cliff's page

Getting to this discussion a little late probably, but here's my 2¢.

Going to the prison is already "taboo" because everyone believes it to be haunted, or at the very least dangerous. This is fairly well stated, and even if you don't feel like it's obvious enough that the townsfolk discourage people going there, the fact tha it's (a) been derelict for 50+ years, (b) there is a monument to the dead near the town, but not near the site, and (c) the general suspicion about the arcane and the Professor specifically, clearly conveyed in the opening funeral procession encounter.

The trust values and lack of awards is the problem, and that's been belabored a bit. I however think that the trust system, completely intact, can be modified very simply to make the adventure more exciting. Simply factor an additional -1 Trus fir each Letter that is left on the monument, and each victim revealed to be possessed by the Splatterman. Don't have the populace riot against the party at zero Trust, but instead have haunts manifest once the party's Trust falls below zero, CR being equal to the negative amount. More than one haunt might occur too, if the amount is particularly low. For example, if the amount is -7, the GM will probably want to split that into several CR1, 2 and 3 giants rather than something that the party can't handle. But then again, maybe they can't, but there is a group of acolytes to deal with particularly nasty stuff in town, and it easily represents seepage of he evil spirits into Ravengro and can equally easily be played up for horror effect.

1) Reputation system simlar to Mongoose's Conan.
2) Mass combat is too big, but retinue combat would be a new idea. Groups of followers or hirelings could transfer from ships crews to street gangs.
3) Firearms. Like, seriously. Rules for powder and shot and everything.
4) Sword duels. Maybe using the Harrow Deck for ripostes, thrusts, lunges, etc.
5) Obviously ship rules and combat, but other piratey stuff like hook hands, peg legs, drinking and getting drunk, and how each class can be given a pirate makeover. Paladin Pirate? Aye, matey!! Ranger and Druid Pirate animal companions are parrots or monkeys.
6) Seriously, look at Mongoose Conan for tons more ideas. Maybe they'll work with you like Chaosium did with Wake of the Watcher.

This discussion should be moved to the Chronicles forum, but in any case the Kingmaker Poster Map Folio is scheduled to be released in July.

EDIT: Doh! Ninjad by Sniggevert.

Just found it on Amazon with the an 03 August release, so probably a week or so before that in actuality. Thank for the quick response everyone.

Nope.

The only thing we can be interested in here is game terminology, and that means 'adjacent' gets defined as being in a square next to another active member of the combat grid. You share a line.

Occupying the 'same space' means that you have two members on the grid counting as being int he same square. Again, the situation is deemed illegal, but it can occur under two spacial situations: Grapples, and riding mounts.

The problem is that, although your logic is sound, you can never use real world reasoning to figure game rule problems.

Maybe it's something Piazo can add to the book in order to clarify how mounts are considered in combat since the rules don't give a black and white means by the RAW.

"Integral part of the Class" doesn't mean that you throw your Cat familiar at Ogres! You keep it safe, and it keeps your spells safe. If it dies, get a new one and accept that loss. If PFS is so cehap that you can't possibly have enough cash or promisary notes to do all of that...don't play PFS? I mean, if the sactioned, organized play rules are so strict that you can't amass a few thousand GP of net worth, then it probably isn't worth being involved in.

I still think everyone is overreacting to a little adversity. (lol)

My post was mainly to isllustrate that while the rules do state that the rider and mount are considered to occupy the same space/square at the same time, the fact remains tha there are no further rules to govern that case in the RAW. Never have been. In fact, movement rules explicitly prohibit occupying the same space as others, but both the mount rules and Grappling defy the prohibition.

The crux of my point was to use your best judgement, and that in doing so, there are verious rules that exist to form a position on the fly. Do what works for the adventure or encounter, but realize that there are rules that support verious positions on the topic.

