Cavalier Vs Fighter (feats) Don't see advantage of Cavalier


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

51 to 100 of 100 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Liberty's Edge

"I decided to play a centaur so I could be both rider and mount when wielding my lance." Do you have to have mounted combat to get: ride by attack and spirited charge with your Centaur. I did see him in the back of the book. too bad can't use him for PFS.

Liberty's Edge

A Samari or Archer in Japan had his bow for a Year before he got any arrows. I don't like to take Neg to hit because I roll bad a lot, on my attack dice or important rolls.

Sovereign Court

Aelryinth wrote:

also, the primary duty of the wakizashi was in seppuku situations, it was hardly ever drawn in combat.

No - it was used as what we would think of as a sidearm. Samurai would leave their katanas at the door when going inside but keep their wakizashis. Also - the katana was probably too long for fighting in close quarters anyway.

There were also a few schools which focused upon it instead of the katana - sort of infighting specialists.

Admittedly - the wakizashi did become a symbol for seppuku - that wasn't their primary function.

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 16

MMM. I've read in more locations that the infighting weapon was the tanto, because it was more reliable. I could see a 'zashi being used by 'police' in place of a longer sword, but for samurai, the tanto was the backup to the katana.

as for schools...there were schools in every weapon under the sun. The 'zashi certainly wouldn't be omitted!

==Aelryinth

Silver Crusade

I played a human cavalier heavily focused on mounted combat (Order of the Sword) from levels 1-12 in PFS. Absolutely a fantastic experience.
Cavalier grants good skills and skill points, so he was great in social situations (if there wasn't a bard, he was the face).
He was probably less effective than a fighter dismounted (but had the social skills), and more effective when mounted.
A ton of mobility feats for the horse (Narrow Frame, Sure Footed, etc.), Wheeling Charge, and some scrolls of Carry Companion for the times when the horse just couldn't go along.
The only thing I would have changed was Tactician; I picked Lookout early and never used it, finally retraining it for Escape Route. The level 9 pick I retrained at 10 into Coordinated Charge, which was fun.
I used the human FCB for banner; might have been nice to do Standard Bearer in order to start applying the FCB at level 1.
The mount itself was okay (especially with the level 8 order ability), but Ivory Goats would be great for a fighter (dragoon, maybe).

Speaking from actual extensive experience, I think it's a great class. I'd happily play one again, but having read the Weapon Master's Handbook, I am psyched for my next PFS character to be a kickass human fighter with longsword and shield.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Serious question here: why do people leave the mounts behind to go underground? Why don't the GMs just make the dungeons bigger?

I've read official Paizo stuff that has the Darklands be big enough for Duergar riding giant spiders and such. Why can't the cavalier bring his horse?

I understand that realistically a horse would not want to go underground which is why Aragorn sent his horse away before Moria but Pathfinder is way more high fantasy. The cavalier horse is supposed to be be basically a super horse. That's why it levels with the cavalier.

Dungeons should be bigger anyway because Cavaliers aren't the only ones with animal buddies. Druid, Hunter, Ranger, and Summoner all have theirs so why shouldn't dungeons be big enough to accommodate them? Unless you're going into a peasant cellar to clear out giant rats then you should be able to handle it.

Sovereign Court

Aelryinth wrote:
MMM. I've read in more locations that the infighting weapon was the tanto, because it was more reliable. I could see a 'zashi being used by 'police' in place of a longer sword, but for samurai, the tanto was the backup to the katana.

The tanto was used in combination with jiu-jutsu against armored targets to get between the plates.

And of course - there were many different schools of combat which changed over time.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

While I consider Cavaliers to be one of weakest and most boring classes in the game... I agree that the size limitations of riding horse are too often blown out of proportion.

There are many problems with the class, but "My horse won't fit in there" rarely matters.... At least any more than a Druid's or Ranger's animal companion and/or Wildshape does.


Larkos wrote:

Serious question here: why do people leave the mounts behind to go underground? Why don't the GMs just make the dungeons bigger?

I've read official Paizo stuff that has the Darklands be big enough for Duergar riding giant spiders and such. Why can't the cavalier bring his horse?

I understand that realistically a horse would not want to go underground which is why Aragorn sent his horse away before Moria but Pathfinder is way more high fantasy. The cavalier horse is supposed to be be basically a super horse. That's why it levels with the cavalier.

