Design Manager
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So I personally really like the cavalier. I think they're versatile, mechanically interesting, and fill their own special little niche within the fantasy world. They give you that knight who can be of any alignment, give you a progressing mount without tying you in to spellcasting, and their unique use of Teamwork feats give them some interesting ways to "buff" the party.
But I noticed there are a lot of people who are extremely dissatisfied with the class, and I was curious to hear the reasons why. Thoughts?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Because mounted combat is totally uninteresting to me and requires you to be a small race (which I also hate) in order to function in a typical dungeon crawl type game.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So I personally really like the cavalier. I think they're versatile, mechanically interesting, and fill their own special little niche within the fantasy world. They give you that knight who can be of any alignment, give you a progressing mount without tying you in to spellcasting, and their unique use of Teamwork feats give them some interesting ways to "buff" the party.
But I noticed there are a lot of people who are extremely dissatisfied with the class, and I was curious to hear the reasons why. Thoughts?
I've not actually directly run into anyone hating the class, that said...
In one of the Jade Regent parties I GM, we have a cavalier who works extremely well in tandem with the other classes(Alchemist, Sorc, Rogue). I think their ability to move people around the battlefield at later levels is a huge deal.
Perhaps they don't like the horse?
Mostly due to the fact that mounted combat is not very well explained in the rules. Additionally, a large mount can be problematic in early levels, until the things you are fighting are also large or bigger.
Cavaliers should get combat styles like rangers, but more developed with more feats since they don't get spell casting. I also think they should get an alternate option to the mount, the samurai gets one.
Hmm, the last time I had a 'dungeon delving' campaign was...uhm...4 years ago. Well, other than the one I'm in now, which just started. Do players really spend most of their time in dungeons these days?
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
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.
It's not just the mount that is an issue in the dungeon. They also have a couple of abilities tied to making charge attacks. That said, you can ignore all those abilities and still have a fairly viable character. But if you're playing in an all-underground campaign, it would kind of suck.
Typically, it takes a couple levels before you take the large evolution for an eidolon. By then, you tend to be fighting large sized creatures, and a large size is not as much of an issue.
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.
I think people are enamored enough of Eidolon options that they'll put up with a lot. :) Also, it's not mandatory, and you aren't reliant on charging options. The eidolon is a beatstick. The cavalier's mount is relatively vulnerable.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Mounted combat ruins the class for many environments. Charge attacks simply aren't all that feasible in many areas. The Challenge feature is an uninspired "Smite-Anything" and it's not really all that good. The tactician feature is only as good as the Teamwork feats are, and they're not too good. The Orders are hit and miss, but there are a few good ones, so I'll count them as pretty good on the whole.
Although for me, one of the things that really makes the Cavalier pale for me is that I saw a similar idea presented in the 3.5 Marshal and the 4e Warlord to much better effect. The cavalier just doesn't stand up to either of those, which makes it really difficult to do that type of tactician character in PF.
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Because the class has a feature called mount and to a lot of people that somehow means that you have to be glued to a saddle (or it is the worst class ever made.) Really that mindset of it having some huge focus on that aspect as opposed to not being just about mounted combat like it really is. You know the type of people who don't actually play the game and just theory craft on the boards.
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.
So I personally really like the cavalier. I think they're versatile, mechanically interesting, and fill their own special little niche within the fantasy world. They give you that knight who can be of any alignment, give you a progressing mount without tying you in to spellcasting, and their unique use of Teamwork feats give them some interesting ways to "buff" the party.
But I noticed there are a lot of people who are extremely dissatisfied with the class, and I was curious to hear the reasons why. Thoughts?
No flying mounts out of the box?
Because the class has a feature called mount and to a lot of people that somehow means that you have to be glued to a saddle (or it is the worst class ever made.) Really that mindset of it having some huge focus on that aspect as opposed to not being just about mounted combat like it really is. You know the type of people who don't actually play the game and just theory craft on the boards.
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.
I both agree and disagree on this. When it comes to simply not using the mount, sure you can have a pretty viable build going. Include the bonus combat feats and your cavalier can have the best damage output of any shield master build in the game. The thing is, I don't see a problem in letting the cavalier have something instead of the mount and mounted combat orientation. Easy fix with an archetype.
Hmm, the last time I had a 'dungeon delving' campaign was...uhm...4 years ago. Well, other than the one I'm in now, which just started. Do players really spend most of their time in dungeons these days?
It is not just dungeons but any fight that takes place inside. Even if mount does not have to squeeze it is hard to charge. Council of Theives made things difficult for my Tiger(not a mount).
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.
