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


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

1 to 50 of 100 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I am looking over the Cavalier and just don't get it. If he is a mounted terror, why doesn't he start with the Mounted Combat feat?
Besides the advantage of a mount, which is great. A fighter can get the skills via feats at each level. I have not gotten past 10th level, so lets keep it lower level.
I am playing 2 mounted knights, 2 different games. First is just fighter: mounted combat, ride by attack,spirited charge. Challenge does get better at higher levels. Banners help on the Charge. But if you don't have the ride by attack , you only charge 1 then you are in combat.
I know I am missing something. I like humans but when I get a mount, It has to be left behind when we go underground. GM make it difficult to enter with the mount.
would love some build ideas. Halfling would be great.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

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.


A mounted cavalier gets an actual mount that can survive being stabbed once by a goblin and levels up with the player, including having it's own feats an BaB for attacks. Some orders are very very potent.

But yeah, I don't think summoner or barbarian or even monk(thanks to ultimate combat and magic) needed unchained variants, but fighter and cavalier did.

Scarab Sages

3 people marked this as a favorite.

Um, I think like most people that make this comparison, you've forgotten how dramatic Order choice can be for a Cavalier. From the best Aid Another in the game to AoO's stopping movement Order abilities are exceedingly awesome. If you're looking for Halfling stuff, check out the Order of the Paw. It's pretty darn good.


Val'Ross the explorer wrote:
But if you don't have the ride by attack , you only charge 1 then you are in combat.

I guess pounce isn't nice either. You have one charge, and then you are in combat. No body wants an ability like that.

Now, for being less sarcastic- Looking at the fighter, you might have room for the feats that are the heart of a good reach build (remember- you area reach build with a lance)- lunge and pushing assault.

With lunge, you can attack from 5' further away. With pushing assault, you can push the enemy back 5' after your attack. That gives you an extra 5'. 5+5=10=enough room for a charge.

That is, if the enemy doesn't approach you first. But as I was being sarcastic about- THE LANCE STUFF, LIKE POUNCE, IS VALUBALE SINCE IT KEEPS YOUR DPR UP WHEN YOU HAVE TO MOVE. If the enemy approaches you, then you can just full attack- most martials have decent enough DPR when you full attack. Since you have a 2 handed weapon, you are using the standard for decent DPR.

Oh, and again- you are a reach build. So please grab lunge- even without the silly trick I suggested, lunge is a fantastic maneuvering feat for you. With it, when you end your charge, enemies ahve to move 10' and cross your line to get to you. That means free attacks. Maybe 2, if you have a fortuitous weapon. Because those free attacks are the reason why the enemies ahve to consider whether or not to come at you- do they attack, and then eat attacks and wait for your full attack, or do they try to attack someone else, and then wait for your charging lance to impale them through their backs?

So what is great about mounted combat with a lance? It can give enemies the classic "come and get me" barbarian problem. Attack me and die, or attack someone else and die.

(other note- pushing assault si also still useful for reach even if you aren't doing the silly thing mentioned above; pushing assault lets you reset an enemy back into position for more reach AoOs. Grabbing this and lunge means that you have few problems, even if your GM messes with your mount. All glory to the longspear, for your infinite mercy to us allows for infinite punishment to enemies.)

Liberty's Edge

Val'Ross the explorer wrote:

I am looking over the Cavalier and just don't get it. If he is a mounted terror, why doesn't he start with the Mounted Combat feat?

Besides the advantage of a mount, which is great. A fighter can get the skills via feats at each level. I have not gotten past 10th level, so lets keep it lower level.
I am playing 2 mounted knights, 2 different games. First is just fighter: mounted combat, ride by attack,spirited charge. Challenge does get better at higher levels. Banners help on the Charge. But if you don't have the ride by attack , you only charge 1 then you are in combat.
I know I am missing something. I like humans but when I get a mount, It has to be left behind when we go underground. GM make it difficult to enter with the mount.
would love some build ideas. Halfling would be great.

Pladin, Ranger or Slayer?: Paladin needs Chr stat. Warriors need;Str,con,dex also.Rangers make great archers, in the group already. Slayer not allowed by GM Adv.PG ,race guide only.