Dungeons should be bigger anyway because Cavaliers aren't the only ones with animal buddies. Druid, Hunter, Ranger, and Summoner all have theirs so why shouldn't dungeons be big enough to accommodate them? Unless you're going into a peasant cellar to clear out giant rats then you should be able to handle it.

Thumbs up! If every GM thought like this, nobody would be b%&$~ing about how useless Cavaliers are. However....

The mount is a major issue for the Cav. In an outdoor campaign, no problem. Once a campaign goes underground though, you're screwed unless you're playing a small race, which isn't fun for everybody. Also, they're overly reliant on teamwork feats, which frankly, completely blow.

Personally, I think Fighters are way better than Cavs. Someone said that Rangers and Paladins are the best martial classes and questioned why anyone would ever play another martial class. There are many reasons not to play a Pally or Ranger. Pallys are overly reliant on 1 or 2/day abilities like weapon bond and smite. Also, you're forced to play Awful Good if you're a pally. That may not be for everyone. Rangers core abilities (Favored Enemy, Favored Terrain) require alot of guesswork on the part of the player to make them useful, and if you guess wrong, you're hosed (you took Orc as favored enemy? No orcs in this campaign, have fun sucking!). Also, the combat styles force you into very specific builds, which may not jive with everyone.

Personally, I hate both pallys and rangers with a passion and would never play either. I'd play a Fighter though.


How much of an issue the Cavalier's mount dependency is will definitely be a case of Depending on the GM/Campaign. Which ... is part of the problem. Sure, a good GM will make sure your mount isn't marginalized and your class abilities stay relevant. However, if you play a fighter, you don't have to make sure the GM will work with you to keep your class features relevant to the campaign. The fighter just always has that, as long as there's combat.


Chengar Qordath wrote:
How much of an issue the Cavalier's mount dependency is will definitely be a case of Depending on the GM/Campaign. Which ... is part of the problem.

My experience is that a large companion are prone to causing problems early in APs when you're primarily fighting humanoids and medium-size creatures. Rise of the Runelord's Thistletop or Catacombs of Wrath are decent examples of locations where bringing a horse would be tricky, same goes for most of the dungeons in the first book of Mummy's Mask. Emerald Spire is a good example of a location where the dungeon remains cramped for basically the entire run, likely since they needed to fit each dungeon on a single flip mat. Trying to maneuver a Huge animal companion (go go gadget Animal Growth!) through Emerald Spire is a nightmare.

That said, it's frequently less of a problem later on in the APs both because you acquire the resources needed to bypass situations that could otherwise provide difficult (spider climb, carry companion etc.) and also because the later AP books tends to frequent larger enemies and thus also have larger rooms. Most animal companions don't become large until roughly level 7, by then Spider Climb and Carry Companion are staples. Of course a smart cavalier can avoid this problem by picking the right options (mount with a climb speed and/or the narrow frame feat) but that usually requires a savvy player and/or GM approval. To this day I still don't understand why RAW medium cavaliers can only use camels and horses, it's a huge part of the reason why the classic cavalier advice is "go small or go home".

Finally, the quote from Chengar and the sentiment from HeHate are both good examples of why there are some classes I'm extremely reluctant to play unless I'm confident that the GM and myself will see eye to eye on how to run the class. I can have good fun roleplaying a paladin as long as I trust my GM and we've agreed on how to implement the code of conduct, but I wouldn't dream of sitting down at a random table with a pally.

Edit: Oh, I forgot one thing. Most of my games lately are played on Roll20 using AP maps as scaled-up battle mats. I'd expect the GM to be very reluctant to change the map layout since he'd then need to create the map from scratch rather than use the (mostly) pretty scanned maps Paizo provides.


Aelryinth wrote:

also, the primary duty of the wakizashi was in seppuku situations, it was hardly ever drawn in combat.

If he lost his katana, the samurai was far more likely to go right for his tanto, his knife. The 'zashi was never intended as a serious fighting weapon.

--Aelryinth

Wakizashis were allowed to be used my non-samurai. SO merchants used them frequently as well.

Grand Lodge

HeHateMe wrote:

Personally, I think Fighters are way better than Cavs. Someone said that Rangers and Paladins are the best martial classes and questioned why anyone would ever play another martial class. There are many reasons not to play a Pally or Ranger. Pallys are overly reliant on 1 or 2/day abilities like weapon bond and smite. Also, you're forced to play Awful Good if you're a pally. That may not be for everyone. Rangers core abilities (Favored Enemy, Favored Terrain) require alot of guesswork on the part of the player to make them useful, and if you guess wrong, you're hosed (you took Orc as favored enemy? No orcs in this campaign, have fun sucking!). Also, the combat styles force you into very specific builds, which may not jive with everyone.