Because the class has a feature called mount and to a lot of people that somehow means that you have to be glued to a saddle (or it is the worst class ever made.) Really that mindset of it having some huge focus on that aspect as opposed to not being just about mounted combat like it really is. You know the type of people who don't actually play the game and just theory craft on the boards.
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.
It has sense motive and diplomacy. The other skills are not that good, and 4 skill points is not that many either. It is not bad, but I would not say it is a good amount. Yeah I understand it is a full BAB class.
Yeah you don't have to be tied to the saddle, but that is what some of the class features work around, and if you are not going to use them many people don't see the point in playing one.
Now if you have info the rest of us is missing then provide it, otherwise I will have to go with sound arguments I have heard and my personal experience with large animals.
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.
Ummm ... Reduce Person wouldn't help. The Eidolon 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.
It's a good class in a lot of ways. And you don't need the mount, not in a painful, needy way. But a cavalier in a delving campaign is going to experience some of the same frustration as a bard in a campaign against an evil necromancer, or a barbarian in a swashbuckling court intrigue game.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Ummm ... Reduce Person wouldn't help. The Eidolon is an outsider.
Share Spells is awesome.
| 9 people marked this as a favorite. |
Cavalier is bland and boring. It's based around mounted lance charge (and Mount is *far* from the only class feature geared towards that), which is a very effective style. But holy crap is it boring. That's it. That's the only thing the class does well.
It gets some bs leadership stuff with Tactics, but that's hurt by the inherent stupid restrictions of the class feature itself. The action cost initially is annoying, and WHY must it be bonus teamwork feats only? That means it's basically mandatory for Cavaliers to dip out before 10th level so they can actually share bar none the *best* combat team work feat for them: Coordinated Charge lest they be forced to wait until level seven-freaking-teen to share it. It's just so stupid. There's also the fact that very few combat team work feats are even that good. Inquisitor w/ Solo Tactics does the teamwork thing much better *and* is a full spellcaster with much better skills.
It's hard to hate the cavalier so much as be indifferent towards it. Hate requires at least some minute amount of caring about something to get worked up in the first place. Cavalier is just "meh."
Ummm ... Reduce Person wouldn't help. The Eidolon is an outsider.
Share Spells allows it.
My main complaint with the class is that there aren't more archetypes or alternate features. It is the ONLY class that allows for a functional mount at higher levels, yet it locks you into a fairly narrow mold.
I have a character concept I've been able to rebuild in PF using the cavalier class (beast rider archetype), but I'm not happy that there is not way to swap out the challenge feature to something else, as that feature really doesn't fit the concept and would go unused.
In addition, the orders are kinda random and we need guidelines for building your own.
It is the ONLY class that allows for a functional mount at higher levels....
....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.
You know what becomes kind of important after a while? Flight. Pretty important. I guess you could use Cavalier's non-existent spells to cast flight on your horse and hope it can figure out how 3D maneuvering and such works, though.
It is the ONLY class that allows for a functional mount at higher levels,
Paladin?
yet it locks you into a fairly narrow mold.
This is a problem with the class.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think if there were options to trade your mount out for the class would really shine, the orders let you get some really important class skills . Order of the Dragon being my favorite for class skill Perception and a bonus on survival rivaling a rangers tracking. Free teamwork feats give you a reason to even care that they exist and there are some neat ones. Back to Back, Outflank, and Pack Attack are particularly interesting.
You can have your mount run around with your banner, letting you gain a flat +1 or +2 to things, not unlike a bard. Human cavaliers get even more.
Man, I really think I wanna roll a cavalier now.
I personally think the class is very good, especially at the whole charging thing. However, I will admit it's a bit boring to just charge over and over again. But I've never had a problem with that personally, nor having a Mount get around in a dungeon(usually those you encounter are filled with large creatures so movement isn't bad).
That said I much prefer the Samurai over the Vanilla Cavalier simply because it removes the tactician ability and places less emphasis on the mount while getting a lot of the same kit(orders, challenges, banners) I even like the Sword Saint who gets rid of the mount entirely in exchange for an albeit niche burst move.
I have quite a few issues with the class personally. I think challenge isn't powerful enough, sometimes it can even debilitate you. Also not big on teamwork feats, nor the action economy surrounding tactician. Orders also tend to be a little on the weak side I think, with a few gems that then have a role play restriction.
The mount I don't like much, but if anything its because its not even treated as an animal companion. You don't get many choices of mounts, its highly restrictive, and your combat revolves around this mount. Half of his class features are about charging, even his banner. The mount also doesn't get spells or natural enhancements to help out because it doesn't have spells. You have to buy it items to help it bypass DR or stay viable. Of course, there aren't any archetypes that get rid of the mount and replace it with a nice ability(or at least I don't think so).
Beyond the mount, tactician and smite/order there really isn't much left of the cavalier. I don't like any of its features.
