You do know that he still has to hit with that attack, which is by no means guaranteed.
Lance - 1D8+str 20 x2, does double damage when used as part of a charge.
Spirited Charge - does triple damage instead.With the guy he has, he does 1D8+17 with power attack without charging, so when he IS charging, he does 1D8+51, and 1D8+153 on a critical as part of a charge.
At lvl 5
This isn't working out so well by way of math...
1d8+(Strx1.5)+PA6=17. So hes L5 with 22Str?
Also, charging would make that 2d8+34 (impressive!) or on a NATURAL 20 whilst on a charging mount, 6d8+102. (Note the mount part)
Have you seen it happen though?
+14?
Hang on
5Bab+5Str+1Mwklance-2PA=9 Where does the other 5 come from?
This isn't stacking up too well, especially if only 18 Str.
I wouldn't say I hate the cavalier, but I do find them unappealing. The word that springs to mind when people mention the Cavalier is "bland", swiftly followed by "dull" and "boring". The vanilla class seems very, very focused towards melee combat (Challenge only affects Melee damage) and Mounted Combat (Mount, no ACP on ride checks, Cavalier's Charge etc). Looking at the other classes with similar abilities (fighter, ranger, paladin), they can be built in a variety of ways (archery, two-weapon fighting etc) before you start playing with archetypes. Cavalier seems kind of locked into the "mounted knight" idea.
Finally, Paizo decided to marry the cavalier (and the inquisitor) with the teamwork feats, and then provide zero support for teamwork feats. Which is a shame, they're a good idea in theory - they just need to be better .
I guess I just never saw the appeal in the class.
+14?
Hang on
5Bab+5Str+1Mwklance-2PA=9 Where does the other 5 come from?
This isn't stacking up too well, especially if only 18 Str.
Charging gets you +4 with no AC penalty while mounted. You have a banner that gives a +1 bonus on the charge.
I'm very fond of the Cavalier. Charging is great, but you don't have to do it all the time. If you don't want to charge, there are archetypes that can help with that.
One of the reasons I like them is they make small races easier to make combat viable. I prefer Full BAB characters, but I like small races too.
Levels should be treated as fighter levels and he should be able to take fighter only feats imo.
His math is a little off, but let's see if I can do any better...
Str 18 +2 from racial = 20
(Even with various point buys, this is your primary stat for everything, so there's no reason not to 20 it.)
Weapon: +1 Lance
At 5th level one should have a +1 weapon (if a weapon-dependent class). In my personal campaigns almost every PC will have a Legacy item at this point that they need to unlock, but we'll go with normal rules.
TO HIT:
Lance +12 melee (+5 BAB, +5 Str, +1 enhancement, +1 feat, +2 Charge, -2 Power Attack)
+14 melee if 3+ levels of Cavalier
Note: If attacking a smaller target than the Mount on level ground (ie: Halfling on Riding Dog attacking a Goblin, Human on Warhorse attacking an Orc), gain a +1 bonus for 'high ground', making it +13 or +16.
DAMAGE:
Base Lance 1D8+14 (+7 Str, +6 Power Attack, +1 enhacenment)
(Yes, he's using it two handed because he doesn't care about a shield if his target explodes.)
Lance on Charge 2D8+28
Lance on Charge + Spirited Charge = 3D8+52
L5 Cavalier doing this on a Challenge target = 3D8+67
Still don't need more than 3 levels of the class though, and a Fighter can do almost as well just dipping a single level, though he won't get the Challenge bonus, he'll get more feats and such to compensate.
Ummm ... Reduce Person wouldn't help. The Eidolon is an outsider.What's interesting is that people always say not to use a cavalier due to size concerns, but then the Large evolution is almost always recommended for Eidolons. You'd think that if Large is a concern in one case, it'd be a concern in the other.Rose colored glasses. I have seen them speak of huge ones also. If reduce person is around it might make it better though assuming the summoner has it.
The Share Spell ability would work on it if reduce person is on the summoner's spell list even though it is an outsider.
Well if we continue down that train of logic, evasion is a useless ability because your not constantly making reflex saving throws and a ring of freedom of movement is a waste of coin because you spend so much of the game not paralyzed or entangled. What good is channel energy if no one is hurt? Wizards must be terrible too as so many of their spells aren't totally useful while sitting in a taven or waiting in a line.