Personally, I hate both pallys and rangers with a passion and would never play either. I'd play a Fighter though.

Even though I love Paladins and it's one of my favorite classes and I'm in the minority on loving the Lawful Good alignment restriction, I understand the complaints and have no argument. BUT I think you're way off the Ranger v Fighter thing here.

The Ranger's combat feats are actually more freeing than the Fighter's bonus feats because they don't require prerequisites. For instance, all of the best Archery feats have minimum Dex requirements or that you take other feats you may not want. Ranger gets to skip right over that. For that matter, the Ranger can go TWF without sacrificing an ounce of damage output --- the fighter will HAVE to sacrifice STR for DEX if he wants all of the goodies.

And while the Ranger picking the wrong favored enemy can suck, you get additional ones to choose after you've been playing for a while and even WITHOUT the feature, Rangers still do a fair amount of damage. And have way more skill points. AND spells. Including this one, that will ultimately make the whole wrong favored enemy selection nebulous in actual play.

That being said, I don't think most people say Rangers/Paladins are the only martials worth playing; not while the Barbarian exists, anyway.

The Cavalier needs far more love than it's given. A mount is a pretty powerful option, but it's also way too easily shut out by a petty or unaccommodating GM - especially compared to an Animal Companion, which is still near its max effectiveness when it's not being ridden.


I don't see why every one says that teamwork feats blow. I mean, yeah, there are bad ones. But then there are those that are great.

And the cavalier has the ability to use them, and he has a companion (The mount) who could fairly easily take those as well.

Even when the fighter can now choose solo tactics in place of a feat or a later weapon training lass feature, people were still like "These feats blow. So the new Fighter Tactics blows too."

Though I'll admit, its is confusing when you say 'allies without these feats don't get the benefits' when there are some where you can do something to grant an ally a bonus.

Which I personally would assume would be, the ally cannot do the thing to give you a bonus, but you could do the thing to give them a bonus.


Not to stray off topic, but the issue with teamwork feats is they require very specific positioning on the part of your teammates and the bad guys, and it's my experience that neither the bad guys, nor your teammates, are likely to oblige you.

I've played an Inquisitor for 7 levels, and even with the benefit of Solo Tactics, I think I've used a TW feat a grand total of once. Unfortunately it's extremely easy for a bad guy to avoid being flanked if he/she wants to.

Paizo Employee Design Manager

Teamwork feats are some of the best feats in the game, when you have a class that can capitalize on them. Cavaliers can share their feats with their mount, which can be awesome for things like Escape Route, Coordinated Charge, Pack Flanking, etc. That ability to share TW feats is a pretty big deal, particularly on any class with a good pet that they can leverage to take advantage of the feats, like the Cav or Hunter.


Lemmy wrote:

Both are among the weakest classes in the game. They don't even have an unchained version to keep them relevant.

The real question is... Why play a Fighter or Cavalier instead of a Pladin, Ranger or Slayer? Because people care too much about class names, that's why.

I myself never play an anything anymore. I dip a little here and a little there, treating all the classes like an all-you-can eat buffet piling on a huge tray of Feats, Spells, and Special Abilities to do all kinds of crazy things.

I'll often take a few levels in Fighter if I need to gather Feats quickly.

The thing I like best about Cavaliers is that Tactician Ability combined with the Bonus Teamwork Feat. It seems to me that Paired Opportunist combined with a sensitive Attack of Opportunity trigger can be quite powerful.

Also, I REALLY love the Expert Captor Cavalier Order of the Penitent Ability for when I have a Grappling build.


HeHateMe wrote:

Not to stray off topic, but the issue with teamwork feats is they require very specific positioning on the part of your teammates and the bad guys, and it's my experience that neither the bad guys, nor your teammates, are likely to oblige you.

I've played an Inquisitor for 7 levels, and even with the benefit of Solo Tactics, I think I've used a TW feat a grand total of once. Unfortunately it's extremely easy for a bad guy to avoid being flanked if he/she wants to.

Well if the Teamwork feats are a big point of the Cavalier, I don't think analyzing them is entirely off topic.

Cause if you break down the Cavalier its

Mount
Charge
Teamwork
Challenge

Obviously the biggest problem with the mount is that most of the game assumes you to be unmounted.

