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.
Paladin will work in a fashion with all the baggage that comes with it. A ranger can take the mount but does not have the class ablitys to make use of it nor the feats to make a good build. A druid just does not work at all to make the classic mounted knight
KoboldSorcerrer wrote:
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.
Houerules are not a good argument as to why you can not do something by the rules.
KoboldSorcerrer wrote:
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.
This really does not help much. The list you may take is very small and as a beast they do not level up without class level unless you houserule it.
KoboldSorcerrer wrote:
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.
Again not really and none of them pull it off as well. To make a really effective mounted class it must have a companion the leadership is a workaround but even that is not as good as the companion
Lets look to be sure. I'll use a none flying mount as for now there is no flying mount companion for any class.
Unicorn you must be level 8 to have it
Spoiler:
Defense
Init:+3
AC 15, touch 12, flat-footed 12; (+3 Dex, +3 natural, –1 size; +2 deflection vs. evil)
hp 34 (4d10+12)
Fort +7, Ref +7, Will +6; +2 resistance vs. evil
Immune charm, compulsion, poison
Statistics
Str 18, Dex 17, Con 16, Int 11, Wis 21, Cha 24
So your feat has got you a mount with 34 hp and AC of 15 and some magic ablitys
Horse animal companion
Defense
Init:+3
AC 20, (+3 Dex, +8 natural, –1 size; )
hp 60 (8d8+24)
Fort +8, Ref +2, Will +3;
Statistics
Str 20, Dex 15, Con 16, Int 2, Wis 12, Cha 6
and has evasion
So yeah your level 8 feat mount has some spells but is no where as tough as the horse
The reason they used that name was the class is about mounted combat. It was said they would add other stuff for when you needed to be off the mount so it would not be useless for the times you could not take the mount (I say this is the challenge and oaths) but the class has always been about mounted combat
That is what the class is made for and they way the system is it's just not effective to build one without an animal companion. That's just the way it is. So the class was always meant to fill that role which can not be done with the current classes (other then a paladin with a crapload of baggage)
They even picked a name with D&D mounted combat baggage to use. Getting ride of the mount is counter the the very core of the class is all I am saying
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
And they picked a name that means mounted soldier. You can not take the mount out of the class and still have the same class, no more then you can take "Holy, LG or the code" out of a paladin and still be a paladin
Whatever happened to the idea that one player's the fighter and one player's the wizard and they work together to fight dragons? Why the need to have one class that does everything?
A class like this works MUCH better in a game where there's one or maybe two players. But in a group of four to six players... I'm not so sure...
Someone made a good point in another thread James, It's the Jedi's fault. Every one know wants to play the bad ass warrior with mystic powers..thank you Jedi
Ok, guy's I guess we will call this one done. I would like to thank those who stuck around, but sometimes ya need to know when to fold and walk from the table
If I recall mortals do not have the power to kill a god. Few things have that power. The one stated up is a demi-god and is killable , but most gods are outside the realm of mortals being able to harm much less kill them
If you were impressed with the figures that were just released, take a look at Reaper's news page and look at the red dragon that's coming up (slated for next May).
For my own amusement every time someone says "I don't like the name oracle" I am replacing it in my mind to them saying " Thank you sir, may I have another"
For the sake of irony, I'm imagining them instead saying "I don't like the name gish."
Nah that one is "fish" But really it's not the same thing. One, Is a base class whose name we know will not be changed. The other is silly gibberish latched onto by the "trendy' kids without knowing what it really was
For my own amusement every time someone says "I don't like the name oracle" I am replacing it in my mind to them saying " Thank you sir, may I have another"
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
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
I was saying that it is neccessary for the same reasons the alternative is available with the paladin/ranger/druid. The animal companion isnt always campaign friendly.
