Hurlbut's page

found it under mighty charge

Mighty Charge (Ex): At 11th level, a cavalier learns to
make devastating charge attacks while mounted. Double
the threat range of any weapons wielded during a charge
while mounted. This increase does not stack with other
effects that increase the threat range of the weapon. In
addition, the cavalier can make a free bull rush, disarm,
sunder, or trip combat maneuver if his charge attack is
successful. This free combat maneuver does not provoke
an attack of opportunity

This is why I read every line of class features, and am a crunch monkey.

Well that tell me I need to do a more proper and through reading next time I open up the pdf.

So any other abilities the Cavalier should get?
(my oh graceful way of averting embarrassment)

Heavy armor barding have always been allowed in 3.5 and Pathfinder.

You mean something like Pathfinder's already-existing "Unseat" feat?

PRD wrote:

Unseat (Combat)

You are skilled at unseating your mounted opponents.
Prerequisites: Str 13, Ride 1 rank, Mounted Combat, Power Attack, Improved Bull Rush, base attack bonus +1.
Benefits: When charging an opponent while mounted and wielding a lance, resolve the attack as normal. If it hits, you may immediately make a free bull rush attempt in addition to the normal damage. If successful, the target is knocked off his horse and lands prone in a space adjacent to his mount that is directly away from you.

Not just the mounted warrior, but also a person on ground. You wouldn't be able to withstand a blow from a charging mounted warrior without being knocked flat on your back, I imagine it is difficult to brace yourself against it while you're on foot.

This feat seem limited to attacks with lance though. I would argue that the cavalier can do same with other weapons at hand and using lance give him a better bonus -or- keep the lance same and you could do same thing with other weapons but at a penalty on the combat maneuver (lance is unaffected), giving him a choice of weapons to use.

I have a suggestion for one ability. The charge specific abilities are usually about improving his accuracy and damage while charging on his mount. So why not give him an ability that allow him to make an immediate combat maneuver to trip upon connecting with a charge attack while mounted? It's depicting unhorsing a rider or knocking someone to the ground with having the rider and the horse momentum behind the lance. Normally you can't make a combat maneuver to trip with a lance or other usual weapons you used while mounted (with a few exceptions).

Actually more like it would be harder to dismount a rider because of his saddle, his experience, and his training. Not just because it's his armor.

Hey there all,

I am looking into an ability that grants them a reduction or elimination to their ACP for the Ride skill, but giving them armor training like a fighter is probably out. There is enough cross pollination between these classes as it is.

Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing

Well it doesn't have to be necessarily same as the Fighter's Armor Training, but a small class feature (as Armor Training is one) that reward the Cavalier for wearing medium/heavy armor in addition to a forthcoming ability that apply reduction to ACP when involving the Ride Skill.

The way I see it, the fighter represent a lot of fighting styles because he also represent a wide array of fighting warriors; line archer, dervish, guerrilla, mounted warrior, shock troop, and so on. He was made modular so that the player can choose any warrior concept and tailor him to that.
In my opinion, the Cavalier specialize in two things; mounted shock troop and fighting well in heavy armor (medium and heavy mechanically).

Why not make a variation of Armor Training?
Give small bonuses like +5 feet bonus while in medium armor, increase the AB of medium and heavy by 1, and so on.

So you two guys ignored the fact that the Cavalier invoke the concept of a heavy cavalryman type warrior which wear heavy armour and have trained most of his life for fighting in heavy armour while mounted or on foot?

I love Pathfinder.

Having said that, I'll say that both classes this round are disappointments to me.

The Cavalier seems what the old Bard was; an ineffective collection of existing class abilities. I don't see using this as a player or GM, and I can't imagine anyone being happy playing this class. Sorry.

The Oracle is a bit more interesting, but I will likely use it as an NPC class. Again, I don't see anyone being happy playing this class.

Unless there is something that I'm missing . . .

Missing something? How about suggesting changes, things to improve them for start? This is a playtest you know. Play them, see what work, what doesn't work.

Oh yeah I just realize something. There's one big benefit for Cavalier having Armor Training; Reducing ACP that in turn improve his Ride Check which usually has to have ACP apply to it.