Charging is only gonna be something that typically happens once in combat.

Challange kinda is suppose to, i guess, be what you use after you charge, perhaps even after you teamwork.

And teamwork is what you do when you have allies.

Since Cavaliers get a few teamwork feats.. Wait a moment. Are they flipping serious? Just wow.

Okay, its not until level 17 that the Cavalier can use any other teamwork feat beyond the one he picked up with tactician and improved tactician. If you ask me, that is pretty silly there since Tactician has such few uses per day.


Darche Schneider wrote:

Well if the Teamwork feats are a big point of the Cavalier, I don't think analyzing them is entirely off topic.

Cause if you break down the Cavalier its

Mount
Charge
Teamwork
Challenge

Obviously the biggest problem with the mount is that most of the game assumes you to be unmounted.

Charging is only gonna be something that typically happens once in combat.

Challange kinda is suppose to, i guess, be what you use after you charge, perhaps even after you teamwork.

And teamwork is what you do when you have allies.

Since Cavaliers get a few teamwork feats.. Wait a moment. Are they flipping serious? Just wow.

Okay, its not until level 17 that the Cavalier can use any other teamwork feat beyond the one he picked up with tactician and improved tactician. If you ask me, that is pretty silly there since Tactician has such few uses per day.

Hence, a huge part of why I hate them they are unfocused and their class features suck at what they are suppose to do. I'd rather just take the few teamwork feats worthwhile outright.

Scarab Sages

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Darche Schneider wrote:
HeHateMe wrote:

Not to stray off topic, but the issue with teamwork feats is they require very specific positioning on the part of your teammates and the bad guys, and it's my experience that neither the bad guys, nor your teammates, are likely to oblige you.

I've played an Inquisitor for 7 levels, and even with the benefit of Solo Tactics, I think I've used a TW feat a grand total of once. Unfortunately it's extremely easy for a bad guy to avoid being flanked if he/she wants to.

Well if the Teamwork feats are a big point of the Cavalier, I don't think analyzing them is entirely off topic.

Cause if you break down the Cavalier its

Order
Mount
Charge
Teamwork
Challenge

Obviously the biggest problem with the mount is that most of the game assumes you to be unmounted.

Charging is only gonna be something that typically happens once in combat.

Challange kinda is suppose to, i guess, be what you use after you charge, perhaps even after you teamwork.

And teamwork is what you do when you have allies.

Since Cavaliers get a few teamwork feats.. Wait a moment. Are they flipping serious? Just wow.

Okay, its not until level 17 that the Cavalier can use any other teamwork feat beyond the one he picked up with tactician and improved tactician. If you ask me, that is pretty silly there since Tactician has such few uses per day.

You skipped one. The most important part of the Cavalier. XD

Now, I'm not saying it's perfect, but Cavaliers are awesome, have plenty of archetypes and orders that drastically boost those things they are lacking (Beast Rider, anyone?), and get lots of cool, knightly flavor in their abilities.

Dark Archive

After looking over the two classes, I'd have to lean Cavalier over Fighter. Animal Companions, even ones from a crippled list, offer a lot of options in combat. Flank buddies are nice, and the added mobility of a mount helps in dealing with limited speed. Charging for one huge hit is a nice answer to the conundrum of the melee fighter's problem of getting into range to full attack next round, only to eat a full attack in the interim. Challenge is a great "this needs to die" button, and orders offer mechanical benefits AND great roleplaying hooks for the character. Tactitian, sometimes seen as a vestigial ability, doesn't really 'cost' the class much to have and can lead to some fancy builds if you've got the party.

Meanwhile, the Fighter does have a bit more accuracy and damage than a non-charging Cavalier thanks to their weapon specialties, but a few flat number boosts can only add so much to a bland chasis. Two plus Int Mod skill points on a non Int-based class is something that bothers me to no end, and I'm glad that Paizo has mostly moved past this handicap when expanding out of core. Feats are great, but the Cavalier can lock down their build by level 5, they don't NEED the extra feats.

Archetypes throw a wrench into this comparison, as the Fighter switch it up and replace so many features that they're effectively a different class. But there you go: they're effectively a different class.


