Paizo Top Nav Branding
  • Hello, Guest! |
  • Sign In |
  • My Account |
  • Shopping Cart |
  • Help/FAQ
About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game
Pathfinder Society

Pathfinder Beginner Box

Pathfinder Adventure Card Game

Pathfinder Comics

Pathfinder Legends

PaizoCon 2014!

The risks of playing certain classes. Part 2


Pathfinder RPG General Discussion

101 to 150 of 169 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
redcelt32 wrote:

I hear what you are saying TarkXT and agree in theory with what you are saying. However, my experience has been the opposite, in that as soon as the players learn you are putting on the kid gloves to help them "protect their investment", they start exploiting this GM kindness. Soon they start taking bigger and bigger risks, assured that nothing too bad will happen to them, and those games soon break down since there is little risk of death. Plus, I have never had a game where more than one or two players put that sort of investment in. Unless you favor those few players, that sort of game play becomes difficult to manage.

One time in particular an experienced barbarian player in one of my games deliberately brought extra fights to the party when he discovered I was slightly "sheltering" two brand new players who knew nothing about RPGs. I think this sort of investment protection only works well if you manage to keep it from the players, but then again that is just my personal experience.

The reverse, however, can happen. In my own experience, I was in a game a while ago where everyone kept dying. No matter how many precautions we took or supplies we brought with us, we were always overpowered by the enemy or betrayed by every NPC and just kept dying every session. There came a point where we just stopped caring about the story and living and the exact same thing happened. We would take suicidal risks just because we knew we were going to die anyways so why bother? The cleric stopped casting buff spells and healing because it didn't matter anymore. No one cared about the plot or NPCs or even treasure and the campaign fell apart.

Too much risk of death and players disconnect from their characters and the story and many will purposefully sabotage the campaign as both the only way to have any kind of fun in the campaign and to 'get back' at the GM. For this kind of thing, and your example of the barbarian (which admittedly, was pretty douche of him), it's best for the GM and the players to talk with each other. It's the reason why I like to alternate the difficulty of my encounters from somewhat easy to very challenging. It keeps the players guessing.


redcelt32 wrote:

I hear what you are saying TarkXT and agree in theory with what you are saying. However, my experience has been the opposite, in that as soon as the players learn you are putting on the kid gloves to help them "protect their investment", they start exploiting this GM kindness. Soon they start taking bigger and bigger risks, assured that nothing too bad will happen to them, and those games soon break down since there is little risk of death. Plus, I have never had a game where more than one or two players put that sort of investment in. Unless you favor those few players, that sort of game play becomes difficult to manage.

One time in particular an experienced barbarian player in one of my games deliberately brought extra fights to the party when he discovered I was slightly "sheltering" two brand new players who knew nothing about RPGs. I think this sort of investment protection only works well if you manage to keep it from the players, but then again that is just my personal experience.

I admit it requires a careful balance. And an iron fist well hidden in a velvet glove. The danger is never removed from my games. Death happens, bad things happen, to characters who think the kindness I show isn't just a sharks smile.

I have no issues with going after all the things listed as "badwrongfun". My argument with Shallowsoul is one of gaming philosophy and the gm/player contract. I have, can, and will go after cavalier mounts, familiars, scrolls, magic swords, spellbooks etc. I simply do so infrequently, when it makes sense, and when the reward at least matches the threat.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
shallowsoul wrote:


Investment should never be a form of "plot armor".

The reason for this is the fact that not every player has the know how when it comes to character investment. Why should I show you any favoritism because you know how to write a 5 page background while the other guy has a few sentences?

Who said anything about favoritism or plot armor? I'm talking about having fun and actually gaming rather than spending another hour making yet another character because twenty archers decided the bpc squire at my side was suddenly much more threatening than the reality altering wizard behind him.

I'm not sure what kind of group you GM for. But it sounds like the kind who enjoys the form of GM vs. Players you seem to be going for. Do have fun.

But I fail to care anymore.

I curse thee with three Ashiels in your game with none of the personality. And two Ravingdorks who hate eachother.

Perhaps that will be more to your liking.


shallowsoul wrote:
CommandoDude wrote:
shallowsoul wrote:
CommandoDude wrote:

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.

Mounted Combat + Ride = Makes mount more survivable.
If you fail even one of those checks your mount will probably be taken out since they have so few hitpoints, if not outright killed at the mid levels.

You do understand that a Cavalier's mount works exactly like a Druid's Animal Companion?

Also, a Cavalier doesn't take any armor check penalties to his/her ride check.

A horse has 2d8 + 6 hp at first level which means the horse has more hitpoints than the PC's. A Cavalier's horse begins play with light armor proficiency and has two more feats to choose from on top of that.

The horse is not as fragile as you make it out to be.

So if the horse is tougher than a PC (possibly more HP & AC) why target it? Surely its best to stop a charge, avoid it or target the squishy atop it?


Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
redcelt32 wrote:

I thought you only rolled saves for items in AoE's if their owner failed their save? Or is that just old school memories over-writing the RAW?