I like the following:

1) Attacker strikes
2) Does it hit the mount AC? Yes = apply hit to Mount, unless rider AC lower, then apply hit to rider
3) Does it hit the mount AC? No = Does it hit the rider? Ten strike misses
4) Attacker can choose to focus his attack on rider or mount, but this action provokes from the opposite choice.
5) Rider gets bonus due to elevated position if mount is equal size or larger than attacker

I might change that up given the circumstances adn what feels like it would playout the best.

Look. Keep the scrolls; nobody's telling you to toss 'em! That's it. If your familiar bites it, load up a new one with the ritual, plus the new one can get you a totally different spell list if you want. I guess I'm the only one that see an up-side here, and although it's a huge drawback, just think of it like this:

1) You're dependant on the familiar, and if it dies, you're back to square one.
2) You're dependant on the familiar, but if it dies, you get to start over with the spells your new familiar has loaded in it, and could perhaps gain a totally new set of spell choices by calling a different animal to use.
3) You might not have any more spells fora while, but you still have your Hexes, which by and large take a standard action and are very debilitating (Slumber now effects a creatures w/i 30' instead of Touch like in the original write-up!), and they are "at will" (you never run out of them all day long, every round).

Those are just the positives I thought of on a moment's notice. I'm sure there are more. I think losing a familiar woudl suck, but not as bad as everyone is thinking.

In a way, it isn't clear, but it isn't clear fromt he OGL rules, and not really Paizo's fault.

This is a unique situation where two "beings" (targets) occupy the same square(s) at the same time. The same sort of cunundrum occurs if someone not Grappling tries to stab someone who is involved in a Grapple. You get into weird issues of äccidentally hitting the wrong person" and other things.

We always rule based on size. Typical situation is a Medium attacker trying to hit a Medium rider on a Large mount. Because the mount in question is larger than the attacker and the rider, the mount is always targetted first. This leads to riders wanting to take the Mounted Cõmbat Feat at some point in their career!

If you have a differnt size set-up, say a Huge attacker versus a Medium Rider and Large mount, then Huge can choose whom to attack, but it's still easier to apply hits/damage to the mount first, incorporate Mounted Combat to negate the hits until they direct attacks at the rider, and then...

Wait.

There's no called shots.

Easiest is to apply the Mounted Combat to allow the Rider to negate attacks, and if the roll to hit would still hit the rider, apply the attack directly to him.

There's also being thrown from mounts, and all that.

Hi all,

HI!

The last question answered first: If you are denied your DEX bonus, you cannpt swap your CHA bonus in it's place.

The other bit about the Class Skills: I agree. Probably just an eror since it's a new Mystery with the "final" playtest rules. I'd think Linguistics is a perfect swap here.

You can, kind of, but it requires another Witch, which may be difficult to arrange. If you can find a friendly Witch, you can have your familiars teach each other all of their (non-familiar-specific) spells known. Then if your familiar dies and you have to get a new one, at least you have the spells you knew at the time of the backup with the friendly Witch.

That's really really contrived and clunky, though, and I hate that it's needed.

I think this is what was intended, and I don't think it's clunky at all. It's more emphasis on the character becomeing part of a Coven, and sharing spells with other Witches (Warlocks?). Makes perfect sense.

Feel free to still answer that question (lol), but reading over the Cavalier...nicely done. There's a load of the suggestions mead on the forums here, and I can see a few bits that I even might have suggested. Getting rid of the Oaths, clearing up the Challenge, adding a better explanation of the tight family of mounts, and broadening the Charge ability make the Class feel more cohesive. Haven't gotten through the Orders fully yet, but now the Cockatrice makes sense (hehe).

I've been a massive fan of the class since that Dragon Magazine article way back when, so it's great to see a rendition I feel deserves the moniker once again.

Great job.

Still a few typos for the editor, tho... ;-)

Being a Fan of the Witch class, I do want to see some other options for familiars, and even get some options for improved familiars as well.

The Spell Lists for a Pseudodragon or any of the elementals would be very interesting to see.

And I do agree the Familiar for the witch needs reexamining, it is an interesting switch from the standard spell book, but having them only store spells is not enough.

