If the target of a cavaliers challenge has rogue levels he can sneak attack all the time!No he can't: "Melee attacks made against the cavalier, except those made by the target of his challenge, treat the cavalier as if he is flanked."
HEY! It's not nice to inconvenience someone's rant with reality!
The oracle can swap out spells as he levels up though, so he wouldn't need to use up a spell known at 1st - 4th level to be a good healer, but could always make sure he has the highest one with a cure, and swap out lower level ones as he advances. I'm thinking that by 8th level you could have cure moderate and cure critical and still be a pretty effective healer. At 12th you can add heal and swap out cure moderate if you wanted.
Ok let's look at a Cure Serious Wounds.
The Oracle gets to pick 1 3rd level spell at level 6, which has to be Cure Serious Wounds. So this means that he doesn't get to pick a non healing 3rd level spell until he reaches level 7 [that'll be when the Cleric gets free Cure Critical on top of his Channel ability].
I'm not saying it's not "do-able", just that you'll need a very selfless player to want to play that character. I think generally, if you're happy to be Mr. Bandaid, you'll play a Cleric because you'll get to do other non-bandaid stuff more often, earlier and better.
If I play a Oracle [and I'd love to] I'm going to want to use all my class abilities and not have to be Mr. Bandaid.
Ooops, sorry, we're like, way off topic!
Director of Games
|
I really wish Jason would clarify this, but it seems to me that the intention is for the "flanked" condition to apply only when the cavalier is engaged in melee with his challenge target. After all, you only get your bonuses against the target in melee, and it makes sense that you focus completely only when you are getting the bonuses. Also, this would solve the issue of the Challenge "not ending".
Cheers
The flanking part starts the moment the cavalier declares his challenge. There are currently a fair number of concerns about this, but as of yet, I am not seeing a lot of playtest feedback, just hypotheticals and conjecture. Give it a try and let me know.
I am open to general feedback, but I do not think I am going to move on this until I get some actual play experience.
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing
I really wish Jason would clarify this, but it seems to me that the intention is for the "flanked" condition to apply only when the cavalier is engaged in melee with his challenge target. After all, you only get your bonuses against the target in melee, and it makes sense that you focus completely only when you are getting the bonuses. Also, this would solve the issue of the Challenge "not ending".
Cheers
The flanking part starts the moment the cavalier declares his challenge. There are currently a fair number of concerns about this, but as of yet, I am not seeing a lot of playtest feedback, just hypotheticals and conjecture. Give it a try and let me know.
I am open to general feedback, but I do not think I am going to move on this until I get some actual play experience.
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing
When I played the cavalier it came up a few times but wasnt really an issue. It only came up against a large amount of enemies. I think I need to design encounters to test this a little better, with some rogues in the mix, and maybe a few more opponents. Alot of the counters we ran involved just a few enemies of higher CR, where they normally were occupied by the other members of the party (granted we had 3 melee combatants, a paladin, my cavalier, and a monk along with an oracle). The times it did come up it stung. The sword and board cavalier in heavy armor was getting hit by lowly goblins, one of which was a rogue. It wasnt devastating, but it was noticable to the point where my cavalier was 5ft stepping away from the other goblins while fighting the target of his challenge.
I think the fighter actually makes a better mounted knight than the Cavalier. The fighters armor training makes all the difference. For starters armor training encourages a fighter to have decent dex say 16 or higher as they can use it with armor training. Then add the lowering of the armor check penalty when it comes to ride. So the fighter should have a better ride skill chance than the Cavalier.
So a 12th level fighter with Dex of 18 due to stats and magic items can wearing normal full plate with a heavy shield and have a -5 ACP and +15 to their AC. Compare this to cavalier who probably will stick with 12 Dex and wear the same armor but gets -8 armor check penalty and only gets +12 AC. So this leaves the fighter with +6 better on their ride check than the Cavalier. Now a Cavalier could spend some cash on Dex and go with higher starting stat but that returns aren't there like they are for the fighter but assume the Cavalier did this they would still be 3 worse than the fighter.