PRD>Magic>Spell Descriptions>Saving Throw>Items Surviving a Saving Throw wrote:
If a creature rolls a natural 1 on its saving throw against the effect, however, an exposed item is harmed (if the attack can harm objects). Refer to Table: Items Affected by Magical Attacks: Items Affected by Magical Attacks. Determine which four objects carried or worn by the creature are most likely to be affected and roll randomly among them. The randomly determined item must make a saving throw against the attack form and take whatever damage the attack dealt.

Now the only way you have to roll a save for your possessions is if you roll a natural 1 on your save, not simply if you fail it less spectacularly. :)


TarkXT wrote:


I have, can, and will go after cavalier mounts, familiars, scrolls, magic swords, spellbooks etc. I simply do so infrequently, when it makes sense, and when the reward at least matches the threat.

To be fair the cavalier mounts is not like the other things you mentioned. Even if the magic sword is vital for the fighter non inteligent monster woul never realized it and inteligent adversaries maybe does not have the capacitie of sunder the weapon.

scrolls, books and most familiars will be hidden, and are not inmediate threat.

But the cavalier mount is just right there and is a big animal. There is a lot of reason for the enemies to target the mount.

Now, for that reason mounted cavalier should maximize the ride skill, for that reason they should take feats, invest in protection for the moun etc. If they focus only in the ofensive they will be loose a lot of mounts.


Nicos wrote:


But the cavalier mount is just right there and is a big animal. There is a lot of reason for the enemies to taret the mount.

But why is he a threat? Mainly because he can charge and hit really hard with that lance. The horse can attack too and when in the middle of melee that's a perfectly good reason to go after the mount, when it's trying to eat you.

It's easier to block a charge lane then try to kill a horse.

Silver Crusade

SaddestPanda wrote:
shallowsoul wrote:
Joana wrote:
shallowsoul wrote:
I always make my PC's roll for anything like scrolls and books if they are hit by spells like fireball or a fire breath weapon. Now if their scrolls are in a case then they are protected but a book just being in your bag doesn't protect it. I might give the save a bonus but it still can be effected.
PRD wrote:

Items Surviving after a Saving Throw: Unless the descriptive text for the spell specifies otherwise, all items carried or worn by a creature are assumed to survive a magical attack. If a creature rolls a natural 1 on its saving throw against the effect, however, an exposed item is harmed (if the attack can harm objects). Refer to Table: Items Affected by Magical Attacks: Items Affected by Magical Attacks. Determine which four objects carried or worn by the creature are most likely to be affected and roll randomly among them. The randomly determined item must make a saving throw against the attack form and take whatever damage the attack dealt.

If the selected item is not carried or worn and is not magical, it does not get a saving throw. It simply is dealt the appropriate damage.

Fireball

School evocation [fire]; Level sorcerer/wizard 3
Casting Time 1 standard action
Components V, S, M (a ball of bat guano and sulfur)
Range long (400 ft. + 40 ft./level)
Area 20-ft.-radius spread
Duration instantaneous
Saving Throw Reflex half; Spell Resistance yes
A fireball spell generates a searing explosion of flame that
detonates with a low roar and deals 1d6 points of fire damage per
caster level (maximum 10d6) to every creature within the area.
Unattended objects also take this damage. The explosion creates
almost no pressure.
You point your finger and determine the range (distance and
height) at which the fireball is to burst. A glowing, pea-sized bead
streaks from the pointing digit and, unless it impacts upon a
material body or solid barrier prior to attaining the prescribed
range,
...

That doesn't mean objects that are carried aren't affected. It is just telling you that not only do PC's take the damage but unattended objects as well.

Since the description says that combustibles are affected as well you then proceed to the description that Joana has provided.

Silver Crusade

DSXMachina wrote:
shallowsoul wrote:
CommandoDude wrote:
shallowsoul wrote:
CommandoDude wrote:

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.

Mounted Combat + Ride = Makes mount more survivable.
If you fail even one of those checks your mount will probably be taken out since they have so few hitpoints, if not outright killed at the mid levels.

You do understand that a Cavalier's mount works exactly like a Druid's Animal Companion?

Also, a Cavalier doesn't take any armor check penalties to his/her ride check.

A horse has 2d8 + 6 hp at first level which means the horse has more hitpoints than the PC's. A Cavalier's horse begins play with light armor proficiency and has two more feats to choose from on top of that.

The horse is not as fragile as you make it out to be.

So if the horse is tougher than a PC (possibly more HP & AC) why target it? Surely its best to stop a charge, avoid it or target the squishy atop it?

Because a Cavalier with any grain of salt is hard to knock off his mount. It's not a simple fact of knocking him off and then attacking the Cavalier.


TarkXT wrote:
Nicos wrote:


But the cavalier mount is just right there and is a big animal. There is a lot of reason for the enemies to taret the mount.

But why is he a threat? Mainly because he can charge and hit really hard with that lance. The horse can attack too and when in the middle of melee that's a perfectly good reason to go after the mount, when it's trying to eat you.

It's easier to block a charge lane then try to kill a horse.

Enemies will use diferent tactics, the wizard can cast grease and nulify the horse, but a lot of enemies can only do damage.