Pseudodragon, monkey, squirell, hawk, racoon...

I mean, it's a lot of spell lists and skill buffs, but it's more critical for the Witch that for a Wizard.

Also, I'd say that a familier acquired as a Wiz MUST be separate from a Witch familier, for the same reason that an Animal Companion must be separate.

Jason Bulmahn wrote:

They're HERE!!!!

Thanks!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

<3<3<3<3<3<3

Awesome, Jason. Thanks again for the hard work. I'm playing a Witch and she's a blast!

Out of curiousity, what got overhauled/tweaked the most? No necessarily a blow-by-blow of all the changes (I'll download later and read the things to find that out), but more like...where did most of your attention seem to fall? Which class(es) in particular? What abilities and powers?

Etc...

Hey Jason, not to bug you nor to open the can of worms where everyone else bugs you either (lol), but I was just curious about revisions to the classes or if you're finding that some need more work over others.

Just trying to get an idea of a notion of an update...see where you're at. I saw that the book is available for pre-order on Amazon now and was thinking that might mean you and the rest of the staff feel that things are pretty well honed at this point.

Thanks in advance...

There is no way a cavalier can ride a dragon cohort and his enhanced warhorse at the same time and their is no rules to have one replace the other. You DM would have to be pretty lenient or completely crazy to allow a dragon of equivalent power to a levelled animal companion into his game. then add in the fact that the dragon will not advance like an animal companion does and the cavalier player will feel like hes not pulling his weight in a couple levels.

See, here's where I think the whole mount this is getting confused. A mount is a beast that get's ridden. What you're wanting to put into the mix, Quijenoth, are (a) creatures that have IQs or (b) creatures that are pretty far out for the most part. Pegasi and Dragons can simply choose to let a Cavalier ride them, or not as the case may be, so that's built into the behavior of the creature itself.

Now, say I want a Bullette mount. Or a Dire Bear. Or an Alosaurus. The key word is "suitable", and there's a chart for what mounts are appropriate to start with. After a Cav has a mount for a while, and he "releases her companion from service" (p50), then she can acquire any other creature as a mount when is "suitable".

In one of my campaigns, an Alosaurs isn't ever going to be suitable. Too big, too scary, requires too many peasants for sustenance (lol). However, maybe in your campaign it's perfectly suitable.

What we're telling you is, what you want...you already got.

Blind people can easily tell if it's day or night. They get tired at night. Never seen the sky, and somehow...they still figure it out as being...up. They can bewilderingly tell that the sun is out because they feel the warmth on thier skin. And do you ant me to fill you in on how they tell if it's raining?

Seriously, unsighted people get on fine every day, using the compensation of other senses to make up for the lack of one. They tend to smell odors better, can tell north because of the direction of the sun's warmth on their face (rise in the east, sets in the west; align that with right and left respectively, then north is in front of you).

It's true. Look it up. :-)

This is just off the tp of my head, without looking up the mount rules or animal companion rules again...but what if it was as simple as allowing a Cavlier's mount to choose an Animal Feat any time the Cavalier could gain a bonus feat when leveling up, and they may selelct Fighter feats if applicable. Training still works, Cav mounts get better. Done.

For other classes, this ability is truncated to be a Feat that requires a certian Rank in Handle Animal, and allows the mount to gain an immediate Feat from the AnCo list.

How's that work?

@ Quijenoth: I think you're pushing the idea of exotic mounts the wrong way. I think a Cavlier would be able to train any creature of animal intelligence to be a mount, and that would be the edge. Normally only suitable mounts can be selected, but the Cav can have the ability to have an Owlbear mount if he manages to find one, subdue it, makes some Handle Animal rolls, etc. Dragons are intelligent in D&D and Pathfinder, and therefore can decide not to be a mount or vice versa. Animal intelligence and the suggested mount list should dictate the normal mounts available and authorized, but allow Cavs to train animals that are normally untrainable as replacement mounts only makes a kind of sense.