These examples are exaggeration of course but you should be able to see how that line of thinking is being applied to cavalier.
To suggest the class isn't good based upon the fact that you can't always use part of its class features is absolutely wrong. Group consensus won't change that.
It has got more skill points then anything full BAB other then Ranger, a challenge ability similar to the Paladin's for bonus damage without the alignment restriction and you can support people by actually giving them access to those tactical feats you get for free or the bonuses to charging and versus fear from your banner. Add in a couple of bonus feats and the special abilities of the many orders in the game and you've got a lot of tools to work with.
Then if you do happen to be in many situations where you can be mounted you get to be something terrifying.
The cavalier's mount abilities are just chocolate frosting on a tasty cake.
The train of thought is that the main selling point of the class is too limited so people would rather not deal with it. That is not the same as "the main selling point is all it can do, and if it can't do that then it is garbage".
What's interesting is that people always say not to use a cavalier due to size concerns, but then the Large evolution is almost always recommended for Eidolons. You'd think that if Large is a concern in one case, it'd be a concern in the other.
Except the summoner being the stupidly flexible class that it is, has a ton of ways to get around this. The obvious answer is reduce person, but it isnt the only one. If there is a tight space only a medium creature can get through (a problem in many dungeons and indoor locations) the summoner can pass through it and re-summon the eidolon or call it to him on the other side.
If the problem is space in encounter, IE the fighter rogue, and cleric all want to get up close and fight and the large creature would be in the way, the eidolon can fly over head, or crawl on the ceiling or burrow through the ground.
If the problem is the encounter is in a location where a large beastie would not be allowed (a formal ball, or just about any indoor location) that you couldnt bring a horse into, the summon eidolon spell fixes that or you can use maker's call depending on ranges.
The cavalier has none of these tools to help him get his mount in and out of difficult situations.
Design Manager
|
***Never mind that you get good skills and a decent amount of skill points, plus a challenge ability, bonus feats and really everything that you'd want out of playing a more knightly type of character.
I'm still in favor of making Cavalier the main base class and moving Paladin into a archetype of it. Cavalier is an amazingly good class. Good as a dip (has the best 1 level dip archetype in the game) or all the way up to 20 and everything in between. Honestly I can't say enough good things about it.
This was my take on it as well.
You have basically two abilities that actually require your to charge to use (and an associated feat tree / weapon choice), but I've run a few cavaliers and never felt like I had to charge to take advantage of the class. My most recent cavalier was actually a mounted archer, and I think I charged all of twice between levels 1-10, both times because either cover or a spell effect shut down my archery. THe Knights of the Inner Sea (I think is what the supplement is called, it's not in fron of me) had a couple of fun challenges/orders in it, like the Order of the Wild too boost your ranged accuracy.I always felt like the cavalier could make a pretty well rounded martial character, potentially doubling as party face depending on your build, with that built in fallback of being able to charge like a beast.
Animal Archive did a lot of cool stuff too, adding in that Narrow Frame feat for large mounts to make them more dungeon friendly and adding that Huntmaster cavalier archetype for people who just don't want to do mounted combat.
Oops. It wasn't his math, but MY math was bad in that example, I carried an extra 1. 14 x 3 is 42, not 52. So +57 on the base charge. Still not shabby, but as has been pointed out later there's ways to do it without being dependent on the Cavalier.
At any rate, what you've done is proven that the Cavalier itself isn't at all better than a Fighter (or in this case, an Fighter Archetype) who can pull all this off and still have extra feats, thanks to all the little stackings of his bonus damage. Losing out on the Order ability or the Challenge doesn't hurt too much if your base attacks with the thing have most of that bonus built in without having to use a limited use special ability.
It just goes to show that the Cavalier really isn't all that great of a class--just a few 'dip' levels and the rest is not beneficial at all compared to what another class does.
|
Design Manager
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Oops. It wasn't his math, but MY math was bad in that example, I carried an extra 1. 14 x 3 is 42, not 52. So +57 on the base charge. Still not shabby, but as has been pointed out later there's ways to do it without being dependent on the Cavalier.