Trying to stop a Cavalier should be possible without having to go all out against the Mount. But by targetting a classes weakness generally mean that the Heroes have to hide their character classes. Unless the group is famous the BBEG should not know the 'healer', to target. If they are then I am sure he would be dead and the next one won't be.

Andoran

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Card Game, Companion, Modules, Pawns, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
blahpers wrote:
Shadowdweller wrote:
Personally, I think some enemies - such as oozes - would be more likely to target the mount than the cavalier. Why? Because the mount is typically bigger and meatier (or being bigger, may seem more threatening to a creature with very low intelligence), or because the monstrosity in question makes heavy use of tremorsense while hunting.

Naturally. In our party's case, it was giant leeches writhing in the mud. Delicious horse underbelly slogging overhead is just too tempting to resist. Same with stirges and other bloodsuckers, especially if the horses aren't wearing barding or anything. Wolves and other animals known for hamstringing their prey (look for animals with the trip attack property) are also very likely to go for the mount. In this case, though, it may work against them, as horses, especially murderhorses, are difficult to trip.

More intelligent opponents, especially combat veterans, will quickly figure out that taking out a character's mount will reduce his mobility and ability to charge. For example, one tactic for breaking a cavalry rush is to take out the horses of the front riders with ranged attacks, turning men and mounts into so many marbles for the other riders to trip over. That's not as big a deal in PF, as there's no required mechanic for being impeded by dropped riders unless the GM says so, and there's no mechanism for being pinned under your horse like there is in real life. But still, attacking a charging rider's horse is just common sense. I'd be insulted if I was the charging cavalier/paladin/fighter and the GM's BBEG didn't go for the horse.

Now, if the PC is already dismounted and in melee, few creatures will bother to attack the horse. They're too busy fighting for their lives to waste actions. If the horse is also in melee separately, they might attack it, but only if the horse is in the way, serving as cover for another attacker, or for whatever strange reason outshining the PCs as a threat (not often, but it is a...

+a lot. Nicely put.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Targeting the healer actually bothers me. I know it makes sense but to me it feels like something out of an MMO like WoW. Rubs me the wrong way honestly.


Despite living in a large city, I am not in a situation where someone can just ditch a game or players and find others easily. This means you've got to get along and accomodate each other's fun at the table.

My DM has a simple rule for familiars, animal companions, etc - The more you use it, the better the chance that it gets targeted. If your familiar sits in your pocket all the time, it's safe. If he comes out and distracts opponents during combat or steals things, then he can be targeted.

A cavalier's horse is a slightly different matter. It's like a peice of equipment and you use it constantly. It's hard to keep it alive because AoE attacks are so common and every now and then it might get targeted preferentially by an owlbear or other big thing that wants to eat it.

If you kill it frequently however, you're really negating my character because I can't really play a cavalier without a mount. If I had known you were going to do that I wouldn't have played a cavalier. However, seeing as how I did play a cavalier, that is obviously what I wanted to play. By making it overly difficult for me to play what I want to play, you're really saying that my desires are to be sacrificed for your own sense of realism, roleplaying, competitiveness or whatever.

I don't play with people who will sacrifice my fun for their own for long. Then you have to find a new player and odds are this kind of thing will come up again.

If I want to play a cavalier in a sea campaign, or an enchanter in an undead campaign, of course that's different. In that case you warn your player that he won't be a good fit there.

As to coup-de-grace, my DM simply said that if we never grant mercy to fallen enemies or take prisoners, that the same standard will be applied to us. It is now very rare for us to kill surrendering or unconscious opponents. You can have a lot of fun trying to escape, or rescue a party member, from orcs, gnolls, or whatever.


MPCampbell wrote:

If you kill it frequently however, you're really negating my character because I can't really play a cavalier without a mount. If I had known you were going to do that I wouldn't have played a cavalier. However, seeing as how I did play a cavalier, that is obviously what I wanted to play. By making it overly difficult for me to play what I want to play, you're really saying that my desires are to be sacrificed for your own sense of realism, roleplaying, competitiveness or whatever.

I don't play with people who will sacrifice my fun for their own for long. Then you have to find a new player and odds are this kind of thing will come up again.

If I want to play a cavalier in a sea campaign, or an enchanter in an undead campaign, of course that's different. In that case you warn you player that he won't fit in there.

Exactly, for years no-one plays mounted warriors, especially at high levels, because the mounts are too fragile, they don't fit in dungeons. Now cavaliers mounts are tougher, thus they must be preferrentially targetted?

Silver Crusade

DSXMachina wrote:
MPCampbell wrote:

If you kill it frequently however, you're really negating my character because I can't really play a cavalier without a mount. If I had known you were going to do that I wouldn't have played a cavalier. However, seeing as how I did play a cavalier, that is obviously what I wanted to play. By making it overly difficult for me to play what I want to play, you're really saying that my desires are to be sacrificed for your own sense of realism, roleplaying, competitiveness or whatever.

I don't play with people who will sacrifice my fun for their own for long. Then you have to find a new player and odds are this kind of thing will come up again.