Well, I for one think all th other classes can stuff it, and leave great mounts to Cavliers. (lol) That's my point. Don't improve how mounts operate unless you are a Cavalier, and it makes the class more viable, especially compared to power houses like the Summoner.

Just wondering if anyone had a comment my idea above. Feedback would be nice before I try to playtest it and report the results.

All this is great, buit it seems to be attempting to bring all other classes in line with Druids, when the problem I see is that (A) we're talking about Cavaliers and not all other classes, and (B) there's still nothing suggested really that exclusively boosts Cav mounts excepot what I've suggegsted, which may be happening anyway for all we know (eg. addition of new mount skills and feats as well as Cav only feats that affect mounts).

Cities of Golarion has THREE mounted combat feats that REALLY make mounts MUCH MORE viable... check them out!!! (DHTBIFOM right now...)

That's great...but these aren't intended to be Golarion exclusive Classes. The Cavalier is meant to be a Pathfinder general Class and, as such, shouldnt'rely on Golarion campaign world Feats to be more viable.

This kind of thing can already be handled under existing rules, but what you're getting at is making Cavalier mounts stand out from an average horse, and that...I'm all kinds of in favor of.

A good deal of modification to the way Cavaliers and thier mounts interact, how the Ride Skill and Mouted Combat Feat are employed, and the capabilities, Skills, Feats and powers available to Cavalier mounts needs to exceed that which is available to standard mounts acquired and modified through the existing Handle Animal rules.

Does it occur to anyone that if there were a good mounted fighting Class for the game, more people might want to play adventures and campaigns that include a lot of mounted combat?

I'm just sayin'...

anyone?

I agree with Frerezar, but I also suggested weeks ago that Cavaliers be structured around a choice of Mounted Cavalier or Challenger. However, even if you go the Mounted/Board route only, what would the Cavalier then do with a shield that might be really spectacular? I suppose they could count them as hand weapons, use them for disarm and trip attempts, or maybe have a shield throw capability, but "sword and board" is a tactic, not really something that one can build a Class Ability (much less a Class) around.

Also, I really think that addressing the Ride Skill sub-abilities and Mounted Combat for Cavaliers, along with boosting their mounts to make them much more than mere animal companions and getting them beyond the typical low HD creature companion, is critical. Not having to Guide With Knees in combat, writing the mount as Combat Trained, allowing for attacking while the mount is Rearing, being able to avoid falling off the mount more easily, getting the mount to jump obstacles or traverse odd terrain (like castle walls or giant trees!) will bring the relationship of the Cavalier and Mount up to a more mystical level, but at the same time make sure to avoid making the Mount a magical creature like a Paladin mount.

I bet there will be special Feats included in the book that enhance thrown splash weapons like the bombs.

As far as the Inquisitor, cool class. Rename it to something like "Justicar" and you got me. An Inquisitor seems a lot more scholarly...or a Monty Python character. (lol)

I think I got it.

I was re-reading the article, top to bottom, and it occurred to me that the answer to this is right in the opening paragraph. The cool thing is that it also helps iron out the inconsistencies in the way Oaths work.

"...many warriors strive to perfect their art...honing their skill at martial arms, [Cavaliers] spend as much effort dedicating themselves to a cause. [They] swear themselves to a purpose, serving it above all else."

A cause, a purpose. Sounds like a hard liner; an abject adherent to order. Or does it? What in this game constitutes a representation of how each character feels about causes and thier purpose in life?

Alignment.

So, it's not that Cavaliers are Lawful. lawful ones are, sure, but Chaotic ones are full-on into chaos. Moreover, Lawful Evil Cavaliers would be utterly committed to sowing the tenets of Evil Law and order across the countries of the world. Above all else.

So, I was thinking, this may be the key. If Cavaliers are totally devoted to their respective alignments, whatever they may be, it explains the divergency of the Orders. Additionally, and more importantly, it can and does explain how Oaths should work, and it has the bonus of allowing Cavaliers to be of any alignment you want and make sense.