At any rate, what you've done is proven that the Cavalier itself isn't at all better than a Fighter (or in this case, an Fighter Archetype) who can pull all this off and still have extra feats, thanks to all the little stackings of his bonus damage. Losing out on the Order ability or the Challenge doesn't hurt too much if your base attacks with the thing have most of that bonus built in without having to use a limited use special ability.
It just goes to show that the Cavalier really isn't all that great of a class--just a few 'dip' levels and the rest is not beneficial at all compared to what another class does.
Minus the fact that that fighter doesn't have a full 20 level progression mount, so the first time he wanders too close to an AOE all of his lance and Spirited Charge feats are now as useless as the charred lump of horseflesh he's sitting on. And the fact that the fighter has 1/2 as many skill points... And the fact that the cavalier is getting double charge bonus and no AC penalty.... Nor is the fighter able to share some of his feats with his party members and give them a bonus to some of their saves while still doing all that stuff.....
Although the will save on normal horse will be bad and can be effected by spells like command and other tihngs. Also rules aren't that well defined if the horse gets tripped or falls down because of a grease spell. Samurai seems mechanically more likeable with resolve.
What's interesting is that people always say not to use a cavalier due to size concerns, but then the Large evolution is almost always recommended for Eidolons. You'd think that if Large is a concern in one case, it'd be a concern in the other.
Summoners don't ride their large edilons. A large creature moving though dungeon is one thing riding on top of that large creature in dungeon is another. As well if you come to area in the dungeon where the mount can fit you can't just dismiss it like the summoner can call it to you later.
What's interesting is that people always say not to use a cavalier due to size concerns, but then the Large evolution is almost always recommended for Eidolons. You'd think that if Large is a concern in one case, it'd be a concern in the other.
Eidolons get Large to have reach. A lance already has reach.
edit: didn't meant to sound snippy, just a fast reply
What's interesting is that people always say not to use a cavalier due to size concerns, but then the Large evolution is almost always recommended for Eidolons. You'd think that if Large is a concern in one case, it'd be a concern in the other.Eidolons get Large to have reach. A lance already has reach.
A large sized quadruped eidolon can have a large sized lance and pounce. I have no idea how powerful that is, but I just think that sounds fun.
Summoners don't ride their large edilons.
Maybe they should? I could see a summoner with a few levels of Cavalier so that they can ride into the fray.
|
Design Manager
|
What's interesting is that people always say not to use a cavalier due to size concerns, but then the Large evolution is almost always recommended for Eidolons. You'd think that if Large is a concern in one case, it'd be a concern in the other.Summoners don't ride their large edilons. A large creature moving though dungeon is one thing riding on top of that large creature in dungeon is another. As well if you come to area in the dungeon where the mount can fit you can't just dismiss it like the summoner can call it to you later.
I've actually seen tons of Summoners riding their large Eidolons. They even have that Mount evolution. The lance wielding Summoner on the back of his pouncing Eidolon is one of the nastier melee combatants out there, and I've seen a few 3pp Archetypes meant to push that build even farther.
The whole "large mount/narrow corridor" issue is why Animal Archive introduced the Narrow Frame feat, so AC's can squeeze without taking the normal penalties. And that was never an issue for small cavaliers on medium mounts at all.I'm just having a hard time seeing cavaliers as really being the inferior class a lot of people seem to think they are, especially with all of the cool supplemental material out there.
|
Design Manager
|
....Wait, WHAT?!!!!
It gets a companion. Except unlike all the other classes with full companion advancement (druid, ranger or [cleric, druid, inquisitor] with animal domain w/ Boon Companion, Sorcerer, Oracle...), you're stuck with a freaking horse or wolf all the way to level 20.
***
Just wanted to point out it does include a "The GM might approve other animals as suitable mounts." proviso so you can tweak as appropriate to the campaign.
Just wanted to point out it does include a "The GM might approve other animals as suitable mounts." proviso so you can tweak as appropriate to the campaign.....Wait, WHAT?!!!!
It gets a companion. Except unlike all the other classes with full companion advancement (druid, ranger or [cleric, druid, inquisitor] with animal domain w/ Boon Companion, Sorcerer, Oracle...), you're stuck with a freaking horse or wolf all the way to level 20.