Liberty's Edge

sarcastic is fine. at least you gave helpful input.


Val'Ross the explorer wrote:
I know I am missing something. I like humans but when I get a mount, It has to be left behind when we go underground. GM make it difficult to enter with the mount.

That is, in my experience, the biggest problem that the Cavalier and any other mounted character run into. I really think nobody should play a mounted character before first asking the GM if that's going to work in the campaign. Because the Cavalier does kind of suck without their mount. It's one of the reasons why there's been a lot of requests for mount-less Cavalier archetypes.

Liberty's Edge

I always lose A of O to the 5' step. With a 10' reach I have 1 square between me and the opponent. With the 5' step, they safely enter the empty square and attack me. Is my GM and my understanding wrong?. I was looking things up in the rules and can't find the range examples.

Liberty's Edge

So the Cavalier is a Druid/Bard? I look at the pictures and read the Fluff and get the wrong impression.


Let's see here.... Azata-Blooded Aasimar Daring Champion Cavalier of the Order of the Cockatrice, using that lovely favored class bonus to get more challenge damage. At level 4 alone, that is a grand total of +2 from order, +4 from Challenge, +4 from precise strike (+8 with Panache spent), +1 from FCB. This means you get a grand total extra of +11 to your damage without dex added in there too. If you really want something to die, you use a panache point to up it to +19. It only goes up from there.


Val'Ross the explorer wrote:
So the Cavalier is a Druid/Bard? I look at the pictures and read the Fluff and get the wrong impression.

I'd say more nerfed Paladin than Druid/Bard. Cavalier has several abilities that I would probably categorize into multiple groups:

Mounted Combat:
Mount
Expert Trainer
Cavalier's Charge/Mighty Charge/Supreme Charge

Tactical Combatant:
Tactician/Greater Tactician/Master Tactician

Paladin 2.0:
Challenge/Demanding Challenge
Mount

All of the above:
Banner/Greater Banner
Order (Depending on the order)

Mount is a big part of the Cavalier. It's more akin to the Ranger or Paladin mount than the Druid mount, although you get it at the same level as the Druid. There are no other similarities with the Druid besides the mount. Banner/Greater Banner bears faint resemblance to the Bard's Inspire Courage, but more so to the Paladin's Aura of Courage. The Order requirements are similar to the Paladin's code of conduct, although the Order gives unique abilities that Paladins don't get. Challenge is basically a non-aligned Smite in a weaker form.


Val'Ross the explorer wrote:

I always lose A of O to the 5' step. With a 10' reach I have 1 square between me and the opponent. With the 5' step, they safely enter the empty square and attack me. Is my GM and my understanding wrong?. I was looking things up in the rules and can't find the range examples.

So your AOO range is something like:

_._.N.N.N._._
_.N.X.X.X.N._
N.X._._._.X.N
N.X_you_X.N
N.X._._._.X.N
_.N.X.X.X.N._
_._.N.N.N._._

You threaten all the squares marked X. You should keep your enemies in all the squares marked N, 15 feet away, so that they need to move 10 or more feet to get to you- they can't 5-foot step in, and have to bite an AOO to get to you.


i think you missed on MANY OPTIONS a cavalier has. it is one of the best melee class in the game, right after barbarians.

halfing order of the dragon, helpful build.
dip 3 into hunter for team feats that work on the mount as well.
you can give nice team feats to all the team, have super armor class, aid another for +8 , not even in your turn (swift aid, bodyguard), have free AOO with teaming your mount and still do ok damage.

another option, take 2 feats of monstrous mount for a flyer.
order of the sword and charge for 1 charge = 1 dead foe.
cant charge? your narrow frame -flyer- and you are still doing better then any fighter.

only rangers i like more...


Val'Ross the explorer wrote:

I always lose A of O to the 5' step. With a 10' reach I have 1 square between me and the opponent. With the 5' step, they safely enter the empty square and attack me. Is my GM and my understanding wrong?. I was looking things up in the rules and can't find the range examples.

If you are moving to ten feet away on your turn to attack them on your turn, then you get the first attack, but they get to 5' step on their turn and full attack you without an AoO. However, there are other circumstances when the AoO comes into play.