So, I decided to look it up, and the rules lept off the page.

Turn with me, my brethren, to page 167 and read with me.

Lawful Good. A discipline to oppose evil. Fight relentlessly. Tells the truth. Keeps her word. Helps those in need. Speaks out against injustice.

Sounds like a big list of things that someone could take Oaths to promise to hold to and endeavor to achieve. If Cavaliers took Oaths based on their Alignment, then the breaking of Oaths and the loss of bonuses gained from the committing to an Oath becomes ingrained in the Alignment rules, including the fact that deviation from Alignment may warrant an Alignment change as the ultimate cost. Sure there's "crossing the line" from time to time, and that's not to be penalized, but if you take your "moral and personal attitude" incredibly seriously to the point that you make oaths and take vows to stick hard to those morals and values, then that too is the easy Oath and Alignment issues with the Cavalier class right now solved.

Short story: Cavaliers believe very strongly in their commitment to their moral code of ethics, whatever Alignment they adhere to. Break each of those mentioned things under each Alignment into a list of +1 bonuses. Once per day, a Cavalier may make a short proclamation of those morals lasting no less than 1 minute and make a WILL saving roll. For every 5 points rolled, the Cavalier chooses one Oath off the list corresponding to his Alignment, and each time he accomplishes any of those Oaths he gains a +1 Morale bonus which can be used at any time after that within the following 24 hour period. The bonuses cannot be used to adjust the same instance more than once. Unused bonuses gained in this way are lost after the end of the 24 hour period.

The upshot of this is that a Lawful Good Cavalier rolling a 15-19 would choose three (3) Oaths. Looking at the list (which isn't really a list, but is actually the series of Alignment describing items I mentioned above) this player chooses Fight Relentlessly, Speak the Truth, and Disavow Injustice. Each time during play that the Cavalier has an opportunity to do any of those things he can get a +1 Morale bonus to spend any way he wants before needing to do it all again the following day.

A Chaotic Neutral Cavalier rolls 15-19 can choose Individualist, or Avoid Authority, Flaunt Restrictions, Challenge Tradition.

What if it was just to confirmations until 10th? Then it wouldn't be such a dip magnet. I like the idea too if threat range only increased when the Cav was mounted. Simulates the idea of taking advantage of the leverage gained by the movement of the mount.

Clouded Vision.

Love it, and totally agree.

sigh, but it is a charge, like normal with an extra xd6. I am failing to see how you can not do both? And besides challange as I pointed out was added so you could have something not mount related, even if you can use it on a mount

mount takes a -2 AC, after 3rd you take none and get a +4 to hit, I have no clue what you mean about no precision damage as it never says you do not get it.

So as it stands if you challenge and charge say at 11 you get[x2 threat] +4d6] so with lance thats a +4 attack over norm at 2d8[19-20x3]+4d6+ a free bull rush, disarm, sunder, or trip

sure, your better off challenging on foot, but you could challenge, charge the man, free trip then dismount or comeback around and nail him again

Sorry still failing to see the issue with just why ya can't challenge on a mount

You can challenge on a mount, but (A) can't also use Mounted Combat feat that round to negate hits on the mount, (B) you only get one attack while mounted if the mount move more than 5' that round, and (C) you can no longer use the lance after that anyway because it's reach. It's a one shot gamble that isn't ultimately as productive as staying on foot.

I guess that's my point - that the precision damage is far more useful on foot, so it doesn't seem to be instantly connected to Mounted Combat or charging in my mind as much as for everyone else it seems. It's so much more effective on foot that I personally would never go mounted under the current Cavlier write-up.

However, admittedly, I'm considering the ability on its own, and not with the Order add-ons. Ultimately, I just probably disliek the feel that the precision damage gives to what is essentially supposed to be a "noble contest" (at least in my mind that's what a knightly style challenge is) and should be something that is also more effective with the Cavalier abilities accross the board.

Hmm...

Charge only allows a single attack, so that basically makes Challenge a static attack, and not something you'd want to do on the charrge, and thus Mounted. The Precision d6 is clearly intended for best use once engaged in a protracted melee.

