d8 average for a light horse and a 3d8 average for a heavy horse, and their level for determining Constitution bonuses should be based on hit dice.

This would make mounts more survivable.

What abysmal AC? Even without magic a animal companion can have an AC in the mid-30s by level 9-10, and AC 40 is in the realm of possibility at that level. Allot of the time the mount companion is the thing in the party with the best AC.

Incidentally, folks on mounts tend to love stacking static mods. The cavalier's challenge is sexiest on a mount. It's a static mod so it gets multiplied as well. Like Deadmanwalking says, if anything, Cavaliers at least have burst damage. +15 damage at 15th level is an extra +45 damage on a spirited charge. With a +8 strength modifier (doable by 15th level certainly), and a +5 weapon (GMW), and +12 power attack, that's 3d8+132 damage on the charge against the challenge target. That kind of burst damage makes the Cavalier look pretty sexy.

You forgot order of the Sword, it adds mount Str to damage, so at least 10 more in base (most likely 12-15 before charge bouns) so more like 160-180 in charge damage.

But the argument is really about what is the GMs characters NOT doing while they unload everything they got against the mount?

I did write longer reply in the other thread about this, so we should take the debate there.

In the Paladin thread, an interesting discussion about the Cavalier popped up and I figured I would create a new thread so the discussion wouldn't derail the thread even more.

Someone mentioned that a DM is essentially being a bad DM if they target a Cavalier's horse during battle.

I don't agree with this at all because that is one of the risks of playing that class. Just like it's a risk with a Wizard's spellbook and familiar, or a Witches' familiar etc...

There are certain classes that you know are there and you can't hold your DM to the wall with threats of being a bad DM if he does this.

I know there are extremes but a DM should never be made to feel like he can't at all. Fighter's have their weapons sundered at times, Wizard's spellbooks get destroyed, Paladin's have their code, Witches' familiar dies etc....

It's just one of the challenges that you face when playing these classes.

There is targeting and targeting.

Basically a GM who creates the feeling in the players that the enemies she control is more interested in draining the PCs resources (for the next fight) then try to win the fight they are in, is a bad GM.

When discussing targeting priorities, I am ignoring melee, as there one simply fights the ones that are fighting you. Also, it is pretty common that the mount have the best AC in the entire party so often the PCs are quite happy to see attack directed towards the mount.

Some well-trained tericos could and did withstand horrendous casualties--but it all depended on (a) training and (b) leadership. I doubt that orcish tribesmen have the type of discipline and training of Gustav Aldolphus's infantry, or Spanish tericos, or the French or Swiss. That said, you are right in that I was over-generalizing.

Even with improved artillery during the Napoleonic Wars, the soldiers could take heavy fire without breaking--so long as they had a leader to exhort them to stand for 'king and country'. Or the 'revolution'. Such units did not break and rout, but often times the fire of the guns would stop them.

But poorly led, poorly trained troops, could and did break under fire. I stand corrected, that this did not often occur until the Napoleonic Wars.

Master Arminas

Being under fire has a tendency to impose stasis on a unit, basically freezing it in place. This is why short-range fire fights were something officers feared. During the thirty years war there are plenty of examples of units stranding at very close range and more or less shooting each other to smithereens. Under those conditions soldiers in the lines are unlikely to be aware of anything more then a meter or two away (due to smoke and noise), so have no real idea if they take heavy losses or not. Basically a way to get allot of people killed without achieving much, it is not losses in themselves that makes a unit break.

As for the effect of artillery fire on closely paced orcs: it can be assumed to be about the same as on closely packed humans; that it cutting them don in neat rows (round shot) or big heaps (canister).
At close range (depending on the guns 100-200m) one would switch from round shot to canister and simply attempt to pepper the assault columns.

What sort of guns is to be used, 3-pdrs, 12-pdrs 24 pdrs (or something else)?

Maybe you guys are super adapted. But actually we do get cases of people freezing to death right here in the New York City area itself.

Sir Robert Scott who was considerably trained in exploration froze to death along with his entire South Pole expedition, after being beaten in the race by Roald Amundsen, who would himself be lost trying to rescue an Arctic explorer years later.

Extreme cold is not a joke.

There is a fairly big difference between being outside in extreme weather for a few days and spending months in it while suffering from starvation and malnutrition as Scott did…

I dislike the term “freeze to death” as that implies that it has to be very cold. In fact it is perfectly possible to die from hypothermia even in +15C if you are wet or lacking clothing.

All extreme weather can be dangerous if one do not know how to act, and here in Scandinavia long periods of heat kills allot more people then long periods of cold weather.

Personally, when I did my conscription up north (pretty much on the artic circle) it happened that one took a walk from the gym to the barracks (about 1km, so about five minutes) in temperatures as low as -30 in just short and t-shirt, without any harm whatsoever. Cold is not a quick killer unless you do something damn right suicidal.

Helic wrote:

Kalyth wrote:

Things I wish had been address for balance reasons.

Long and Shortbows vs all other ranged weapons. Bows win! : (

And really, they should. Nothing better came around until cased-ammo firearms, really, in terms of accuracy and rate of fire. Some weapons are just better than most others, and trying to 'balance' that is IMO a strange concept.

Not in reality, Slins were better, cheaper, but took more training. They shot farther, just as fast, and dealt just as much damage in real life.

So enough with the bow fanboyish that designers get.

A sling is not a sling shot. Slings do not take extra time to load or swing to get momentum (in fact too much momentum is bad).

Right, were to begin?