For example, ready an action to attack them and let them come to you. You get a readied attack as they move into your threat range, you get an AoO as they move adjacent to you, and then they get only one attack because they moved.

If you can trip them on the AoO, they won't even make it adjacent to you.

Or use a Ride-By-Attack and move out of their step-reach.

Or use Lunge and attack them at 15' range.


or, mount move 1 move - you attack (once or full with mounted skirmisher), than mount ready his other action to move if someone get closer....


Chengar Qordath wrote:
Val'Ross the explorer wrote:
I know I am missing something. I like humans but when I get a mount, It has to be left behind when we go underground. GM make it difficult to enter with the mount.
That is, in my experience, the biggest problem that the Cavalier and any other mounted character run into. I really think nobody should play a mounted character before first asking the GM if that's going to work in the campaign. Because the Cavalier does kind of suck without their mount. It's one of the reasons why there's been a lot of requests for mount-less Cavalier archetypes.

One could also go with the Ghost Rider archetype in Occult Adventures. If there's a space your mount can't fit into, just put it inside your brain until the gap widens a bit.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Val'Ross the explorer wrote:

I am looking over the Cavalier and just don't get it. If he is a mounted terror, why doesn't he start with the Mounted Combat feat?

Besides the advantage of a mount, which is great. A fighter can get the skills via feats at each level. I have not gotten past 10th level, so lets keep it lower level.
I am playing 2 mounted knights, 2 different games. First is just fighter: mounted combat, ride by attack,spirited charge. Challenge does get better at higher levels. Banners help on the Charge. But if you don't have the ride by attack , you only charge 1 then you are in combat.
I know I am missing something. I like humans but when I get a mount, It has to be left behind when we go underground. GM make it difficult to enter with the mount.
would love some build ideas. Halfling would be great.

Cavaliers are one-trick ponies, frankly. As far as a mounted charger goes, they do insane damage. Otherwise? Not so much.

The Exchange

Challenge and an animal companion. Samurai have resolve as well.

When you cannot charge you and your horse can probably full attack.

Edit: don't forget your mount gets feats too. Just get feats to charge through enemies.


Val'Ross the explorer wrote:
Val'Ross the explorer wrote:

I am looking over the Cavalier and just don't get it. If he is a mounted terror, why doesn't he start with the Mounted Combat feat?

Besides the advantage of a mount, which is great. A fighter can get the skills via feats at each level. I have not gotten past 10th level, so lets keep it lower level.
I am playing 2 mounted knights, 2 different games. First is just fighter: mounted combat, ride by attack,spirited charge. Challenge does get better at higher levels. Banners help on the Charge. But if you don't have the ride by attack , you only charge 1 then you are in combat.
I know I am missing something. I like humans but when I get a mount, It has to be left behind when we go underground. GM make it difficult to enter with the mount.
would love some build ideas. Halfling would be great.

Pladin, Ranger or Slayer?: Paladin needs Chr stat. Warriors need;Str,con,dex also.Rangers make great archers, in the group already. Slayer not allowed by GM Adv.PG ,race guide only.

Paladins only need STR and CHA. They are less MAD than fighters by a long shot. Rangers make a good fighter replacement, regardless of "role" (archer or melee), but also have spells and class abilities and skill points.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Yea there are a couple of things you are not seeing. The first is cavaliers challenge. Adding your level to damage even a limited times per day is very good, and each order gives an additional benefit. At low level this may not seem all that good, but once you get past 5th level it becomes very good. At high levels it becomes even better.

Second is the ability to grant your allies your teamwork feats. Teamwork feats are usually ignored unless you are an inquisitor. The cavalier can give the whole party the teamwork feat. Take shake it off for a bonus to all saves.

You are also forgetting about the order abilities some of which can be very useful. Being able to grant all allies within 30 of you your CHA bonus to hit and damage is something a fighter cannot do.

While a fighter can use feats to gain bonus for skills, but this uses up his feats so he ends up not being able to use them for other things. Also cavaliers not only get more skill points they get more class skills and have all the important social skills.