Also, Charge reduces AC, making the mount easier to be hit, and if you Challenge and charge, you can't subsequently protect your mount with Mounted Combat. If you don't charge, no doubled/tripplied damage with lance.

Additionnally, Mounted combat rules (pg 202) state that if the Mount moves 5ft, you can make only a single attack, so that makes iterative attacks with the precision damage negated. even if initiating the Challenge was the swift action, combat from mounted limits one to +1d6 damage per round.

Best a Cavalier can get is the higer ground bonus added in for being a master of Mounted combat? Lame. Not thought through enough at all.

This applies to Challenge (which shopuldn't be an act of dealing more damage, but rather one of battle feild command and morale) and to the Mount ability (where stuff like the 'one attack if the mount moves 5ft' and other aspects of mounted combat should be negated or buffed instead).

No, there isn't, except that using the Mounted Combat feat cancels the capability to use the Challenge, and vice versa, because the former is an Immediate Action and the latter is a Once per Combat Swift Action. You can't do an Immediate and Swift int he same round, so they can't be used together.

Now, if they fix that, I may change my mind. But right now, it says to me that Cavs are either Challengers, or Riders, further meaning that there is already an inate choice between the to abilities. Just make it official.

I think that ther may be a lot of potential for the stacking to get out of hand, particularly with Combat Ref., although if the inate Cav ability were based on WIS bonus, it could work.

To my way of thinking, dealing Conditions instead of normal damage, or alternatively making a mechanic were the Cav elects that damage dealt works out to be a Demoralize check per successful hit, is a better way to go, and I'm starting to particularly like the latter.

I've explained it in other threads, but can't remember if I did so here:

Cav rolls get's ready to roll to hit, and decides to either use the blows to damage or Demoralize. If he wants to Demoralize the enemy he's in his Challenge with, each individual blow's damge +the Cavalier's Intimidate skill acts as a Demoralize check. So, if the Cavalier hits with three hits for damage 24, 32, and 16 with an Intimidate of +7, then he creates three Demoralization checks against his opponent of 31, 39 and 23 against the usual target DC (10 + target HD + target WISmod). Rounds of Shaken condition inflicted would be cumulative, including those accrued for every 5pts by which the DC is surpassed.

It already states that Demoralizing is a standard action, so it tracks mechanically, and all other factors could be included except for the +5DC bonus for repeated attempts signifying that Cavaliers are just really good at it, especially when fighting one-on-one in a challenge.

Yeah, I kinda think it should be a choice between Mount and Challenge, since the are more or less opposed tactics.

Also, just because the Eidolon shows up with full HP doesn't mean anything freaky is going on in it's dimension, or even that it exists in a physical form there.

It's entirely possible the Eidolon is basically a mass of conscious plasma in it's plane that takes shape and physical form only when you call it, or a thousand other explanations.

Precisely my point. If that's a likely explanation fr what happens when the Eidolon "goes home", crap he's carrying or wearing either (a) goes with him and then gets lost in another dimension, or (b) drops to the ground where the critter left, meaning the Summoner has to re-equip his pet each time he summons it.

That's why I'm pushing the concept of dealing Condition damage instead of real damage when in a challenge. Basically, the idea is tha the Cav stays in combat with a single foe, beating down the foe's morale from Shaken, to Frightened, to Panicked.

Even easier is to suggest that hits act as immediate Demoralize checks, adding the Cav's Intimidate Skill total to his total damage that round to try adn Demoralize his foe. Read the Intimidate skill to see what I'm talking about (pg99).

I would like to see the core cavalier class maintain oaths and other aspects of courtly virtue as a basic necessity.

Heck, I'd just like the Cavalier to HAVE courtly virtues. As it is now, they oughta at least have Knowledge (Nobility) as a Class skill.

I think it's rediculous. If the Eidolon always arrives from it's plane at full HP, clearly something is going on in the time between "visits". I think you can give them whatever you want, but they don't reappear wearing/holding it.