Surprised nobody mentioned Huntmaster Cavalier -- trades out Mount for a Bird or Dog Animal Companion that is highly likely to fit wherever you can, and that shares the benefits of your Challenge as well as your Teamwork feats (although unfortunately, your Tactician ability is weakened so that it does not work on your other allies), and your Animal Companion gets the ability to do some decent combat maneuvers after attacking successfully to do damage (rather than have to choose between damage or combat maneuver). I saw one in a Curse of the Crimson Throne PbP (this AP has a LOT of action in spaces too small for any mount suitable for a Medium character) who was doing pretty well and was sort of the de facto leader of the party until the player dropped out.

Daring Champion was already mentioned above as a pretty good Cavalier archetype that replaces the mount, although in this case without an Animal Companion.

Musketeer also replaces the mount, but it looks like a pretty lackluster archetype.


I honestly didn't want to take part in this since I want to see the cavalier get more nice things.

But, the roasting seems to be getting a bit much (comparing to a fighter seriously?).

So I feel it's necessary to defend my boy.

The first thing to consider is that cavalier's are the only full bab class with a full animal companion. No investment required.

Second, you don't have to focus on mounted chargining. Mounted combat even without charging provides a lot of benefits by itself. Soemthing I've demonstrated multiple times as I ride on top of an ironclad steed doling out the beats with multiple ways to utterly avoid damage. It's easy to play your mount as a crotch rocket or powerful charger but try playing one as a bulldozer. Surprisingly fun and easy.

This in mind that puts action advantage in favor of the cavalier before archetypes. Eldritch guardian evens it out and going mountless will do that as well. Fighters always have had good consistent numbers there's no argument there but that's not why fighters are considered weak.

Personally I'm in favor of keeping it, going huntmaster, or even better going Esquire.

Even before UC I determined that a T-Rex mounted order of the sword human cavalier was one of the hardest hitting characters you can get. If I ran the numbers now including new options I imagine they'd only get bigger.

Garbage? Lich, please.

Cavaliers have issues, certainly, but it's mostly an image problem.

The biggest real problem has to do with dependency on the campaign, but let's be honesty with ourselves if your GM isn't being straightforward with you about the sort of campaign he/she intends to run you either shouldn't play or at least play something where you won't be caught off guard by the GM's love of ladders and tiny spaces.

The rest is mostly a question of exploring options and the normal caster/martial disparity stuff.


Ok I gotta admit, that esquire archetype is pretty awesome.

Dark Archive

I'd ay give em some more abilities when off the horse possibly, I don't know, maybe, banana.


TarkXT wrote:
The first thing to consider is that cavalier's are the only full bab class with a full animal companion. No investment required.

But that's not very good.

If animal companions were hard to come by, or if all the Mounts were as good as Ghost Rider the class would be better. As stands the investment to get a pet keyed to character level is exteremly low. And for Martials multiclassing (generally) is advisable.


The Mortonator wrote:
TarkXT wrote:
The first thing to consider is that cavalier's are the only full bab class with a full animal companion. No investment required.

But that's not very good.

If animal companions were hard to come by, or if all the Mounts were as good as Ghost Rider the class would be better. As stands the investment to get a pet keyed to character level is exteremly low. And for Martials multiclassing (generally) is advisable.

It's still something, and one of many things that makers them extremely effective in the early levels. I've only had the same experience with Hunters who are arguably better than a lot of classes anyway.

That pets aren't hard to come by isn't much of an argument when talking the same design space as all the others have to wait for their pet or spend a feat to make it work. That's fine for some, bad for others, so the actual value of investment depends on what and how you're doing it so extremely low is fairly relative, particularly when you're talking about getting into big flying mounts.

Ghost Rider is pretty sweet, but also not the only option available to you. Beast rider grants more options.

If you want to invest in feats you can grab monstrous mount or something similar. Half orc's can spend a feat and flat out grab an elephant at 7th level.

You can get cheeky with Esquire and ride around on a hunter companion or similar.

Honestly I'm less inclined to call the cavalier bad as the design outdated. With no hunter or a plethora of other more recent options to compare to the base cavalier is fine even if team work feats require thought and cooperation.

When you start looking at the later options, companion archetypes, feat investment to expand options, more magic items for mounts in particular, archetypes that expand and contract things the class is pretty reminiscent of the core monk who had lots of options not really synergistic (Cavalier's abilities are actually quite synergistic which is why its cringe worthy to rate them individually without considering their full interactions) but could be quite potent with the right archetypes.

So not garbage. Not great, but loaded with potential in the right hands. If it had a spell list of any flavor it'd probably considered just right from a lot of angles.