Shouldn't the Cavalier get something to counter that armor check penalty when it comes to the ride skill?
|
I think the fighter actually makes a better mounted knight than the Cavalier. The fighters armor training makes all the difference. For starters armor training encourages a fighter to have decent dex say 16 or higher as they can use it with armor training. Then add the lowering of the armor check penalty when it comes to ride. So the fighter should have a better ride skill chance than the Cavalier.
So a 12th level fighter with Dex of 18 due to stats and magic items can wearing normal full plate with a heavy shield and have a -5 ACP and +15 to their AC. Compare this to cavalier who probably will stick with 12 Dex and wear the same armor but gets -8 armor check penalty and only gets +12 AC. So this leaves the fighter with +6 better on their ride check than the Cavalier. Now a Cavalier could spend some cash on Dex and go with higher starting stat but that returns aren't there like they are for the fighter but assume the Cavalier did this they would still be 3 worse than the fighter.
Shouldn't the Cavalier get something to counter that armor check penalty when it comes to the ride skill?
Absolutely! right now fighters are indeed better at riding!
Paladin mounts have spell resistance!
Druid mounts have the share spell ability!
Buff the cavalier's mount and mounted abilities and I "may" start to consider looking at it. I have already made specific suggestions in another thread in reference to mount squeezing, cavalier's reach while mounted, etc. (titled 11/13). I also have the firm belief that the Challenge ability is messed up, for various reasons. I have not playtested the class but I draw from 30 years of gaming experience. Make the challenged foe subject to an attack/damage bonus on the order of the ranger's "best" favored enemy, with no silly "flanked" drawback, and we may have something here...
I really wish Jason would clarify this, but it seems to me that the intention is for the "flanked" condition to apply only when the cavalier is engaged in melee with his challenge target. After all, you only get your bonuses against the target in melee, and it makes sense that you focus completely only when you are getting the bonuses. Also, this would solve the issue of the Challenge "not ending".
Cheers
The flanking part starts the moment the cavalier declares his challenge. There are currently a fair number of concerns about this, but as of yet, I am not seeing a lot of playtest feedback, just hypotheticals and conjecture. Give it a try and let me know.
I am open to general feedback, but I do not think I am going to move on this until I get some actual play experience.
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing
Thanks for posting. I understand that you need play data to make major adjustments. I for one am not one of the "cavaliers are always flanked and the sky is falling" crowd. I think the flanking thing is great, but my concern is with the inability to end it, and a little bit with how the cavalier interacts with other combatants before he engages his Challenge target.
As a side note, re: Demanding Challenge. Giving the other party members bonuses to hit the Challenge target until he engages him in melee seems a little clunky, and at odds with the intentions of the cavalier (and seemingly, the ability).
Cheers again.
|
Assumptions on how the combat might play out doesnt wash with me as a strong argument. the fact that is can happen is enough concern for me to consider it happening at least once per session. but based on your assumptions my initial thought of the encounter was 2 thugs guarding the door and two thugs guarding the boss, the cavalier does have direct charging line because the boss is standing opposite the door and the guards are at his front diagonal corners.
Just how easy is it for a rogue with high dex to beat a heavy armored cavalier at initiative?
I agree with you that the cavalier must be choosy with when to use challenge but I still feel its a pretty severe trap to fall into. For example, the average encounter will see mostly martial combatants that only get a +2 to hit because of the flanking condition. A cavalier with a high ac will often become complaycent about such a small penalty using his challenge as...
yet everything you suggest about the Cavilier's lack of utility and ultimate DOOM is a series of assumptions as well. You assume the cavilier uses his ability in the least advantageous fashion possible and completely ignored a reasonable alternative suggested by Jason. You dismiss his assumption of rouge placement as unrealistic, and replace it with a gauntlet of rouges all lined up for our hapless cavilier to blithely run through and die. Its a circumstantial ability. It doesn't work in all circumstances by design.
In short, you are making assumptions here as well, but are suggesting the ones you make are sensible, and everyone else's are easily dismissed. Are there some concerns with the ability? Yes. Is it the DOOM! of the cavilier? I think not.
Assumptions on how the combat might play out doesnt wash with me as a strong argument. the fact that is can happen is enough concern for me to consider it happening at least once per session. but based on your assumptions my initial thought of the encounter was 2 thugs guarding the door and two thugs guarding the boss, the cavalier does have direct charging line because the boss is standing opposite the door and the guards are at his front diagonal corners.