Where a cavalier shines is in single combat. If you need to take down a tough opponent by melee combat no other class except maybe a paladin will be a better champion. Unlike the paladin the cavalier is not limited by the alignment of his opponent. The cavalier does equally well vs a good opponent as he does an evil one. A 10th level cavalier will easily defeat a 10th level fighter in single combat.


Because the Dashing Champion Cavalier w order of the flame by level 10 deals at least 1d6+20 points of damage per attack at 18+ crit, with no magic, stat, feat, or glorious challenge adjustments.

Sovereign Court

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.)

Liberty's Edge

Thank you for your input. Thanks "My self" for the diagram of battle field control. I looked through the books last night, (Insomnia)No diagrams of Reach weapons.
Mourge40K: " Azata-Blooded Aasimar Daring Champion" Is in the adv race guide? I have only played humans. (btw you play 40k?;Space wolves rule!!)

I want to start a new character for the convention season.I Play PFS at Game cons,which has limited the "other" races. No more Azata-Blooded Aasimar unless already level 1.

Sovereign Court

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.)

*note - I meant 'gets less out of' - but too late to edit*


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.

Resolve is nice, but the Samurai still gets a mount and a couple mount-focused class features. That's still a long way away from not having a mount or any mount-related abilities.


Yes you may be thinking sword saint. So no real change. Archtype of one or the other to lose the mount.

The cavalier may be a one trick pony but it's a hell of a trick. Going gnome or halfling drops your damage by a point or so but you lose nothing to hit and a wolf can be pretty mobile.

In a group that knows how to use them, teamwork feats are deadly, and your always near an ally with them if your mounted. You can pick up a boost to saves right off the bat that could keep getting better. With even one more ally near by that's 3 feats worth of power for something they give for free.

Liberty's Edge

What books do you find these things? I found Aasimar in Av race guide. Where is Azta? Daring champion. I don't know what a Panche point is.
I mostly play PFS human clerics at game conventions.
I just started with a group that plays PFRPG where I can use the other books. I just purchased Adv PG,race guide and Ultimate combat. too bad PFS got rid of Aasimar's unless you already have one or have a boon sheet.

I normally gave my boon sheets to the GM to say "thank you" for running a game at the con.

Morge40K, do you play WH 40K? Thanks -David


Things:
Azata Aasimar from Blood of Angels Player Companion
Panache from the ACG
Daring Champion, also from the ACG


While I wouldn't be that dismissive of any class that can add it's level to damage, Cavalier definitely has some annoyances along with a few up-sides.

If I wanted to create an iconic knight...


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.

You play Fighter to take advantage of the stuff in the Weapon Master's Handbook. Lore Warden is easily superior to Slayer now.


Fun fact: I believe there's a paizo quote somewhere that if they had been able to release another class revision in Pathfinder Unchained, the fourth class would probably have been cavalier.

Sovereign Court

Chengar Qordath wrote:
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.
Resolve is nice, but the Samurai still gets a mount and a couple mount-focused class features. That's still a long way away from not having a mount or any mount-related abilities.

Other than the mount itself, all Samurai get it the ability to ride without taking armor check penalties & Mounted Archery (which sucks considering the rest of the class is melee focused).

On the other hand - the bulk of a Cavalier's abilities are mount focused.

Not saying that the mount isn't a significant class feature for the Samurai, but not to the point where they're gimped without it. Plus, since they have a focus on a more standard melee weapon, you're unlikely to go for the lance feat tree.


Charon's Little Helper wrote:
Chengar Qordath wrote:
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.
Resolve is nice, but the Samurai still gets a mount and a couple mount-focused class features. That's still a long way away from not having a mount or any mount-related abilities.

Other than the mount itself, all Samurai get it the ability to ride without taking armor check penalties & Mounted Archery (which sucks considering the rest of the class is melee focused).

On the other hand - the bulk of a Cavalier's abilities are mount focused.

Not saying that the mount isn't a significant class feature for the Samurai, but not to the point where they're gimped without it. Plus, since they have a focus on a more standard melee weapon, you're unlikely to go for the lance feat tree.

Bottom line is, it still has a mount and some mount-focused feature. Yes, it's less dependent on the mount than a cavalier. But when there's a desire for a cavalier variant with no mount at all, having less mount features doesn't satisfy the goal.