Silver Crusade

Charon's Little Helper wrote:
Chengar Qordath wrote:
It's one of the reasons why there's been a lot of requests for mount-less Cavalier archetypes.
I thought that's part of what Samurai was. It's a Cavalier who gets out of, and is therefore less dependent upon, their mount. (Seems like asking for a rogue archetype who can go invis several times a day.)

You mean the huntmaster (I think that's what it's called) who gets hawks and hounds (and could focus on one if they saw fit)

Liberty's Edge

Thank you for all of your input. There is so much to take in. I would like to start a new PC for game Cons playing PFS games. Never the same Group or GM. I do get a basic choice on adventure. but situations change. The only mounted PC I have traveled with (in PFS) were small riding dogs.
Some Archetypes are cool but they always take away a Core part of the Cavalier.
My PF RPG games always top out at 7th level. Most players do Dip into ranger. I see a lot of Archer Rangers in PFS.
Thanks TarkXT for the guides.-David

Liberty's Edge

PFS must have the book to use the information. It's hard to keep up, when PFS is only 2 cons a year. PF RPG GM limits books. :(
I am considering Hiring a GM for a few games.
To have your mount have a Class?


TarkXT wrote:
That pets aren't hard to come by isn't much of an argument when talking the same design space as all the others have to wait for their pet or spend a feat to make it work. That's fine for some, bad for others, so the actual value of investment depends on what and how you're doing it so extremely low is fairly relative, particularly when you're talking about getting into big flying mounts.

I will totally agree for low levels, but past lvl 6-8 how easy it is to get pets absolutely becomes relevent. The Cavalier feels like it has that cost build into the class, except the desiner rated it on par with a small spell list.

TarkXT wrote:
team work feats require thought and cooperation.

Strongly disagree. They require a redesign. Brawler's Exemplar and the Constable put together is what Tactician should look like from the onset or at least from lvl 5.

TarkXT wrote:
When you start looking at the later options, companion archetypes, feat investment to expand options, more magic items for mounts in particular, archetypes that expand and contract things the class is pretty reminiscent of the core monk who had lots of options not really synergistic (Cavalier's abilities are actually quite synergistic..

But the base class abilities don't syngerize at all. Teamworm, Banner, Charge, Mount, it has no focus besides "coordinated charging," and quite frankly that's not my idea of tactical depth so much as suicide.


a cavalier need a bit more Focus over a fighter - that can easy go toward 2 options.
if you want to rule the mounted field like no other?
Emissary, small race and beast master lead toward a super charger by level 5 - non other can get there so fast.

a Tank - small race (once more.) halfling, wolf, full plate and team feats shared, deflection attacks - great AC, reach and movement.

a damage no charger? to human or 1/2 orc, and either beast rider with "undersized mount " feat or the archetype with a hound over a mount - for a flanking body. you will have less room for maneuvers - but STR, power attack, full BAB, some spike smites, a full companion, order (of the cockatrice for another +2/+2) and your to hit and damage are more than any fighter out there, with more skills...
take a Samurai - and the damage go even more.

a Fighter has it's up side only if you want to master 2-3 maneuvers - that are very feat intense.


To people proposing taking the horse into a dungeon,

Most halls are 5' wide, which a horse can easily squeeze down. Take the feat narrow frame on them and they do not even need to take penalties for squeezing.

Most rooms also open up to give the horse more room in most combat situation.

Carry companion lets you pokeball your mount for the really tight spaces.

I have never had problems getting my axe beak through a dungeon designed for medium/small sized people.


666bender wrote:
a damage no charger? to human or 1/2 orc, and either beast rider with "undersized mount " feat {. . .}

Every time I see somebody mention Undersized Mount (or read the feat itself), I get this flashback to an ad I saw a few years ago shown before movie trailers, for a graphics card or a new console system (I forgot which), that started with this scene of a motorcycle race consisting of really fat men riding on kid's motorscooters . . . .


Mahtobedis wrote:

To people proposing taking the horse into a dungeon,

Most halls are 5' wide, which a horse can easily squeeze down. Take the feat narrow frame on them and they do not even need to take penalties for squeezing.

Most rooms also open up to give the horse more room in most combat situation.

Carry companion lets you pokeball your mount for the really tight spaces.

I have never had problems getting my axe beak through a dungeon designed for medium/small sized people.

the issue isnt about entering, you are small cause than the whole mount take a single square place and charges are fairly easy.

narrow frame allow entering but stop the charges...

Liberty's Edge

The spell "Carry Companion" seems good but I can't find it in the spell index. What book? class? ect. is it.