If I want to play a cavalier in a sea campaign, or an enchanter in an undead campaign, of course that's different. In that case you warn you player that he won't fit in there.

Exactly, for years no-one plays mounted warriors, especially at high levels, because the mounts are too fragile, they don't fit in dungeons. Now cavaliers mounts are tougher, thus they must be preferrentially targetted?

No but since they are tougher the DM doesn't need to hold back.


Nicos wrote:
TarkXT wrote:
Nicos wrote:


But the cavalier mount is just right there and is a big animal. There is a lot of reason for the enemies to taret the mount.

But why is he a threat? Mainly because he can charge and hit really hard with that lance. The horse can attack too and when in the middle of melee that's a perfectly good reason to go after the mount, when it's trying to eat you.

It's easier to block a charge lane then try to kill a horse.

Enemies will use diferent tactics, the wizard can cast grease and nulify the horse, but a lot of enemies can only do damage.

The actual type of enemy is only half the encounter. The dude with a crossbow isn't much threat to a cavalier on the open plain. But what if said dude was surrounded by low thorny bushes? What if he was on top of a cliff? In a forest? On a bridge too thin or too fragile for the horse to cross safely?

The thing about mounted combat, and the reason why druids, rangers, and summoners never took up a lance even with much better options for animal companions is the fact that mounted combat is exceedingly easy to counter.


shallowsoul wrote:
DSXMachina wrote:
MPCampbell wrote:

If you kill it frequently however, you're really negating my character because I can't really play a cavalier without a mount. If I had known you were going to do that I wouldn't have played a cavalier. However, seeing as how I did play a cavalier, that is obviously what I wanted to play. By making it overly difficult for me to play what I want to play, you're really saying that my desires are to be sacrificed for your own sense of realism, roleplaying, competitiveness or whatever.

I don't play with people who will sacrifice my fun for their own for long. Then you have to find a new player and odds are this kind of thing will come up again.

If I want to play a cavalier in a sea campaign, or an enchanter in an undead campaign, of course that's different. In that case you warn you player that he won't fit in there.

Exactly, for years no-one plays mounted warriors, especially at high levels, because the mounts are too fragile, they don't fit in dungeons. Now cavaliers mounts are tougher, thus they must be preferrentially targetted?
No but since they are tougher the DM doesn't need to hold back.

Indeed. We can't have people wanting to play mounted characters. That would just be silly.


DSXMachina wrote:


Exactly, for years no-one plays mounted warriors, especially at high levels, because the mounts are too fragile, they don't fit in dungeons. Now cavaliers mounts are tougher, thus they must be preferrentially targetted?

They should be targeted of course, but not preferrentially targetted, it will all depend in the adversaries tacticts.


TarkXT wrote:
shallowsoul wrote:
DSXMachina wrote:
MPCampbell wrote:

If you kill it frequently however, you're really negating my character because I can't really play a cavalier without a mount. If I had known you were going to do that I wouldn't have played a cavalier. However, seeing as how I did play a cavalier, that is obviously what I wanted to play. By making it overly difficult for me to play what I want to play, you're really saying that my desires are to be sacrificed for your own sense of realism, roleplaying, competitiveness or whatever.

I don't play with people who will sacrifice my fun for their own for long. Then you have to find a new player and odds are this kind of thing will come up again.

If I want to play a cavalier in a sea campaign, or an enchanter in an undead campaign, of course that's different. In that case you warn you player that he won't fit in there.

Exactly, for years no-one plays mounted warriors, especially at high levels, because the mounts are too fragile, they don't fit in dungeons. Now cavaliers mounts are tougher, thus they must be preferrentially targetted?
No but since they are tougher the DM doesn't need to hold back.
Indeed. We can't have people wanting to play mounted characters. That would just be silly.

Which is why, as you've suggested yourself, every Cavalier needs to take Beast Rider, amirite?


Serisan wrote:
TarkXT wrote:
shallowsoul wrote:
DSXMachina wrote:
MPCampbell wrote:

If you kill it frequently however, you're really negating my character because I can't really play a cavalier without a mount. If I had known you were going to do that I wouldn't have played a cavalier. However, seeing as how I did play a cavalier, that is obviously what I wanted to play. By making it overly difficult for me to play what I want to play, you're really saying that my desires are to be sacrificed for your own sense of realism, roleplaying, competitiveness or whatever.

I don't play with people who will sacrifice my fun for their own for long. Then you have to find a new player and odds are this kind of thing will come up again.

If I want to play a cavalier in a sea campaign, or an enchanter in an undead campaign, of course that's different. In that case you warn you player that he won't fit in there.

Exactly, for years no-one plays mounted warriors, especially at high levels, because the mounts are too fragile, they don't fit in dungeons. Now cavaliers mounts are tougher, thus they must be preferrentially targetted?
No but since they are tougher the DM doesn't need to hold back.
Indeed. We can't have people wanting to play mounted characters. That would just be silly.

Which is why, as you've suggested yourself, every Cavalier needs to take Beast Rider, amirite?

Sarcasm's fun ain't it?