Just how easy is it for a rogue with high dex to beat a heavy armored cavalier at initiative?
I agree with you that the cavalier must be choosy with when to use challenge but I still feel its a pretty severe trap to fall into. For example, the average encounter will see mostly martial combatants that only get a +2 to hit because of the flanking condition. A cavalier with a high ac will often become complaycent about such a small penalty using his challenge as...
yet everything you suggest about the Cavilier's lack of utility and ultimate DOOM is a series of assumptions as well. You assume the cavilier uses his ability in the least advantageous fashion possible and completely ignored a reasonable alternative suggested by Jason. You dismiss his assumption of rouge placement as unrealistic, and replace it with a gauntlet of rouges all lined up for our hapless cavilier to blithely run through and die. Its a circumstantial ability. It doesn't work in all circumstances by design.
In short, you are making assumptions here as well, but are suggesting the ones you make are sensible, and everyone else's are easily dismissed. Are there some concerns with the ability? Yes. Is it the DOOM! of the cavilier? I think not.
+1
|
Don't get me wrong, I agree there should be some sort of penalty for the cavaliers focused/shortsightedness towards a single opponent I just strongly feel that using the Flanking condition is far to dangerous.
Agreed my senario is close to the extreme and Jason did state a more reasonable approach of activating the challenge after performing the movement (which I didnt ignore as you say) but I stand by the fact that most players will at one time or another make the mistake of activating the ability at the wrong time.
Its like activating the barbarians ability to rage just as he steps into a room and falls into a pit. In 3.5 hes wasted his use for the day and has to wait to be rescued. If he had held off on that rage till he reached his frist target he would have been ok but the player misjudged.
Yes my example has assumptions, that is the nature of senarios but I do not assume any random aspects of a set encounter. Assumptions such as winning or losing initiative are part of the "game" just like a fireball can be devistating to an encounter until the wizard rolls all "1's" and everyone passes their save!
Lets look at a less threatening senario...
Drop the two rogues from the door so we only have 2 rogue thugs and the boss.
The cavalier moves in, doesnt provoke attacks of opportunities since he doesnt move more than 5 ft through anyones threat and places himself between two pilars and infront of the boss.
The rogues cant get flank positions because of the pillars and an ally standing behind the cavalier also attacking the boss with a reach weapon.
As soon as the cavalier activates his challenge the rogues can flank the boss and attack diagonally towards the cavalier receiveing an extra 2d6 damage per hit from sneak attack. There is no effort on their part to obtain this extra damage.
Short of backing away from his challenge or killing it as quickly as possible the player of the cavalier will likely be looking at the thugs as a greater threat to his survival for the rest of this encounter.
Now put a Fighter, Paladin or Ranger in the same scenario (making the boss an evil outsider, and a favored enemy) and you will see that neither consider the thugs a threat unless they obtain a true Flank.
I think you'll agree my consern at the possible threat auto-flank has on a cavalier still holds some serious weight.
I admit I made a mistake on the target getting the flank, it happens with new abilities I havent had a chance to test in a proper game environment, only through singular mock up encounters.
When I next get the guys together for a session I will be running a series of Paizo encounters and will replace a single player with that of a cavalier since Jason has requested actual play experience with the class.
All this worry about flanking and such is really a bit extreme. As long as the cavalier isn't stupid he wont be throwing out challenges in crowded battlefields. If he does running around with his tell tale banner then he gets what he deserves. You bust into a room with 10 ogres and a hill giant and the cavalier shouts out an opening challenge to the hillgiant and the ogres will play punt the cavalier. But if they wait till they engage he can be smarter about it and challenge the hill giant either when the ogres are under control or when he is actually face to face with the giant and not before hand, even then he should be careful not to challenge if the ogres have him in a pinch, but if they have him surrounded, well he's flanked anyway no harm to making it automatic.
|
|
My first impression of the cavalier is that I love it, challange is really well balanced, a powerful boost to every attack at the cost of being flanked by everyone else in the fight. if anything I don't think that's enough of a balance because the only way to get serious use out of it is if you're fighting with two weapon fighters (where the -2s are negated by the flanking) or rogues. It's nice to see the AnCo rules work without magic, which is nice considering the frailty of horses at high level in 3.5 for any non-magical class. All in all I like this class a lot.