Liberty's Edge

Answer to why some buildings are too small for the mounts. Depending on the AP sometimes they simply cannot fit. In one AP your supposed to enter a tree that is inhabited by Mites. Which are small. Hard enough to fit in the average adventuring party. Good luck trying to fit in a medium sized mount. Depending on the style of game I want to run without APs. I simply don't feel I like it. As well it also depends on the environment most of the campaign will be in. Out in nature not a problem. In a urban style game set in a city. I'm not going to resize every room so that a mount can fit. I'm upfront about what I'm willing to do. Yet if a player insists on playing a Cavalier with mount in a city. Where room sizes are not guaranteed fit for most mounts. It's on him.

Sovereign Court

Of course - if you want an even better mount than a cavalier gets which can fit anywhere - just be a halfling fighter and make sure that you have a dwarven barbarian buddy. For a slight penalty to ride checks you can just ride him!

The dwarven barbarian also benefits by the protection you give him with Mounted Combat and the likely higher initiative you give him. (Rules state that both go at the rider's initiative.) Though the barbarian should consider a reach weapon, at least until you get ride-by attack.

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 16

Is there a feat the dwarf barb can take to be trained as a mount? Cause I don't see one...I know there's a template you can apply, but I'm pretty sure it's not allowed to PC's.

==Aelryinth

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 16

Val'Ross the explorer wrote:
The spell "Carry Companion" seems good but I can't find it in the spell index. What book? class? ect. is it.

http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic/all-spells/c/carry-companion

Knights of the Inner Sea. Level 2 spell.

==Aelryinth


Val'Ross the explorer wrote:
The spell "Carry Companion" seems good but I can't find it in the spell index. What book? class? ect. is it.

Carry Companion is from Knights of the Inner Sea.

If you're interested in ways to make companions and mounts less cumbersome you could consider granting the Figurine of the Concealed Companion as a class feature to classes that get animal companions. It's a metagame artifact designed specifically to solve the "how the heck do I get my horse down this ladder"-type situations. It's a great quality of life-upgrade for classes like the cavalier.

Liberty's Edge

I have decided to go Human. I like the extra feat. I am going to start with 1 level of Fighter to get all 3 feats: Mounted Combat,Ride by attack and spirited charge. {I know I would be a level behind but the Archetypes always take away something important. The Cavalier Should start with Mounted combat or not require it to move on in Feats}

At 3 HD I will work on melee combat.
Order of the Dragon: I need the + to hit and Perception is Important.
Sword and Board when not using the lance. I will have a shield with the lance.

A narrow frame Horse. and hopefully the Carry Companion ability. Scroll or wound to give to a spell caster. The Figurine would be out of my price range.
Can a Cleric use a (Druid/Ranger/Paladin) Wound?
Thanks

Liberty's Edge

Sorry my spelling stinks,when tired. WANDS


A cleric can use a wand that has a spell on his casting list. That could also be on the list of another class but he can't use it unless it's on his list OR he has the skill use magic device up to a decent amount. He can then trick the wand into thinking he has a different list (for all intents and purposes) and as such use it then as if he had a list with the spell on it.

For instance a wizard can't use cure light spells. A bard can. A Rouge could pretend he did of he had the skill and as such could use the wand with a roll.


memorax wrote:
Answer to why some buildings are too small for the mounts. Depending on the AP sometimes they simply cannot fit. In one AP your supposed to enter a tree that is inhabited by Mites. Which are small. Hard enough to fit in the average adventuring party. Good luck trying to fit in a medium sized mount. Depending on the style of game I want to run without APs. I simply don't feel I like it. As well it also depends on the environment most of the campaign will be in. Out in nature not a problem. In a urban style game set in a city. I'm not going to resize every room so that a mount can fit. I'm upfront about what I'm willing to do. Yet if a player insists on playing a Cavalier with mount in a city. Where room sizes are not guaranteed fit for most mounts. It's on him.

Right but remember Rule Zero. It can actually benefit the player. I know, I didn't believe it either but I've seen it happen.

Just because the AP says it's small doesn't mean the GM can't make it bigger.

As for horses in the city, the ranger has his Gorilla and the Summoner has his Huge, three-headed Machamp with wing-tentacles and five asses saunter in everywhere so why not something as mundane as a horse?

That said if you're upfront that the campaign is gonna be Urban and that's going to affect anyone with a pet then that's at least being fair.