As for bows vs. crossbows, that is a debate that can fill an thread (if not forum) of its own, sufficient to say that if one wants comparisons then a bow (of whish there are loads of types for different fighting styles) can be compared to Pistols and SMGs, while crossbows would be mausers and .50 rifles.

Like in most games, crossbows are not fairly represented in Pathfinder IMO.

Few things are overpowered, but I will say the Rogue is underpowered. Still an amazingly fun class to play, but with advanced options and archetypes like Urban Ranger, Vivesectionist Alchemist, Cryptbreaker Alchemist and Archeologist Bard in the mix, there's little mechanical reason to take a Rogue.

I for one think this is a strength in Pathfinder, no single class has a monopoly on any function.

Sometime we have done is flipping the exotic/martial requirements when mounted.
So the longsword (D&D bastard sword) is a martial to use one-handed on horseback, but exotic to use with two hands in the saddle.

As to weapon speeds, arguments of the “it goes faster to swing a knife then a halberd” is a bit silly as the difference in how fast the hands can move is marginal, and the point in any case is to move the tip of the weapon. The longer the weapons the smaller moments are needed to move the parts that does damage, so they become faster.

Another way to do it is to not try and cover all bases but instead reinforce the things the team is already decent at. The group is strong in melee, make it stronger still! Go for say a cavalier; they have to social skills to be party face, and it would make the group awesome up close. Another advantage is that when mounted it is much easier to run away in case a fight turns sour.

Just a situation and a question for you GM-types out there:

Let's say a person is the target of some evil plot and is framed for a murder. You're a paladin, and you know absolutely that the person in question is innocent, but the evidence is so stacked against them that your testimony is not enough to save them from an execution sentence. You also know that the court in question is a fair one and is not corrupt itself.
In this type of scenario, the paladin faces a tough choice: Either save the innocent and go against legitimate authority, or allow an innocent to die for a crime they did not commit.

What, in most people's opinions, is the correct path to follow here, and in other situations where doing the right thing is also doing the wrong thing? How would you not break your code either way? (Before you say anything, I absolutely know GMs who would allow such a scenario!)

Evidence? Physical evidence should be irrelevant, stop thinking like all fantasy worlds are modern society in other clothes.

Hi guys,

Just wondering, can a cavalier work without a horse? So far I've been tanking on dungeons without having my horse enter and such, and it just seems to be somewhat a vestigial addition in all the games I've played lately.

Thoughts?

Do what any sensible adventurer do; divert a suitable river or stream to the dungeon opening to either drown its denizens or force them into the open.

A very nice lecture about a whole lot of things that has been discussed in this thread.
How to Mount a Horse in Armor and Other Chivalric Problems
"Dirk H. Breiding, Assitant Curator, Department of Arms and Armor, The Metropolitan Museum of Art

Museum curators and conservators explore a fascinating topic—Misconceptions. Talks highlight the permanent collection and address misunderstandings commonly held by the public and, occasionally, even by specialists in the field."

Shadowborn wrote:

Mothman wrote:

Shadowborn wrote:

Henry VIII had two suits of full plate armor specifically designed for fighting on foot. Video.

Interesting sword fighting style at the end there. Does anyone know if there is any historical accuracy to fighting with swords held / used in that fashion, or is it a case of the people in the video either not knowing how to use them properly or not wanting to hurt each other?

Those aren't swords. They look like hammers, with a spike on the other end of the handle. As to the accuracy of the fighting style, I couldn't say. However, since it was an official exhibition put on by historic societies, I'll give them the benefit of the doubt.

Really? Look again, particularly right before / when they first start fighting, they pretty clearly appear to be swords. Once they get into the ‘swing’ (ha!) of things, they do look kind of like hammers, the way they are holding onto the blades and hitting each other with the hilts.

The reason for such techniques is that generally speaking the steel in the armour and the blade is if roughly equal quality, so to pierce the ~2mm thick plate you would suffer equal deformation if the sword edge. And even if the blow would pierce the bland would be blunt and quite unlikely to pierce the padding beneath the steel, so any serious injury is highly unlikely.

A very important advice for all campaigns is to set and plan problems for the players, but do not set the solutions or pre-plan an outcome as that will only lead to bad railroading.
Player will think of things you did not, and act in ways you did not expect, just roll with it and do not try and force the players to adhere to your plans.

The main difference between an evil or good campaign is in motivations for the PCs.
In fact evil groups have a tendency to be less destructive the good gropes as they are usually after creating something new (such as wealth and power for themselves) while good groups are often about stopping evil and tearing down monster lairs.

Do a Sir Robin, the cohort is you squire, and the followers are the bards that sing about you heroic deed!

Sir Robin
Also useful as emergency provisions, and there was much rejoicement!

On a more serious note, followers are in effect non-combatants, but useful for civil support.

In Selgard's Khmer Rouge fantasy game a crafter refusing to give his 100% in and out combat is an enemy of the Party and ends up dead in a rice paddy somewhere.

In my party the time a crafter spends crafting is time he doesn't get to spend with his family, running his estate and pursuing his non-adventuring goals.

That is a lot of frog croaking’s; It is a simple but fundamental difference in what a party is, or rather what some call “off-time”, but I would call “out of the field” (in the field most parties are red Khmers killing off anything that they find evil).

If one takes it upon oneself to be the crafter, healer, tank or face of a party the party members have a right to expect you to fulfil that role to the best of you abilities, if you do not want that role, do not take on yourself and lest someone else do it. Taking up a role and then charging the other party members for it is just bad manners.

But the difference really seem to be:
Pro demanding extra money for helping party members = Non-adventuring time is vacation from all party-related activities.
Anti demanding extra payment for service = A Party is still a party until it splits up, both in city as well as dungeon.