My first impression of the cavalier is that I love it, challange is really well balanced, a powerful boost to every attack at the cost of being flanked by everyone else in the fight. if anything I don't think that's enough of a balance because the only way to get serious use out of it is if you're fighting with two weapon fighters (where the -2s are negated by the flanking) or rogues. It's nice to see the AnCo rules work without magic, which is nice considering the frailty of horses at high level in 3.5 for any non-magical class. All in all I like this class a lot.
Creatures with power attack can also take advantage of it as well. Espically ogres/giants with power attack, high strength and two handed weapons. Still I am with you in saying it isn't really that big a set back for a very powerful ability, prehaps a little too powerful really. Cavalier's with TWF can be dominating against their challenge target.
oh and I'm not a big fan of the per encounter ability. I mean if we went to all that trouble avoiding it in the core why suddenly say okay nevermind per encounter abilities are okay after all.
Agreed. I don't like that aspect of it either. Personally I'd like something akin to the cavalier simply digging his heels in and through force of personal charisma/will power/pride/honor basically physc'ing himself up for a battle against a foe and recieving a bonus and this "tunnel" vision effect. Being able to do that a number of times per day makes much more sense to me. In sports it would be like the coach sending the defense out for a goal line stand and everyone on the team simply putting everything they have in to make it happen, they pull it off and then the offense turns the ball back over right away. Most defenses will not be able to hold a second time, they simply expended themselves both physically and metally doing it the first time.
For the Cavalier think Ray Lewis how he inspires those around him to greater hieghts though the examples of his own inpsired play. That's kind of how I see a cavalier best built. Not as a non-holy paladin wanabe.
Hi Jason (and everyone),
Well I stated up a 10th level Cavalier (and made him a hobgoblin) to have added into the encounter with my 6 players (currently running Legacy of Fire part 5, "The Impossible Eye") I added him to encounter with the noble salamander (because I was sure with 6 players the bursar wouldn't last 2 rounds...) I also added 3 'regular' salamanders as "thugs" for the hobgoblin cavalier to command, and I chose a wolf for his mount (which by 10th level was large) and I was pretty pleased with what I had built. Heh heh... then the combat actually happened.
The cavalier went before the PC barbarian/figther and using Spirited Charge, a falchion, and declaring his challenge (oh and actually rolling a critical too) I did a decent 51 points of damage to the PC. The wolf attempted to trip, but that didn't happen. That was the best that I got from it. The combat seemed to turn against the cavalier ( dice-roll wise at least) He wasn't ganged up on, but I realized (too late) that this particular room/encounter wasn't the best to try and showcase/playtest a cavalier from. (Should have chosen one of those long hallways for the cavalier to ride down/charge them from.) Well... hindsight is 20/20 as they say.
Despite MY poor planning, I think the class is really decent, and if I could convince my players to "put aside" their current characters (ranging levels 9 through 11) and do a real playtest, I'm sure it would work much better. I'll attempt an Oracle NPC soon (maybe in the next week or so) and pit him/her against the players and see how that works out. (Leaning toward Battle Foci...)
Sigh... that was my brief (too brief) playtest of a Cavalier. I didn't notice any glaring problems with abilities, or mechanics... but that might be due to the "shortness" of play time that "Mevlut; Red Rage of the River Kingdoms" saw against my players.
PS: Would you like to "post" my Cavalier here? Look him over? Maybe I did something wrong?
Dean; the Minstrel_Wyrm
|
|
I definitely agree. Too much to keep track of.
I feel like the class has a massive clusterf*ck of little abilities. In terms of bookkeeping and usefulness, I feel like most players are better off with less, more powerful abilities.
Ditto. I actually only mustered the courage to read about one or two orders before yawning with boredom and Xing the PDF...
Same for the oracle, but even moreso. In my case, I find the oracle's clusterfack so great that I don't even want to read and compare the various foci/variants...
|
My comments:
Oaths: Some need to be rewritten or deleted, In particular,chastity, greed and purity. It to me appears to be too easy to gain these without some real consequences to the character. The greed one in particular, doesn't seem to jive with the flavor of the character.