I'm kind of glad I stumbled into this thread. It makes the next thing I write for that all the more needful. And spiteful. Viciously, viciously, spiteful.


Some players are just touchy about pets.

I had a game where the party was captured and sold into slavery. Well slavers usually don't keep wolves around. The ranger was one of my best friends but he became crazy mad when they woke to find the enemy NPC had turned his wolf into a cloak pelt he wore around his shoulders.

I explained to him he could call a new pet and that the point was the NPC was going to be a recurring enemy that he would have a chance at getting revenge on... he didn't care. He couldn't believe I killed his COMBAT pet.

Andoran

3 people marked this as a favorite.

I think it is a fine line, but that is what makes a good GM a good GM.

The players have to trust you to be fair, but also have that fear of the outcome of your fairness if they don't make good choices.

A GM should try to play like the BBEG would play, including not taking advantage of knowledge the BBEG wouldn't have.

Our GM has killed many of us, many times. It hurt every time, because we cared every time, because we believed in the story every time.

A good death can be one of the best plot points in a game if handled properly.


TarkXT wrote:

Sarcasm's fun ain't it?

I'm kind of glad I stumbled into this thread. It makes the next thing I write for that all the more needful. And spiteful. Viciously, viciously, spiteful.

Sure is.

If nothing else, I hope I spurred you to finish the guide.

Silver Crusade

I just want to reiterate this:

Mounted Combat (Combat)
You are adept at guiding your mount through combat.
Prerequisite: Ride 1 rank.
Benefit: Once per round when your mount is hit in
combat, you may attempt a Ride check (as an immediate
action) to negate the hit.
The hit is negated if your Ride
check result is greater than the opponent’s attack roll.

Now you can look at this one of two ways. Now it just says "hit", this could be interpreted as an attack roll must be made or if your mount is hit, like with a Fireball for example. Either way, you are able to negate a hit from spells, ranged attacks, melee attacks etc... This is a very powerful ability. The mount is not hurting in the defense department.

Andoran

Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Focused fire will bring him down pretty quick however.

Andoran

A few quick points

1. It isn't like a Cavalier without a mount is useless. They are still a full BaB class that can buff others.

2. The Cavalier can get another mount.

Is it better that they are on a mount. Yes. Are they useless without a mount? No.

I don't think a lot of people have played the Cavalier. The mount is nice, but they aren't useless without it.


shallowsoul wrote:

I just want to reiterate this:

Mounted Combat (Combat)
You are adept at guiding your mount through combat.
Prerequisite: Ride 1 rank.
Benefit: Once per round when your mount is hit in
combat, you may attempt a Ride check (as an immediate
action) to negate the hit.
The hit is negated if your Ride
check result is greater than the opponent’s attack roll.

Now you can look at this one of two ways. Now it just says "hit", this could be interpreted as an attack roll must be made or if your mount is hit, like with a Fireball for example. Either way, you are enable to negate a hit from spells, ranged attacks, melee attacks etc... This is a very powerful ability. The mount is not hurting in the defense department.

Just going to say here that fireball does not require an attack roll so you can't roll above it when using mounted combat. Though I would suspect you could try to avoid spells with a touch attack as they require attack rolls. This ability is powerful but don't overestimate it, everyone is talking about focus firing here and this will only really prevent one of those hits. If your ride check is good enough.

Silver Crusade

ciretose wrote:

A few quick points

1. It isn't like a Cavalier without a mount is useless. They are still a full BaB class that can buff others.

2. The Cavalier can get another mount.

Is it better that they are on a mount. Yes. Are they useless without a mount? No.

I don't think a lot of people have played the Cavalier. The mount is nice, but they aren't useless without it.

Well some people tend to think a class is useless when it isn't at maximum power.

Andoran

Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
ciretose wrote:
I don't think a lot of people have played the Cavalier. The mount is nice, but they aren't useless without it.

I'll let you know what I think of it if mdt ever lets us get past 4th level. :)

Silver Crusade

Davachido wrote:
shallowsoul wrote:

I just want to reiterate this:

Mounted Combat (Combat)
You are adept at guiding your mount through combat.
Prerequisite: Ride 1 rank.
Benefit: Once per round when your mount is hit in
combat, you may attempt a Ride check (as an immediate
action) to negate the hit.
The hit is negated if your Ride
check result is greater than the opponent’s attack roll.

Now you can look at this one of two ways. Now it just says "hit", this could be interpreted as an attack roll must be made or if your mount is hit, like with a Fireball for example. Either way, you are enable to negate a hit from spells, ranged attacks, melee attacks etc... This is a very powerful ability. The mount is not hurting in the defense department.

Just going to say here that fireball does not require an attack roll so you can't roll above it when using mounted combat. Though I would suspect you could try to avoid spells with a touch attack as they require attack rolls. This ability is powerful but don't overestimate it, everyone is talking about focus firing here and this will only really prevent one of those hits. If your ride check is good enough.

I don't know of many PC's that get this ability so I wouldn't complain. Also everyone that is attacking has to actually hit. Focus firing could bring down a PC just as fast as a Cav's mount.