***
In PFS you cannot use any mounts beyond the examples. Several of the GMs I've had for Pathfinder won't allow substitutions for their own reasons. If they made it a choice of any appropriate animal(large), then it would've been a different gig.
I honestly think the Beast Rider archetype, the one you specifically take *to* get more exotic mounts... STILL not offering a flying mount (and the options being underwhelming in general, especially for a medium Cav) did a tremendous amount of damage to the possibility of DMs allowing flying mounts by that proviso.
Player: Can I get a flying mount?
DM: Why not take that archetype that exists solely for getting funky mounts?
Player: Because...it still doesn't get any flying mounts...
DM: If Paizo didn't think giving flying mounts to that archetype was balanced, why on earth would I ever just allow one for a normal Cavalier? It's probably broken or something.
I kind of wish it had never been printed...
|
Design Manager
|
In PFS you cannot use any mounts beyond the examples. Several of the GMs I've had for Pathfinder won't allow substitutions for their own reasons. If they made it a choice of any appropriate animal(large), then it would've been a different gig.
Too bad there isn't some kind of Flying Ointment to use on your mount in organized play...
In PFS you cannot use any mounts beyond the examples. Several of the GMs I've had for Pathfinder won't allow substitutions for their own reasons. If they made it a choice of any appropriate animal(large), then it would've been a different gig.Too bad there isn't some kind of Flying Ointment to use on your mount in organized play...
Too bad you can't just have a flying mount.
The ointment doesn't change what my point was. Its also expensive.
2250 gp per use? I don't care if it's 9 hours, that's crazy! Stick to potions of Fly at that point (which is still too expensive at 750 gp each) for when you absolutely need it....
Or play a class that actually lets you have a flying mount on its own.
Like Ranger.
Or Druid.
Or Sorcerer.
Or Oracle.
Or Cleric.
Or Inquisitor.
Or Barbarian.
|
Design Manager
|
In PFS you cannot use any mounts beyond the examples. Several of the GMs I've had for Pathfinder won't allow substitutions for their own reasons. If they made it a choice of any appropriate animal(large), then it would've been a different gig.Too bad there isn't some kind of Flying Ointment to use on your mount in organized play...Too bad you can't just have a flying mount.
The ointment doesn't change what my point was. Its also expensive.
Flying mounts in general are pretty restricted. The only non-full caster (i.e the only person who wouldn't be able to fly with their other class features anyway) who gets one is (as far as I'm aware) a single Ranger archetype, the Beastmaster. Rogues, Fighters, Monks (more or less), Barbarians (other than that one Totem tree), Paladins, and Gunslingers don't get flying for free either.
Flying mounts in general are pretty restricted. The only non-full caster (i.e the only person who wouldn't be able to fly with their other class features anyway) who gets one is (as far as I'm aware) a single Ranger archetype, the Beastmaster. Rogues, Fighters, Monks (more or less), Barbarians (other than that one Totem tree), Paladins, and Gunslingers don't get flying for free either.
Yes, that is another reason people generally consider full casters > partial casters > non-casters.
Flying mounts in general are pretty restricted. The only non-full caster (i.e the only person who wouldn't be able to fly with their other class features anyway) who gets one is (as far as I'm aware) a single Ranger archetype, the Beastmaster. Rogues, Fighters, Monks (more or less), Barbarians (other than that one Totem tree), Paladins, and Gunslingers don't get flying for free either.In PFS you cannot use any mounts beyond the examples. Several of the GMs I've had for Pathfinder won't allow substitutions for their own reasons. If they made it a choice of any appropriate animal(large), then it would've been a different gig.Too bad there isn't some kind of Flying Ointment to use on your mount in organized play...Too bad you can't just have a flying mount.
The ointment doesn't change what my point was. Its also expensive.
Missed my point still. It wasn't about flying. It was about how restricted the mounts was. The idea that you might get your GM to let you use a mount outside of the list isn't a great argument. Personally, I don't like any animal companion list being restricted. Oddly enough the druid is powerful as is, and the reason he gets full companion and ranger doesn't is because they thought ranger was the powerful enough as is... I don't get the logic, but whatever.
|
Design Manager
|
2250 gp per use? I don't care if it's 9 hours, that's crazy! Stick to potions of Fly at that point (which is still too expensive at 750 gp each) for when you absolutely need it....