Liberty's Edge

Thank you all. I think for my next PFS character: Cavalier, Halfling order of the paw. 20 point build. How do I build it to be effective. What feats should I take? It will max out at 10th level.
Everyone provided many good ideas for my PF RGP group.


Val'Ross the explorer wrote:

Thank you all. I think for my next PFS character: Cavalier, Halfling order of the paw. 20 point build. How do I build it to be effective. What feats should I take? It will max out at 10th level.

Everyone provided many good ideas for my PF RGP group.

Charger damage focus vs super tank?

What you like more?

Liberty's Edge

Charger damage focus.

Sovereign Court

Val'Ross the explorer wrote:
Charger damage focus.

One big thing that I'd suggest is having your mount be the lizard which can walk along walls. In combat it's middle of the road - but being able to walk along walls drastically increases the amount of the time that you have a charge lane in dungeons. (Plus just handy from a utility perspective.)


First off, as an aside, it's important to remember that campaign setting can have an enormous impact on your effectiveness and ability to contribute as a character of any given class. My Ranger often feels woefully under-utilized in urban and underground settings, and my Druid, even moreso.
When you first look at the Cavalier, it looks very under-developed (and I'm not saying it isn't, necessarily). Instead of each level being crammed with class abilities, there's a whole bunch of blank lines.
The strengths of the class are in the fine print, and the abilities that can be inserted by virtue of the Order.
I have an Agation-blooded Aasimar, Beast-rider, Order of the Beast Cavalier, who will eventually multiclass into Mammoth Rider. This is a guy who can transform his Big Cat into a flying mount and charge from the sky, all with no spellcasting. This is an extreme example, but it serves to highlight how versatile the class can be, if you make a decision about what you want. Some things to remember:

  • You and your mount can fight separately
  • Your mount comes fully combat trained
  • Your mount can benefit from a large selection of equipment
  • When you charge, you hit first, then your mount hits!
  • Your mount can benefit from Archetypes, some of which drastically improved his ability to affect combat (Charger, Bodyguard
  • Common teamwork feats like Outflank can drastically change a battle, and your mount benefits from them as well
  • It's all about you and your mount. You are a Full BAB class and you get a super duper Animal Companion at 1st level. You're the only class that gets this.

So, yeah. Are Cavaliers awesome? YMMV, but I think they have their niche.

Liberty's Edge

I have to stick to more basic books. This is for PFS. some games are Core.
I always play Human for the 2 feats at the start. My Human fighter was able to have Mounted Combat,ride by,Spirited charge.

I will have to start with a Dog. Then Wolf. A lizard or something that flies would be nice. Anything is basic books are available in PFS.
I wanted good climb and Acrobatics skills. Good Dex.
(Perception is always the main focus of all my characters.)

A small person starts with 1 Feat. A lance does 1d6. Most of them take a neg on Str. Weapon Finesse won't work with a lance. Does he have to take mounted Combat feat to fight riding his mount?
I always felt that the Cavalier should have Mounted Combat free.
I like the charger arc but Teamwork was one of the boon of the class.
Beast lord? getting strong creatures and fighting flank with them.
Thanks for the input.

Liberty's Edge

Correction; I was thinking the PC's archetypes. Not mount.


Val'Ross the explorer wrote:

I have to stick to more basic books. This is for PFS. some games are Core.

I always play Human for the 2 feats at the start. My Human fighter was able to have Mounted Combat,ride by,Spirited charge.

I will have to start with a Dog. Then Wolf. A lizard or something that flies would be nice. Anything is basic books are available in PFS.
I wanted good climb and Acrobatics skills. Good Dex.
(Perception is always the main focus of all my characters.)

A small person starts with 1 Feat. A lance does 1d6. Most of them take a neg on Str. Weapon Finesse won't work with a lance. Does he have to take mounted Combat feat to fight riding his mount?
I always felt that the Cavalier should have Mounted Combat free.
I like the charger arc but Teamwork was one of the boon of the class.
Beast lord? getting strong creatures and fighting flank with them.
Thanks for the input.

If you are willing to stick with medium armor there is the Emissary archetype - they get bonus mounted combat feats, and can use some light armor only feats in medium armor. However, I think they lose the teamwork stuff in order to get it.