Andoran

Davachido wrote:


Just going to say here that fireball does not require an attack roll so you can't roll above it when using mounted combat. Though I would suspect you could try to avoid spells with a touch attack as they require attack rolls. This ability is powerful but don't overestimate it, everyone is talking about focus firing here and this will only really prevent one of those hits. If your ride check is good enough.

Which is part of why Animal Companions get evasion at 3rd level.

Lets say you get a horse. You start with 2 hit dice and a 15 con. Your con gets bumped +2 at 4th. Your natural AC is 15 before you add barding.

The horse isn't any more vulnerable than most players. It is probably less vulnerable than the caster a lot of the time as far as damage.

Andoran

TriOmegaZero wrote:
ciretose wrote:
I don't think a lot of people have played the Cavalier. The mount is nice, but they aren't useless without it.
I'll let you know what I think of it if mdt ever lets us get past 4th level. :)

My wife made a gnome cavalier with a riding dog that was an absolute beast.

The charge damage was ridiculous.

Silver Crusade

ciretose wrote:
Davachido wrote:


Just going to say here that fireball does not require an attack roll so you can't roll above it when using mounted combat. Though I would suspect you could try to avoid spells with a touch attack as they require attack rolls. This ability is powerful but don't overestimate it, everyone is talking about focus firing here and this will only really prevent one of those hits. If your ride check is good enough.

Which is part of why Animal Companions get evasion at 3rd level.

Lets say you get a horse. You start with 2 hit dice and a 15 con. Your con gets bumped +2 at 4th. Your natural AC is 15 before you add barding.

The horse isn't any more vulnerable than most players. It is probably less vulnerable than the caster a lot of the time as far as damage.

A horse has a 17 Con and a Cav's horse begins play with light armor proficiency and 2 feats.


Quote:
I don't know of many PC's that get this ability so I wouldn't complain. Also everyone that is attacking has to actually hit. Focus firing could bring down a PC just as fast as a Cav's mount.

I never said that focus firing on a PC would be any different then focus firing on a mount. Just not to overestimate a feat that for the most part will only stop a single attack a round, it only makes a mount a little more durable. Also at higher levels getting people to hit a mount isn't very difficult.

Andoran

shallowsoul wrote:

A horse has a 17 Con and a Cav's horse begins play with light armor proficiency and 2 feats.

Not according to the animal companion page on the SRD.

Horse

Starting Statistics

Size Large; Speed 50 ft.; AC +4 natural armor; Attack bite (1d4), 2 hooves* (1d6); Ability Scores Str 16, Dex 13, Con 15, Int 2, Wis 12, Cha 6; Special Qualities low-light vision, scent.

* This is a secondary natural attack, see Combat for more information on how secondary attacks work.

4th-Level Advancement

Ability Scores Str +2, Con +2; Special Qualities combat trained.

Silver Crusade

Davachido wrote:
Quote:
I don't know of many PC's that get this ability so I wouldn't complain. Also everyone that is attacking has to actually hit. Focus firing could bring down a PC just as fast as a Cav's mount.
I never said that focus firing on a PC would be any different then focus firing on a mount. Just not to overestimate a feat that for the most part will only stop a single attack a round, it only makes a mount a little more durable. Also at higher levels getting people to hit a mount isn't very difficult.

Most of the time a Cav is going to be charging and doing ride by attacks so not many enemies are going to be getting more than one attack. Most spells that come your way are going to bu just one, maybe two at times.

A Cavalier's mount can have a super high AC.

Silver Crusade

ciretose wrote:
shallowsoul wrote:

A horse has a 17 Con and a Cav's horse begins play with light armor proficiency and 2 feats.

Not according to the animal companion page on the SRD.

Horse

Starting Statistics

Size Large; Speed 50 ft.; AC +4 natural armor; Attack bite (1d4), 2 hooves* (1d6); Ability Scores Str 16, Dex 13, Con 15, Int 2, Wis 12, Cha 6; Special Qualities low-light vision, scent.

* This is a secondary natural attack, see Combat for more information on how secondary attacks work.

4th-Level Advancement

Ability Scores Str +2, Con +2; Special Qualities combat trained.

I was looking at the Horse from the Bestiary.


shallowsoul wrote:
Davachido wrote:
Quote:
I don't know of many PC's that get this ability so I wouldn't complain. Also everyone that is attacking has to actually hit. Focus firing could bring down a PC just as fast as a Cav's mount.
I never said that focus firing on a PC would be any different then focus firing on a mount. Just not to overestimate a feat that for the most part will only stop a single attack a round, it only makes a mount a little more durable. Also at higher levels getting people to hit a mount isn't very difficult.

Most of the time a Cav is going to be charging and doing ride by attacks so not many enemies are going to be getting more than one attack. Most spells that come your way are going to bu just one, maybe two at times.

A Cavalier's mount can have a super high AC.

An enemy can get around that by just readying an action to attack the horse with intent to trip it as it comes closer, thus invalidating the rest of its turn and getting a full round of attacks on it. Also some of the biggest bruisers most of the time only get one attack a round anyway, maybe two. So not sure how that would be any different.