Souped up companions are just bizzare, and this is no different.

Twiggie14 wrote:

I think the oracle fits the kind of thing like paul muad'dib was. u know? the sort of person with mystic, god-given abilities, but not extremely reverent, yet extremely charismatic. and he was blind by the end of Dune Messiah. hmm? sounds kinda like an oracle to me..... And that does sound like an a-maze-ing character concept anyways: divine, irreverent mystic demagogue....

Perfect analogy.

And go watch the movie 300 again for when they visit the Oracle. That's a perfect illustration of what we're talking about here, accept that this class is souped up to travel.

Hey there all,

I have been going through a great deal of playtest feedback and speculation over the past few days. It has become obvious to me that there needs to be a few adjustments made to the summoner for balance reasons. Although I would not say that these changes are final, from this point onward, they are part of the class for playtesting purposes (this includes the Pathfinder Society Organized Play). I need to implement these changes to get a bit more productive feedback, since the issue seems to be skewing results a bit too heavily.

Feel free to post comments and feedback concerning this rules change in this thread, but leave other issued out of this discussion please.

Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing

Eidolons and Equipment
Eidolons are limited in the amount of gear and equipment they can use. Their forms tend to shift over time, making certain types of gear impossible to use properly. Eidolons with the proper training and the limbs (arms) evolution can wield weapons. They suffer the normal penalties for wielding more than one weapon, regardless of the number of arms they possess. Eidolons cannot wear armor, due to their shifting form, but those that take the proper feat can use a shield. Eidolons can use some magic items. Each eidolon can wear up to two rings, if it has the limbs (arms) evolution. Each eidolon can wear a single magic item in the following slots: eyes, head, neck, and shoulders. An eidolon with the limbs (arms) evolution or the tentacle evolution can drink potions.

Any magic items possessed by the eidolon fall to the ground when the eidolon is sent back to its home plane, regardless of the reason. If this includes cursed items, the items immediately return to the eidolon when it is summoned again.

Rules Changes
In addition to the above language, the following changes are made to the summoner.

- Delete the sentence from the Summon Monster I class feature that reads: He can cast this spell as a...

Don't take this rhe wrong way. I respect your work a great deal. But now...Cavalier mounts REALLY suck. (lol)

This may ballance Summoners within the rest of the game rules, or with other Arcane classes, but even with these tweaks, the Cavalier is getting left in the dust power-wise.

To misquote Han Solo: "No Order is worth this!"

(The Masses: "NO! He didn't invoke the Holy Trinity, did he?!")
(Me: Yes. I did!!)

I love the mount, but I also said some time ago to make the Cavalier class have a "split option" up front like the ranger, wizard, etc. You ahve to choose on eof two tracks: challenger or knight. The former gets you the challenge ability and oaths and the latter gets you the mount.

Problem is, both a a bit paltry when compared to Eidolons and Witch familiars and what not. They'd ahve to ne expanded and beefed up.

The biggest flaw would be that the Cavalier would never "fight". One round to close, and go full defense to hold the baddie still until the rest of the party mop up the goons with thier fancy Morale bonus and then come to help the Cav finish the leader off.

I mean, I like the flavor too, but I instantly consider the flip-side also.

The precision damage just doesn't feel rigjt, tho. There's go to be something more appropriate. ATT bonus to allies? Morale bonus to the Cav? Inflicting Condition 'damage' to the challenged foe instead of normal damage?

cliff wrote:

Chaotic implies being shifty (not shiftless, which means "not being able to shift"). Chaotic characters typically ignore structure and dislike rules. Being part of an Order means that rules are in place that govern the behavior of those who belong to them.

So then, why is it not forbidden for Clerics to be Chaotic? After all, they have rules which govern their behavior.

Because the Chaotic clerics are followers of Chaotic gods, and Cavaliers aren't?

I mean, it really doesn't matter to me, but there should at least be reprocussions for deviating from Orders...which are called "orders" because of all the ORDER.