Liberty's Edge

Archetypes always make the class better,where it should be but remove key parts.


Val'Ross the explorer wrote:
Charger damage focus.

In that case :

1) be small. So you can ride easy and all the time.
2) monstreous mount for a flyer of dip 4 into hunter for spider climb and reduce animals.

A large roc, with redice animal will have super str, hover and charging greatness.


Val'Ross the explorer wrote:

Thank you all. I think for my next PFS character: Cavalier, Halfling order of the paw. 20 point build. How do I build it to be effective. What feats should I take? It will max out at 10th level.

Everyone provided many good ideas for my PF RGP group.

If you don't mind it being a tad silly sounding, you could go the Two-Weapon fighting route and wield two lances.


I had this argument with my gaming group. I consider cavalier the worst class in all of Pathfinder and although some archetypes are worth considering, specially both of the gun/ranged ones together and Ghost Rider. For the most part it's terribad.

1: You have about as many or even less class features as a Fighter, but more specialized. You wut mate? Fighters are often maligned, but even if they need a small buff their true virtue is in being a blank canvas. I think far too many people ignore how important a blank canvas class is for learning Pathfinder. General game design states that being Specialized should give you more. See Paladin vs Fighter. I believe for that reason the Fighter is a good class if not an amazing one. However, the Cavalier gets the worst of both worlds.

2: Charging isn't that good. Well, that isn't really true. It's a great action, but you really shouldn't use it every turn. AM BARBARIAN doesn't have to rage lance pounce when it is a bad idea. The cavalier on the other hand is pigeonholed to the point where intelligent encounters will ready an action to murder him.

3: The mount does not make up the cost loss. Look at any other class with an animal companion, or even Nature Soul and tell me that you should have a martial that limited in extange.

4: Some orders are amazing, but most aren't. Kinda like feats. Only pigeonholed, again.


Chengar Qordath wrote:
Val'Ross the explorer wrote:
I know I am missing something. I like humans but when I get a mount, It has to be left behind when we go underground. GM make it difficult to enter with the mount.
That is, in my experience, the biggest problem that the Cavalier and any other mounted character run into. I really think nobody should play a mounted character before first asking the GM if that's going to work in the campaign. Because the Cavalier does kind of suck without their mount. It's one of the reasons why there's been a lot of requests for mount-less Cavalier archetypes.

This is one of the reasons why when I wanted to make a 'mounted' character, I decided to play a centaur so I could be both rider and mount when wielding my lance.


Charon's Little Helper wrote:
Chengar Qordath wrote:
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.
Resolve is nice, but the Samurai still gets a mount and a couple mount-focused class features. That's still a long way away from not having a mount or any mount-related abilities.

Other than the mount itself, all Samurai get it the ability to ride without taking armor check penalties & Mounted Archery (which sucks considering the rest of the class is melee focused).

On the other hand - the bulk of a Cavalier's abilities are mount focused.

Not saying that the mount isn't a significant class feature for the Samurai, but not to the point where they're gimped without it. Plus, since they have a focus on a more standard melee weapon, you're unlikely to go for the lance feat tree.

The samurai is misunderstood (thanks Hollywood!).

Historically, they were first and foremost, mounted archers. Also, a samurai did not favour one weapon over another. According to the Hagakure and the Book of Five Rings, a samurai was expected to master a variety of weapons and to know when to use each one for maximum advantage. Thus, a typical samurai tended to use his bow first, then his spear for a mounted charge. Swords were for when he dismounted. If he were on foot, it would be bow, naginata, then katana (hence the trope about lightning quick drawing of swords), and when all other weapons were lost, the wakizashi.

Not to say that there weren't samurai who specialized in certain weapons, but they were still expected to know how to use all the traditional weapons.

If you want to simulate the most traditional samurai, take a lot of ranged feats but take katana with the 3rd level ability Weapon Expertise.

I have to say, Paizo really got this class correct.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Part of the problem with defining "Samurai" is like the problem with defining "Knight" - they existed for centuries and they changed in major ways over that time, so there really isn't any one way to reliably define them.

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 16

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

1 to 50 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.