Or play a class that actually lets you have a flying mount on its own.
Like Ranger.
Or Druid.
Or Sorcerer.
Or Oracle.
Or Cleric.
Or Inquisitor.
Or Barbarian.
Mounted Fury has almost the same limitations as the cavalier, so I'm not sure which barbarian mount gets flying where a cavaliers doesn't. As do all but one of the Ranger archetypes. SO, your full casters who can cast flying spells anyway and Inquisitors who pick a specific Domain are the people you're stacking the cavalier's mount abilities agains, which is non-sensical. There's an obvious break in the capabilities of full casters and martial characters, and the cavalier should be compared to other non-casters and 1/2 casters capability-wise. And there he stacks up just as well as any other class.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
While it had some issues, I think the Knight from the PHBII sidestepped a lot of these issues by simply not focusing too much on the mount. You were a heavily armored badass, oh and also you got Mounted Combat at 2nd level or something.
At least the ranger has an archetype to get a flying mount. What does the cavalier have?
A ranger does not need an archetype to get a flying mount.
The issue of new options from the splat books and "does ranger get them, some of them, or none of them?" is unresolved last I checked.*
Even in a "strict RAW" game where the DM only allows what the rules explicitly say you can do (which leads to all sorts of silliness...), a Ranger can get a flying mount just fine. Roc specifically says Rangers have them as companions. And Druid level 7+, Roc is actually a pretty kickass mount.
http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/monsters/roc.html#_roc
Rocs taken as animal companions by druids or rangers are typically newly hatched birds—a baby roc is the size of a person and ready for flight and hunting within minutes of hatching. Unfortunately for druids seeking animal companions of legendary size, an animal companion roc is limited to Large size—still large enough for a Medium druid or ranger to use the flying beast as a mount.Roc Companions
Starting Statistics: Size Medium; AC +5 natural armor; Speed 20 ft., fly 80 ft.; Attack 2 talons (1d4), bite (1d6); Ability Scores Str 12, Dex 19, Con 9, Int 2, Wis 13, Cha 11; Special Qualities low-light vision.
7th-Level Advancement: Size Large; AC +3 natural armor; Attack 2 talons (1d6 plus grab), bite (1d8); Ability Scores Str +8, Dex –2, Con +4.
*In PFS, Rangers cannot get a flying mount w/o the archetype. PFS has many houserules, including that terri-bad one.
|
Design Manager
|
Missed my point still. It wasn't about flying. It was about how restricted the mounts was. The idea that you might get your GM to let you use a mount outside of the list isn't a great argument. Personally, I don't like any animal companion list being restricted. Oddly enough the druid is powerful as is, and the reason he gets full companion and ranger doesn't is because they thought ranger was the powerful enough as is... I don't get the logic, but whatever.
Than your point isn't against the cavalier, it's that you're upset that non-casters don't get nice things. Barbarians and Rangers also have limited lists, and it really isn't a big downside. There are numerous other options and items a cavalier or other character can use to get in the air, even without a teammate to help cast the spells. Potions of Fly are reasonably affordable, or you could drop some skill points (you do have twice as many as the fighter and paladin after all) into UMD and pick up a wand. You actually have more options there than your peer classes (Fighters and Pallys) whose skills are so limited and precious.
|
Design Manager
|
A ranger does not need an archetype to get a flying mount.
The issue of new options from the splat books and "does ranger get them, some of them, or none of them?" is unresolved last I checked.*
Even in a "strict RAW" game where the DM only allows what the rules explicitly say you can do (which leads to all sorts of silliness...), a Ranger can get a flying mount just fine. Roc specifically says Rangers have them as companions. And Druid level 7+, Roc is actually a pretty kickass mount.
** spoiler omitted **
*In PFS, Rangers cannot get a flying mount w/o the archetype. PFS has many houserules, including that terri-bad one.
