My cleric in a game set near Brevoy (historical) died, so I am replacing him with a cavalier for the next few sessions. It is going to be short, and I tailored the character to my expectations of only playing a few sessions — but I would have done that with any character, so I think it's fair for the playtest. I also have an irrational desire to use a longspear.
I'll post my play-experience feedback in this thread.
My first thought while creating this character are that it steps on the Paladin and Fighter's toes quite a bit. He gets and can be better in mounted combat than the paladin. The weapon divine bond might offset this a bit. Still, my paladin player from the campaign I GM is wringing his hands right now, since he was trying to optimize for mounted combat. Not a problem that will persist once this class is published, but why does the paladin have a mount at all anymore?
Also, we need more Oaths. I took Oath of Loyalty, and it seems sort of wimpy — it doesn't shore up my will save nearly enough given its rather limited application (enchantment[compulsion] only!) This power eats actions, and isn't returning much. We'll see how it plays out, though.
I've been pronouncing it Ker-zhist-ov. Any polish speakers who can do better?
Looks like a lot of fun, I can't wait to get him in the game!
(PS - thanks for waiting until my finals were over to release this! Woot!)
|
How does he get as many feats as a fighter? The cavalier gets 5 bonus feats vs the fighter's 11.
And in my opinion Oath of Loyalty is rather exploitable. You only have to use Aid another once to get the bonus for 24 hours. And unless the allies ask for help again, the cavalier is free to do whatever he wants.
Although, oath of loyalty is probably best for order of the cockatrice cavaliers, with their increased aid another bonus.
My cleric in a game set near Brevoy (historical) died, so I am replacing him with a cavalier for the next few sessions. It is going to be short, and I tailored the character to my expectations of only playing a few sessions — but I would have done that with any character, so I think it's fair for the playtest. I also have an irrational desire to use a longspear.
I'll post my play-experience feedback in this thread.
My first thought while creating this character are that it steps on the Paladin and Fighter's toes quite a bit. He gets as many feats as the fighter and can be better in mounted combat than the paladin. The weapon divine bond might offset this a bit. Still, my paladin player from the campaign I GM is wringing his hands right now, since he was trying to optimize for mounted combat. Not a problem that will persist once this class is published, but why does the paladin have a mount at all anymore?
Also, we need more Oaths. I took Oath of Loyalty, and it seems sort of wimpy — it doesn't shore up my will save nearly enough given its rather limited application (enchantment[compulsion] only!) This power eats actions, and isn't returning much. We'll see how it plays out, though.
Looks like a lot of fun, I can't wait to get him in the game!
(PS - thanks for waiting until my finals were over to release this! Woot!)
The fighter gets 11 feats vs the 5 feats that Cavalier gets. Honestly, I the fighter can better at mount combat than the Cavalier. Of course lacking a horse though which allows the Cavalier to catch up the upper levels. I had a mounted fighter get to level 15 in my last game and that Character was kick ass. As for the Paladin I can't say but at least the Cavalier doesn't get spells.
My players will like this because one thing they hated was the Paladins Lawful Goodness. A Chaotic Good Cavalier will appeal to one of my players for sure.
How does he get as many feats as a fighter? The cavalier gets 5 bonus feats vs the fighter's 11.
Ah!
I need to read more carefully. Thanks for the validation check. Anything else fishy here? I dropped spring attack on Krzysztof.
BTW, I think I should disclaimer that I don't play optimized characters, and I don't hope to contribute any part of that philosophy to the playtest. I'm not against it, it's just not my cup of tea. If you want to make optimal suggestions, I will gladly listen, but character is my mistress.
Agreed that we need more oaths, but reading what you wrote makes me think we're interpreting the rules differently... you say you "took" Oath of Loyalty. I see nothing which indicates you have to pick an oath and stick with it; rather, you can be opportunistic about them. Declare that you're taking a new oath, fulfill its requirements, boom. The limitation is only on simultaneous benefits, it's not a permanent selection every five levels.
Also, this is only a pseudo-educated guess, but I'm pretty sure it's pronounced like "Kristof" with a "zh" sort of floating under the "ris," If that makes any sense. :)
Coming at it from another angle: think about a Polish or Slavic accent, shape your mouth appropriately and say "Christopher," then leave off the last syllable.
Agreed that we need more oaths, but reading what you wrote makes me think we're interpreting the rules differently... you say you "took" Oath of Loyalty. I see nothing which indicates you have to pick an oath and stick with it; rather, you can be opportunistic about them. Declare that you're taking a new oath, fulfill its requirements, boom. The limitation is only on simultaneous benefits, it's not a permanent selection every five levels.
Hm. I like mine better. It seems less fickle. Oaths should not be fickle. A lot of people have been noting that Oaths can be abused... I think that is less the case if you actually have to select an oath and stick with it. I was really pleased to select one that suited my character. The idea that tomorrow he could decided to be greedy instead and get a bonus, that's... not cool.
Could this be a potential fix for the fickleness problem then? Make an oath once per five levels or so, and that's all you get?
Could this be a potential fix for the fickleness problem then? Make an oath once per five levels or so, and that's all you get?
But then they're terribly weak, but buffing them would have far-reaching balance implications. Which is why my suggestion was to change the feature's name to "boon." :)
Agreed that we need more oaths, but reading what you wrote makes me think we're interpreting the rules differently... you say you "took" Oath of Loyalty. I see nothing which indicates you have to pick an oath and stick with it; rather, you can be opportunistic about them. Declare that you're taking a new oath, fulfill its requirements, boom. The limitation is only on simultaneous benefits, it's not a permanent selection every five levels.
The above is certainly the intended way the Oaths work...
"Whenever the cavalier completes an oath, he can swear another or he can keep his existing oath, if it is still applicable. A cavalier can abandon an oath, but he cannot swear a new oath to replace the abandoned oath for at least 24 hours. Some oaths require the cavalier to keep the oath to maintain the bonus and must be abandoned to select a different oath. At 1st level, a cavalier can maintain only one oath at a time. At 5th level, and every four levels thereafter, the cavalier can swear an additional oath."
at higher levels there can be multiple oaths sworn simultaneously