The problem with the Cavalier is it is a very limited class.
A very FRONT-LOADED limited class. Namely, all the abilities worth gaining from the class are in the first 3 levels. Level 1 is a PILE of nice abilities that's worth a dip if you're a mounted-based Fighter or Barbarian. It may be worth the second level if the ability picked is something worthwhile, and the third level is only really worth it if you have a singe large-attack charge-based build. Everything past that is just not worth it compared to other classes. It's a bit how the Ranger was back in 3.0.
That pretty much limits the class in what it can do. Super mass multiplying damage charge build, in which case you need a few levels, or something else where you'd like a free Mount but not lose on BAB, and maybe get a nice fear out of the deal. I can see a ranged Small Gunslinger or the like dipping into it and going with the feats that reduce the attack penalties while it moves (Halfling Sheriff FTW), or even doing that with a more-or-less normal Ranger type just to get a quick way to move about since otherwise your speed is hampered. But that's hardly a "Cavalier" approach, and the reason nobody will stick to that class purely for that purpose is because there are other, better classes for it.
If, however, you want a COOL Mount, it's easier to just go Summoner and customize some crazy outlandish creature to ride upon. If you want to get up close and do lots of melee madness after your charge, you're probably better off with Paladin with possible dips in Fighter. If you want a primary caster with a mount, you just go with the Druid that this class cribs its Mount ability from.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So I personally really like the cavalier. I think they're versatile, mechanically interesting, and fill their own special little niche within the fantasy world. They give you that knight who can be of any alignment, give you a progressing mount without tying you in to spellcasting, and their unique use of Teamwork feats give them some interesting ways to "buff" the party.
But I noticed there are a lot of people who are extremely dissatisfied with the class, and I was curious to hear the reasons why. Thoughts?
The class is excellent. It's one of my favorites. Many posters, or at least some vocal ones, dislike the mounted warrior aspect. 'Cause if it can be optimized in a dungeon, some think it's inferior.
I'm currently playing one in a Kingmaker campaign. I'm thoroughly enjoying it, though I'm using an archetype that doesn't require a mount.
I played a cavalier from level 3 up till level 15. He was a mounted archery cavalier and my horse had Winged Horseshoes (basically Winged Boots) to deal with flight. I did have to spend a trick to allow the horse to learn to fly, but overall it was fun and worth it. The cavalier was useful, both on his mount and off. So no, I don't subscribe to the school of thought that cavaliers are only good at charging.
I played a Samurai in RotRL from levels 5 to 12 - really fun class although the mount didn't see much action until level 7+. My experience with the Samurai is that they make for a striker/tank par excellence. Inside the slower movement due to heavy armor tends to be less of an issue and outside* the mount allows you great battlefield mobility. That said, my opinion is that building solely around charging is a trap**.
* Or in dungeons with large creatures inside them.
** Same goes for Cavalier - most of the Cavalier builds I've put together as alternates to the Samurai involved archetypes that traded away the majority of the charge-specific abilities.
Cavalier is bland and boring. It's based around mounted lance charge (and Mount is *far* from the only class feature geared towards that), which is a very effective style. But holy crap is it boring. That's it. That's the only thing the class does well.
It gets some bs leadership stuff with Tactics, but that's hurt by the inherent stupid restrictions of the class feature itself. The action cost initially is annoying, and WHY must it be bonus teamwork feats only? That means it's basically mandatory for Cavaliers to dip out before 10th level so they can actually share bar none the *best* combat team work feat for them: Coordinated Charge lest they be forced to wait until level seven-freaking-teen to share it. It's just so stupid. There's also the fact that very few combat team work feats are even that good. Inquisitor w/ Solo Tactics does the teamwork thing much better *and* is a full spellcaster with much better skills.
It's hard to hate the cavalier so much as be indifferent towards it. Hate requires at least some minute amount of caring about something to get worked up in the first place. Cavalier is just "meh."
All of the above ^^
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Personally, I'm a fan of the Beast Rider Gendarme. There are few things as awesome as riding a bull into battle like a madman.
You can do that kind of character with a Druid, too.
Hell, you could do a far more effective character but keep the concept if you do that.
You can do that kind of character with a Druid, too.
Hell, you could do a far more effective character but keep the concept if you do that.
How so? Cavaliers have better BAB, martial proficiency, special charging abilities, and bonus feats. I don't see how a Druid helps at all.
Ah, let me rephrase. Lack of sleep made me slip up there.
Ranger and Paladin can do the Cavalier's job better than the Cavalier.
Then again, the Druid is a caster, and that alone beats all the stuff a Cavalier gets.