I think the issue is an exaggerated one, or at least when not exaggerated, more of an OOC issue. I mean, if you're playing a cavalier and the GM is constantly making it hard for you to function, that's not purely a class issue. It's like arguing wizards are bad because your spellbook gets destroyed or a build focusing on a specific weapon is bad because the GM can disarm and sunder you to high hell.

Yeah, those are things that can happen and those are weaknesses you'll have to deal with, but if they're omnipresent and overbearing concerns the problem is likely somewhere else entirely.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
swoosh wrote:

I think the issue is an exaggerated one, or at least when not exaggerated, more of an OOC issue. I mean, if you're playing a cavalier and the GM is constantly making it hard for you to function, that's not purely a class issue. It's like arguing wizards are bad because your spellbook gets destroyed or a build focusing on a specific weapon is bad because the GM can disarm and sunder you to high hell.

Yeah, those are things that can happen and those are weaknesses you'll have to deal with, but if they're omnipresent and overbearing concerns the problem is likely somewhere else entirely.

It's also not exactly difficult to overcome.

My mounted hunter does just fine getting off the mount and swinging her hammer.

Before that I had a beast rider who sworded things most of the time.

People get hung up on the mounted charging without understanding the rest of the class. Only 3 levels out of twenty deal with mounted charging and those three are the most commonly traded with archetypes.

Liberty's Edge

I play PFS and my oldest, highest character is a cleric 9th level. Our PF RPG group topped out at 7th level. (the GM had us roll 2 characters)He stopped the high level group and we are going to now play our other 1st levels.( looking forward to a female gnome druid with a gnome Wiz in the group)
Most adventures are Fixed/Set in stone. {The GM threw in a maze/trap area where the Horses could not go. Had to set them free.} I don't think PFS GM could change anything.
When I played 2nd ed. D&D the highest I got was a 18th level Magic user and that was after years of play.
I stopped looking at stats above 10th level. Although DunDraCon in NorCal. is going to have a 13-15 level game.

I don't like Archetypes. They seem to take away a Core aspect of the class.

My 7th level fighter was a combat reflex,(reach) Power attack/cleave, Then I went mounted Knight (When I needed to close with long range archers )next he is going for Archery skills.
I understand the downfall of "1 trick pony's".


TarkXT wrote:
swoosh wrote:

I think the issue is an exaggerated one, or at least when not exaggerated, more of an OOC issue. I mean, if you're playing a cavalier and the GM is constantly making it hard for you to function, that's not purely a class issue. It's like arguing wizards are bad because your spellbook gets destroyed or a build focusing on a specific weapon is bad because the GM can disarm and sunder you to high hell.

Yeah, those are things that can happen and those are weaknesses you'll have to deal with, but if they're omnipresent and overbearing concerns the problem is likely somewhere else entirely.

It's also not exactly difficult to overcome.

My mounted hunter does just fine getting off the mount and swinging her hammer.

Before that I had a beast rider who sworded things most of the time.

People get hung up on the mounted charging without understanding the rest of the class. Only 3 levels out of twenty deal with mounted charging and those three are the most commonly traded with archetypes.

its not that, charging take so much of the feats and plans - like archery - if you cant use it you are apower attacking on a mount - nice but noot great.

and after level 11+ mounted skirmisher gets as good as charging any how.
i like the halfling total armor on a decent mount. i chrage sometimes but mostly tank and share my team feats around.
i dip 4 hunter as well for key spells like reduce animal, barkskin and sharing team feats with mount...


TarkXT wrote:

It's also not exactly difficult to overcome.

My mounted hunter does just fine getting off the mount and swinging her hammer.

Before that I had a beast rider who sworded things most of the time.

People get hung up on the mounted charging without understanding the rest of the class. Only 3 levels out of twenty deal with mounted charging and those three are the most commonly traded with archetypes.

I'm with TarkXT on this one. I had a blast with a hobgoblin fell rider archetype that skipped the Lance completely and used the mobility of the mount to set up flanking opportunities and grant our fighter (and my 3 INT horse) outflank. We killed a CR16 creature in one round at level 10 thanks to a couple of lucky criticals that chained into eachother. We were supposed to run from the encounter but didn't know that until after the thing was dead. The rest of the time I tried to bullrush opponents to trigger AoOs and keep them shaken with free intimidate checks. The class has more options than just charging.

51 to 100 of 100 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / Cavalier Vs Fighter (feats) Don't see advantage of Cavalier All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.