Silver Crusade

Davachido wrote:
shallowsoul wrote:
Davachido wrote:
Quote:
I don't know of many PC's that get this ability so I wouldn't complain. Also everyone that is attacking has to actually hit. Focus firing could bring down a PC just as fast as a Cav's mount.
I never said that focus firing on a PC would be any different then focus firing on a mount. Just not to overestimate a feat that for the most part will only stop a single attack a round, it only makes a mount a little more durable. Also at higher levels getting people to hit a mount isn't very difficult.

Most of the time a Cav is going to be charging and doing ride by attacks so not many enemies are going to be getting more than one attack. Most spells that come your way are going to bu just one, maybe two at times.

A Cavalier's mount can have a super high AC.

An enemy can get around that by just readying an action to attack the horse with intent to trip it as it comes closer, thus invalidating the rest of its turn and getting a full round of attacks on it. Also some of the biggest bruisers most of the time only get one attack a round anyway, maybe two. So not sure how that would be any different.

Trip a large 4 legged animal is tough. Also Mounted Combat could negate that hit if the Cav wanted it to.

Yes big bruisers get mostly one attack which proves my point. Negating that big bruisers one attack is great. If he gets in a second one then it's not big deal. Getting hit twice instead of three times is great no matter how you look at it.


shallowsoul wrote:
Davachido wrote:
Quote:
I don't know of many PC's that get this ability so I wouldn't complain. Also everyone that is attacking has to actually hit. Focus firing could bring down a PC just as fast as a Cav's mount.
I never said that focus firing on a PC would be any different then focus firing on a mount. Just not to overestimate a feat that for the most part will only stop a single attack a round, it only makes a mount a little more durable. Also at higher levels getting people to hit a mount isn't very difficult.

Most of the time a Cav is going to be charging and doing ride by attacks so not many enemies are going to be getting more than one attack. Most spells that come your way are going to but just one, maybe two at times.

A Cavalier's mount can have a super high AC.

So, the arguement is circular? You should target the mount specifically because it is tougher than the PC, but should target it because it is the PC's weakness. Wouldn't a clever enemy avoid the charging/ride-by attack and stop his allies.

Anyway, I agree that PC's shouldn't get a pass because of their character concept. However DM's shouldn't exclusively target a particular aspect of the rules, even if it makes local sense. Because that can completely eliminate PC concepts entirely.


With mounted combat there is also action economy; an Immediate action every round to negate a hit.

Andoran

It is actually not a great strategy to try and kill a Cavaliers mount vs trying to kill another party member who A) Is more of a threat to you and B) is more vulnerable.

Taking out a horse is different than taking out an animal companion. But the BBEG might not know it is an animal companion and think it is a good plan.


Quote:

Trip a large 4 legged animal is tough. Also Mounted Combat could negate that hit if the Cav wanted it to.

Yes big bruisers get mostly one attack which proves my point. Negating that big bruisers one attack is great. If he gets in a second one then it's not big deal. Getting hit twice instead of three times is great no matter how you look at it.

Tough for a medium sized creature maybe, not for the latter level bigger monsters. I never disagreed with you that the feat wasn't good, just not a superb one. Also if you negate the hit on your own turn for a trip all you've done now is open yourself for the rest of the attacks that might happen, and if we are continuing the argument that we are trying to quickly take down an advantage such as a mount you have forgone your bonus for all the other monsters that round.

Silver Crusade

DSXMachina wrote:
shallowsoul wrote:
Davachido wrote:
Quote:
I don't know of many PC's that get this ability so I wouldn't complain. Also everyone that is attacking has to actually hit. Focus firing could bring down a PC just as fast as a Cav's mount.
I never said that focus firing on a PC would be any different then focus firing on a mount. Just not to overestimate a feat that for the most part will only stop a single attack a round, it only makes a mount a little more durable. Also at higher levels getting people to hit a mount isn't very difficult.

Most of the time a Cav is going to be charging and doing ride by attacks so not many enemies are going to be getting more than one attack. Most spells that come your way are going to but just one, maybe two at times.

A Cavalier's mount can have a super high AC.

So, the arguement is circular? You should target the mount specifically because it is tougher than the PC, but should target it because it is the PC's weakness. Wouldn't a clever enemy avoid the charging/ride-by attack and stop his allies.

Anyway, I agree that PC's shouldn't get a pass because of their character concept. However DM's shouldn't exclusively target a particular aspect of the rules, even if it makes local sense. Because that can completely eliminate PC concepts entirely.

A Cavalier's mount is part of the PC and it's a big target. The mount comes with plenty of ways to defend itself so I don't see where the problem is. The mount has great HP, AC, and other special abilities like Evasion, share spells etc.. A Cav with a few levels of cleric could really buff himself and his horse. The mount also has the chance to wear magical barding that will provide an even better AC. No where did I say this gives you a reason to target the mount at every turn but it also means that the DM doesn't need to go out of his way to avoid hitting it either.


DSXMachina wrote:


So, the arguement is circular? You should target the mount specifically because it is tougher than the PC, but should target it because it is the PC's weakness. Wouldn't a clever enemy avoid the charging/ride-by attack and stop his allies.