So you didn't even muster up enough courage to actually suggest improvements, as that's the point of the playtest, but enough to read part of the pdf to complain that they're so "messed up" that you closed the pdf?

I say leave the Chaotic option in. I like to see Boar Riding Orc Cavaliers come at my players.

bah! The Dwarven Dire Boar Cavalry is the way to go. Beside give the Orcs the worgs :D

That doesn't particularly make sense to me. How are you going to know how to move better in full plate but still be slowed down by breastplate (which is one piece of a suit of full plate)???

I think he meant that the Armor Training should only work for medium and Heavy Armor? Kinda like reversing these where abilities only work if you were wearing light or no armor, medium, light or no armor.

The armor discussion in "The Challenge Mechanic-Does it work?" thread brought up a thought for me. The Cavalier train and fight extensively in heavy armor, and that bring us the topic; should it get the Armor Training like the Fighter have?

It is still HARDER to get up off the ground with 80lbs of metal on. He wouldnt be unable, but a lightly armored enemy could easily get to him and kill him before he got back to his feet. Even on foot Fully armored knights were indeed formidable, but off their horses they were far more vulnerable. They were slower and prone to becoming tired because of the weight and heat of the armor. Knocking a knight from his mount was still the best way to kill him, though he would not likely be 'helpless'.

Where do you get the 80 pounds figure from?

The knight have trained extensively in such fighting style. We're talking something equalivent to the Military Physical Training, only for a considerably larger length of your life. These knights were usually well conditioned.

I think you read my post incorrectly, and my sentance could have been better constructed.

If I had written ...

Quote:

The best way to kill a knight in full-plate was to have him fall from his horse, once on the ground, his heavy and awkward armor would often leave him prone and helpless, unable to stand without assistance.

... then I guess we both agree on the issue. full-plate prevented shoulder and leg movement to such a degree that standing up from prone was almost impossible without help :)

The knight was formidable as a foot soldier but not always because of full plate. full plate was designed to protect against melee attacks. with the huge plates of metal covering his entire body very few weapons could penetrate this hard shell.
Then came the crossbow, and eventually firearms and ultimately the decline of plate armor. With projectile weapons the knight found himself at a huge disadvantage, he couldnt move quickly enough to avoid such projectiles that had such a great penetration power. in the early years knights would wear half plate and half chain to increase their maneuverability to minimise their weaknesses, and would also allow them to stand from prone if knocked off their mount.

Actually no. The full plate is far more comfortable and allow a wide array of movement than a full chainmail suit because its weight is better distributed.

In the early years they worn half plate and half chain because the full plate was too expensive to mass produce *yet* at that time. Consider it. Why didn't they keep the half plate half chain IN later years?

I erred in that the full plate isn't also the reason it make the knight formidable. In fact, all kinds of heavy armor in general made him a formidable opponent because the bulk of your average army doesn't have such equipment.

after all, in history, the best way to kill a knight in full-plate was to have him fall from his horse. Once on the ground, his heavy and awkward armor would often leave him prone and helpless, unable to stand without assistance. Thats kind of the reason behind half-plate to retain some form of manuverability by wearing a chain and plate mix, but the D&D rules dont reflect this at all and simply class half-plate as an inferior version of full-plate. Full-plate was mostly used for ceramonial purposes only as a show of wealth... but I digress...

Your preception is flawed. The full plate knight was never ackward and helpless. The only reason he would be ackward and helpless *after* falling from his mount is because who else wouldn't BE after falling off a horse?

Seem like the improvements toward the mount are in a way indirectly represent different breeds born just for mounted combat without needing to stat out the variations like in the Forgotten Realms.

I think it could include an option to allow the Cavalier choose a faster mount with more endurance (aka the steppe horses and Middle East breeds) or a stronger and more sturdier mount (the current mount feature, aka the European breeds)

Sense Motive and Perception are a good start. We are usually more observant of one's body language and face expressions as well along with lip reading. I suggest creating a trait to help out this aspect though, it should make things a bit easier for the DM and the player.