How so? Cavaliers have better BAB, martial proficiency, special charging abilities, and bonus feats. I don't see how a Druid helps at all.You can do that kind of character with a Druid, too.
Hell, you could do a far more effective character but keep the concept if you do that.
Probably with spells, though you'd have to spend time buffing yourself and depending on the spell, the duration may not last long enough to go through a whole session.
How so? Cavaliers have better BAB, martial proficiency, special charging abilities, and bonus feats. I don't see how a Druid helps at all.You can do that kind of character with a Druid, too.
Hell, you could do a far more effective character but keep the concept if you do that.
The main appeal for the druid charge build is being able to have a broader selection of mounts (including flying ones) and access to some very good buffs.
Ah, let me rephrase. Lack of sleep made me slip up there.
Ranger and Paladin can do the Cavalier's job better than the Cavalier.
Then again, the Druid is a caster, and that alone beats all the stuff a Cavalier gets.
I disagree. The Rangers are great against specific opponents and Paladins are great against evil. The Gendarme is generally useful, and challenge is awesome. And again, special charging attacks. The Beast Rider can even use other animal attacks with various abilities, too. I guess the idea I have for this character, both in mechanics and flavor, is a Cavalier.
Rangers have the same BAB as a Cavalier, same weapon proficiences, but better feats and animal companion.
From what I've seen, Challenge is not that good of an ability. And really, special charge attacks are granted by feats and archetypes.
Though now that you tell me of an idea, please tell me more about it. I'm sure you can pick a better class than Cavalier while sticking to the concept.
Edit: I'd rather say that the Ranger is generally useful, but also especially effective against specific opponents. Also, a Paladin isn't exactly dead weight when fighting neutral enemies.
Well, the basic idea is some kind of burly, heavily armored guy that charges into battle for glory. He'd wear heavy armor and his mount would at least wear medium armor. He'd use a lance (naturally) and rides a bull because they are "powerful animals".
One of the reasons why I think a cavalier fits, flavor wise, is because this character is militaristic. The Ranger and Druid definitely don't fit the bill. And since this guy would be CN, a Paladin doesn't either. I'm welcome to any ideas, though.
You do know that the class alone does not define a character? Rangers can (and sometimes are) rather militaristic too.
This concept can easily be done with a Ranger in heavy-set medium armor, and later switching to something like a Mithril Fullplate.
Don't let the mental image of "forest hippy with bow" stick to you, because not all Rangers are like that, just like not all Rogues are thieves.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Dragoon:
- Lance... check
- Heavy Armor... check
- Bull... could be fluffed, or a special GM allowance
- Militaristic... check
- CN... check
And it does the charge thing even better.
Better feats is questionable, as it depends on what order you choose as a cavalier and obviously what you are focusing on. And the challenge isn't as bad as everyone makes it out to be, as it is less limited by the target and, again, depending on the order chosen, you get a secondary affect. And if a ranger wants their animal companion to be as high a level as the Cavaliers, they will have to spend a feat for Boon Companion (Horse Lord bypasses this, but that's at level 12). I also have seen some good usage of the teamwork feats. I had made good usage of Shake It Off to make up for some lower saves.
And then the spells. The spell are helpful, though your casting is extremely limited and the durations tend to be on the shorter side. So while they are useful, you have to choose wisely on when to use them. Now granted, the ranger has some great saves and a more expanded list of animal companions, although still limited to certain creatures. Also, if you pick the Mounted Combat Style, you can pick up Trick Riding well before level 9, which is nice for ignoring almost all the skill checks on the Ride table and roll to ignore damage to your mount twice. So no, I don't think the ranger is better at mounted combat than the cavalier. I think you could use both honestly, and do it well.
I'd have to get back to you on Paladins though. It's late... and I need to sleep.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Why the cavalier hate?
Because these are the paizo boards and if you're not playing a full caster you obviously don't know how to have fun and should kill yourself.
I don't know what game you're playing, but the Ranger and Paladin in Pathfinder are not full casters.
I don't know what game you're playing, but the Ranger and Paladin in Pathfinder are not full casters.
Nah wasn't referencing your suggestions of either. Was just taking the piss, the forums can be pretty funny about what is "totally unplayable".
And since this guy would be CN, a Paladin doesn't either. I'm welcome to any ideas, though.
That's actually another complaint of mine. "We have cavalier! So paladin doesn't need extra alignments to fit other themes". The existence of the cavalier removes some possible things with other classes. Orders are a roleplaying gig, why is it solely a class feature for one guy? Similarly, they somehow get 4+ skill points but paladin and fighter do not. Tactician itself buffs teamwork feats and makes them viable, if only because it and solo tactics allow teamwork feats to be used without making a plan with your other party members before hand.(and most of the teamwork feats are still Meh.)