Law.

:P

...or, it grants a further Morale bonus as long as the Cavalier is in a challenge unaided to all allies within 25'?

<bump> So...no feedback?

So, it appears that Chaotic individuals are shiftless people with no motivation or goals. Good to know; I'll tell Mrs. Lamashtu that she's not actually Chaotic, after all. And all the other Demon Princes and Princesses who dedicate their lives to the spread of chaos and evil everywhere.

There's no need to be sarcastic when you find out you're wrong. ;-)

Chaotic implies being shifty (not shiftless, which means "not being able to shift"). Chaotic characters typically ignore structure and dislike rules. Being part of an Order means that rules are in place that govern the behavior of those who belong to them.

Now if there were Cavaliers who did not belong to any Order, like Japanese Ronin, Chotic alignments would make sense.

By my thinking, if one dedicates his life to following certain strictures, even ones that center around personal gain or glory, he cannot be considered chaotic by definition, so I personally see the cavalier class as being non-chaotic only.

Exactly.

I still like "Challenge" but the bonus damage isn't the right add at all. The Order modifications to Challenges make sense within the Orders, and that adds a lot of flavor to the Class. However, I think the real point of a Challenge is to demoralize one's opponent more than defeat them. It's really about the morale of the single foe, how that effects one's fellow party members, and possibly how it effects the foe's group as well.

The way I see this being done is by inflicting Condition damage, but I've been wrestlig with how it could be done evenly. The mechanic for the +1d6 precision damage is very clean, but, as many have said, it's a contrary ability when compared to the Mount stuff which implies fighting on the move or mounted.

It's a bit of a complicated system I'm toying with, but it wouldn't change the curent mechanic. There's two results, but the same delivery system, and I think they are more flavorful but still use essentially the same mechanic as written.

1) The Cavalier can choose to make a single attack instead of his normal attacks. Damage inflicted is considered precision damage, but the damage dealt is defered by coice of the Cavalier before he rolls to hit. Instead of dealing damage during a challenge, damage dealt by any hit results in a DC value which forces a save against accumulated Condition damage, starting with Shaken, then Frightened then Panicked. If the Cav deals 28 points of damage, that's a DC28 save versus Shaken. If he deals 31 points the next round, then it's a DC31 save versus Frightened, and so on.

2) The Cavalier makes the challenge and may add his Intimidate skill bonus to any dmage rolls. Instead of dealing actual damage, the damage results in a DC value which acts as a Demoralize check each time damage would be dealt after damage reduction. If the Cav deals 28 points of damage with an Intimidate skill of +8, then this is compared to the target's normal DC versus being Demoralized (see page 99).

Better? Worse? Thoughts?

I'm not as familliar with the casters at higer level, but if there's a conflict with a Wizard casting, say, Fireball rather than using a meta magic feat...then we're talking apples to apples.

We're talking about a hount for a mar5tial class that doesn't come with a basic condition for being a combat ready mount: Combat training. The other way a moutn can go into combat more redily is for the rider to have Mounted Combat, which also isn't innate. Plus, mounts are not written anywhere near being equivalent to a spell such as Fireball.

I'm just saying that intent of the Cavlier mount is clear, but it's not taken nearly far enough. It's not supposed to be a familiar or true animal copmpanion, but it is supposed to be better than yor average mount...and it ain't.

I don't think a Cav player would bother with a mount under the current write up. It isnt'worth it.

(ignores Randal - lol)

Actually, I think that the Mounted Combat immediate action thing causing it to be at odds with Challenges is one of two things: (a) and oversight, or (b) something that is intended to be rectified with a Cav exclusive Feat. Remember, we're only privy to the class write-ups at the moment.

In either case, it's a shame. If the conflict was overlooked, it needs to be adjusted for so the Class can use mounted combat with the challenge. If the conflict was known, and th intent is to clear up the conflict witha Feat later, then how is the Cavalier mount special other than it's basically an "AnCo" for a fighter?