I supose the argument is the following: Monsters, sooner or later will taret the cavalier mount, a player should not feel he isbeen personally attacked nor to hink the DM is a jerk for targeting his mount. Is the player responsability to ensure the maximun survivality of his mount.


True, I wasn't trying to imply that a GM is wrong for targetting a cavalier's mount. Just that consistantly doing it can cause 'problems'. Some of these might be changed by altering the style of PC play. (Ie All PC's are mounted, have pets, wear/carry armour/weapons/'spellbooks' so their opponents don't know who or what class they are.)


DSXMachina wrote:
Just that consistantly doing it can cause 'problems'.

Is boring that the Dm constantly use the same tactic, no matther what the tactis is.


shallowsoul wrote:


Most of the time a Cav is going to be charging and doing ride by attacks so not many enemies are going to be getting more than one attack. Most spells that come your way are going to bu just one, maybe two at times.

Not really. Ride by attacks are hard to set up without a lot of space. How many dungeons have you played in that allow it?

Plus there is a catch 22. It's very difficult for even a horse to get out of charge/threat range of melee without incurring attacks of opportunities. If you ride by attack you give them free reign to counter charge you with your reduced AC (unless your cavalier is level three but than the mount has a reduced AC and you do not). It's in their best interest to keep you from turning around and charging again and the best way to do that is to get in your face and try to drag you off that horse (that's something you could do with the hook on the back of the halberd).

The catch 22 is that the counter for this is to have your allies tie them up so they can keep the enemy static enough for you to pick them off around the edges. Unfortunately this places them in potential charge lanes and makes it even harder for you to charge.

Ride By Attack works best in those Don Quixote situations where its you vs. a solo monster on an open field where you can charge in and get away quickly out of the counter attack. Sadly those are few and far between in many games.

Lastly mounted combat will get spells that require an attack roll, true. But it won't get those spells that don't You don't need to be Treantmonk to be able to think of a few spells that can spoil a charging rider or kill a mount without an attack roll.

To go on further Fireball is a terribly inefficient spell to use on a horse. They have good reflex saves and evasion. You do however catch the rider and his bad reflex save.

Quote:


A Cavalier's mount can have a super high AC.

You don't know the half of it. :)

At the moment I'm trying to figure out if a blink dog can voluntarily turn off his blinking so I can put a saddle on it and call it a Master of Many Styles.

Silver Crusade

TarkXT wrote:
shallowsoul wrote:


Most of the time a Cav is going to be charging and doing ride by attacks so not many enemies are going to be getting more than one attack. Most spells that come your way are going to bu just one, maybe two at times.

Not really. Ride by attacks are hard to set up without a lot of space. How many dungeons have you played in that allow it?

Plus there is a catch 22. It's very difficult for even a horse to get out of charge/threat range of melee without incurring attacks of opportunities. If you ride by attack you give them free reign to counter charge you with your reduced AC (unless your cavalier is level three but than the mount has a reduced AC and you do not). It's in their best interest to keep you from turning around and charging again and the best way to do that is to get in your face and try to drag you off that horse (that's something you could do with the hook on the back of the halberd).

The catch 22 is that the counter for this is to have your allies tie them up so they can keep the enemy static enough for you to pick them off around the edges. Unfortunately this places them in potential charge lanes and makes it even harder for you to charge.

Ride By Attack works best in those Don Quixote situations where its you vs. a solo monster on an open field where you can charge in and get away quickly out of the counter attack. Sadly those are few and far between in many games.

Lastly mounted combat will get spells that require an attack roll, true. But it won't get those spells that don't You don't need to be Treantmonk to be able to think of a few spells that can spoil a charging rider or kill a mount without an attack roll.

To go on further Fireball is a terribly inefficient spell to use on a horse. They have good reflex saves and evasion. You do however catch the rider and his bad reflex save.

Quote:


A Cavalier's mount can have a super high AC.

You don't know the half of it. :)

At the moment I'm trying to figure out if a blink...

Well Cav's weren't designed with dungeons in mind, they were designed for open fields with lots of room.

I know some spells that could bypass that as well but sitting here thinking of those spells is very different than actual game play.

Most AoE's are going to be crap to a mount because of high reflex and evasion. There is also a feat that allows a Mount to have something to do with Saving Throws.

101 to 150 of 169 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>
Paizo / Messageboards / Paizo Publishing / Pathfinder® / Pathfinder RPG / General Discussion / The risks of playing certain classes. Part 2 All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.

©2002–2014 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email customer.service@paizo.com or call 425-250-0800 during our business hours: Monday–Friday, 10 AM–5 PM Pacific Time. View our privacy policy. Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc., and Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Online, PaizoCon, RPG Superstar, The Golem's Got It, Titanic Games, the Titanic logo, and the Planet Stories planet logo are trademarks of Paizo Inc. Dungeons & Dragons, Dragon, Dungeon, and Polyhedron are registered trademarks of Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and have been used by Paizo Inc. under license. Most product names are trademarks owned or used under license by the companies that publish those products; use of such names without mention of trademark status should not be construed as a challenge to such status.