And nothing in the Roc entry specifically says that Rangers get them. It says "Rocs taken as animal companions by druids or rangers are typically newly hatched birds—a baby roc is the size of a person and ready for flight and hunting within minutes of hatching." So if a Ranger were able to get one, like through an archetype, it would be a baby. But nothing says it gets added to their core list which specifically lays out which animals they get, and doesn't even include the wording for GM expansion that the cavalier does.
So, no, from a strict RAW interpretation, the Ranger does NOT get free access to a flying mount any more than the cavalier does.
Than your point isn't against the cavalier,
Was actually. UMD and magic items don't make you a caster. I wasn't even talking about fly. You missed my point entirely. Fighters and paladins should get more if anything imo. Lots of points there, but we should probably stick to talking about the cavalier and why people don't like it.
In PFS I don't think you can actually get the Roc with a ranger, silly as that sounds. I'm not too keen on that ruling though.
|
Design Manager
|
Than your point isn't against the cavalier,Was actually. UMD and magic items don't make you a caster. I wasn't even talking about fly. You missed my point entirely. Fighters and paladins should get more if anything imo. Lots of points there, but we should probably stick to talking about the cavalier and why people don't like it.
In PFS I don't think you can actually get the Roc with a ranger, silly as that sounds. I'm not too keen on that ruling though.
I'm saying your point applies to virtually every other non-caster, and thus isn't a valid reason to dislike the cavalier, since it applies to multiple other classes. It's a paradigm of the system that you dislike (restricted companion lists), not the class.
I'm saying your point applies to virtually every other non-caster, and thus isn't a valid reason to dislike the cavalier, since it applies to multiple other classes. It's a paradigm of the system that you dislike, not the class.
Its a completely valid reason to hate a class based around its mount yes, rather than dislike the classes that get it as archetypes. This is the class based around a mount, the others are not.
"The second option is to form a close bond with an animal companion. A ranger who selects an animal companion can choose from the following list: badger, bird, camel, cat (small), dire rat, dog, horse, pony, snake (viper or constrictor), or wolf. "And nothing in the Roc entry specifically says that Rangers get them. It says "Rocs taken as animal companions by druids or rangers are typically newly hatched birds—a baby roc is the size of a person and ready for flight and hunting within minutes of hatching." So if a Ranger were able to get one, like through an archetype, it would be a baby. But nothing says it gets added to their core list which specifically lays out which animals they get, and doesn't even include the wording for GM expansion that the cavalier does.
So, no, from a strict RAW interpretation, the Ranger does NOT get free access to a flying mount any more than the cavalier does.
You're reaching farther than Dhalsim. It's pathetic.
Roc was not available as a companion choice when the core rulebook came out. Prove me wrong and show me the core druid quote that says he can get a Roc. I'm waiting...
Meanwhile, the Bestiary entry, which is what added it as an option, explicitly says, "still large enough for a Medium druid or ranger to use the flying beast as a mount." How much harder do they need to tell you a ranger can get one and fly on it?
It also spells out the Roc you get -- which is the same for druids as well as rangers - while just a baby, can fight just fine and is "the size of a person," i.e., medium sized which...wait for it... is exactly what the 1st level Roc companion is!
|
Design Manager
|
I'm saying your point applies to virtually every other non-caster, and thus isn't a valid reason to dislike the cavalier, since it applies to multiple other classes. It's a paradigm of the system that you dislike, not the class.Its a completely valid reason to hate a class based around its mount yes, rather than dislike the classes that get it as archetypes. This is the class based around a mount, the others are not.
Which brings it back to the flight issue, since thats the only thing you've actually been able to articulate, and since virtually every other non-flying creature of mount appropriate size is available to the Cavalier through the Beast Rider archetype or other abilities.
|
Design Manager
|
***
Roc was not available as a companion choice when the core rulebook came out. Prove me wrong and show me the core druid quote that says he can get a Roc. I'm waiting...***
The druid doesn't have a limited list. There's actually nothing that says "The druid gets this, this,...". They just get Animal Companions, and there's a handy list of them following the entry, with absolutely nothing to indicate that said list is exhaustive. If it is an animal companion, it is an option for him. The Ranger and Cavalier (and others), however, specifically do have limited lists, and you still haven't shown anything that says the Roc is added to the rangers. You've got a cute little bit of flavor text that still doesn't say what you want it to.