See thats what some folks are missing however. The classes in this book are roles you really can not pull off with the core classes. The cavilers role is mounted warrior. They added stuff for non mounted combat as building it 100% around that is useless but it was made to fill the mounted combat role
You can not do this role with the current rules. Sure you can make a mounted fighter but without a companion mount he will never be very effective you'll need to have 10 backups with you
Your asking to change something that is the whole of the reason the class was made. He is made to BE the mounted knight, He is made to Fill that role, that is the whole of the point of making the class was to have a effective mounted classes
Kolokotroni has the right of it. Spell list is one of the last things done for your arcane warrior class
You need HD and BAB along with the together ablitys it might have before deciding whats a balance to it. Does it get full level? all the spells? do we cap it at 5 or 6 or 7th level? do we make the list very small and focused? or more wide use but lacking some heavy hitting spells?
there is a lot to decide before you get to the spell list
I dont think i said anything about the change being small, i am simply saying it is not a total rewrite. There is i believe some room between those two things.
Sorry my mistake then. I keep hearing in this thread it's on pare with the druid,paladin and ranger options. When it is not. It is on pare with the Alt paladin builds as you really are changing the entire flavor and core concept of the class
Really? Does that mean each bloodline of the sorceror is a rewrite? Yes it might involve replacing or adjusting abilities, but its not a total rewrite. Half of the 'options' in the game define more abilities then that.
So which is it? bloodlines or the "simple" change you want like a druid,ranger or paladin?
Bloodlines became a core concept and driving force behind that class. You have been claiming to want a small change( really a big change) and when faced with it really is a big change you go to bloodlines??
If you think about it, you would only have to change the three mounted abilities and maybe the expert trainer one, the rest still make enough sense, so that's only half of them...Of course, the capstone is one of the three to change.
I just fail to see the point of rewriting a whole class based on not liking the concept of said class. If you do not like it then do not play it
A small cavilar can run a dungeon just fine
A druid,ranger or paladin all have the same issues in a dungeon with large mounts
Unlike them 3 however your not talking one thing, your talking about a core concept of the class. Your asking for 2 versions of the same class , which is not the same thing as an alt feature like the other 3. they change 1 think your asking for 4 changes and a change of the class concept
I don't mind it as a total rewrite(which it is) but asking for it as a base is asking for 2 classes not 1 as they other 3 you guys point to change 1 class feature not 4(one being the classes capstone)
Edit: Stickman I don't care if ya play or not, but you have yet to show a single class in core that does what your asking
(As writing this, and looking further at the mounted features, I notice that there is indeed a fair amount of mount related abilities, so maybe it would take a little more of a rewrite than I thought...)
Yeah, its a bit much for an alt feature, but an alt build like the alt paladins would work.
Myself I so see the caviler as a samurai with some reworking
a guy can dream. I only have control over what I do. Not everyone likes the name, so I was looking to the community for something new in place of what frankly sounds silly
Name one other class that would get this nerfed for attending a staple environment of the genre.
Druid and ranger. They have some ability that do not work in a dungeon. You wanting a rework of them as well to cover the time your not in the wild?
The simple fact is like a paladin the class is not usable in every game type{it is more usable though as even in an evil based dungeon game ya can take a small race}. If your doing a long term dungeon crawl you 1> take a small race or 2. play another class
These class are more focused the the base for one. But what they want is on pare with "I want a non holy warrior paladin, or I want a non nature based druid option"
Your asking for a rewrite of a basic class concept
Now that said I can see it done for say total reworking for the class like the paladins upcoming templar/anti-paladin but not as a base option as your not talking about one thing but something the class is built around for the full 20 levels
And it's not even broken to have a class with, say, a full nine levels of spellcasting, plus good BAB, HP, and proficiencies, with extra abilities on top of that.
WTF? You have to include exotic weapon proficiency (katana) and trenchcoat armor bonuses as well, just to make sure that calss isn't underpowered.
IT'S CALLED A CLERIC.
which is still considered overpowered by most. But then as folks love to point out the spell list is very different. Besides cleric do not have full BAB and a d10
An arcane class with full bab/HD and full casting is broken.
My question is WHY does it need to go? Who decides what a slang term means? That is essentially what it is now, dnd forum slang. That isnt decided by committee, it is decided by the people who say it. It has to be a cultural descision to stop using it as such.
Because using it wrong makes you seem foolish mostly. Kinda like kids at the mall that latch onto new terms with no clue what it means
Warden is cool but not sure for general use, mageblade is nice
seekerofshadowlight,