If there is to be a oath of greed, there should be a oath of Charity. The cavalier must give his wealth to the poor to gain say a +2 to diplomacy and sense motive and maybe something else.
If the cavalier is to be a inspiring type of character, he should give a bonus to others vs fear or a will save within 30 ft radius.
The cavalier could be broken up into two tracks, one mounted representing nobility, the other track could be foot for the commoner.
The cavalier should get a ride bonus to the character
Expert trainer should come in a earlier level.
Orders: the order of the Dragon doesnt seem to fit the motif of the cavalier.
I see the orders as a great background conflict in a campaign setting. The order of the Lion vs The shied or the star.
|
|
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?
Pretty much. Between preparing milk bottles, commuting 3 hours a day to go to work, being forced to watch Elmo's World (except when changing diapers; thank God Elmo can't follow me everywhere in the house just yet), I now find my time pretty limited for *BETA* rules that at first glimpse, appear just plain unappealing.
:)
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?Pretty much. Between preparing milk bottles, commuting 3 hours a day to go to work, being forced to watch Elmo's World (except when changing diapers; thank God Elmo can't follow me everywhere in the house just yet), I now find my time pretty limited for *BETA* rules that at first glimpse, appear just plain unappealing.
:)
Actually, I find Purple Dragon's comment valid and a bit telling. Perhaps because I struggled to get through the Cavalier & Oracle descriptions too; without as many distractions.
As a person with an art/publishing background I think it's important for material to catch a person's interest. If you can't get people to buy your book b/c they can't figure out what it is from the cover or description, it doesn't matter how great it is. That said, obviously no thing appeals to everyone I suppose. And, NEW classes are going to be harder sells than brushed up core classes.
I downloaded the pdf only today and have NOT playtested it yet. However, at first blush, the two new classes look mediocre (but I yawned when the Knight & Dragon Disciple came out too, so maybe I'm just dull). The classes still seem too cluttered and feel more like prestige classes than stand alone base classes. But, I look forward to seeing their development.
Don't get me wrong, I agree there should be some sort of penalty for the cavaliers focused/shortsightedness towards a single opponent I just strongly feel that using the Flanking condition is far to dangerous...
So, for all that the Cavalier Challenge is... the fact that it gives so much base damage seems abusable, and there are direct solutions for its other problems. Cavalier/barb? How does Challenge interact with Improved Uncanny Dodge? OK no I'm not flanked but I'm flanked...? The answer to that isn't clear. The problem is that Challenge encourages dual-wielding. Because nothing screams horse-charging valiant than going up to a monster, flanking it with your large Wolf and making a dual wielding full attack for 5 attacks that deal d8+10+5d6 each (with the Wolf making a full attack later)
Basically you're taking a situation where the monsters abuse the Cavalier's Challenge. Taking the opposite situation where the Cavalier abuses the Challenge... it seems quite a bit more dangerous with much fewer drawbacks. Say he sees the filthy shadowy creatures and decides he should call one of their cowardly hides out, and challenges one of the rogues, which is the right play, and then does a full attack with two shortswords while flanking (maybe his dog is flanking, perhaps takes an aoo from a rogue, but whatever)
So average damage is: 14dmg x2 [d6+2d6+3+1] (shortsword, challenge lvl 4, str, magic) which seems nice.
his Attack will be: +8 [4+3+2-2+1] (bab, str, flank, dual, magic)
+8 isn't great, but isn't bad, certainly, and the rogues can't expect to have much better. Consider that he gets full BAB, heavy armor, animal companion, and doesn't even need to flank to get the bonus. Seems like Challenge >> sneak attack. The rogue he challenges won't auto flank him, and the other one still might miss his (minimum) ac of 20.
Favor is in the Cavalier's court on that one, especially since he gets bonus Xd6 in addition to having all those extras. If it's a risk to activate, it's a risk, but I can't see how Challenge is underpowered. Rage is a risk to activate, but we don't say barbarian is underpowered. Given that Challenge does more damage than rage, I would say it's fine if it has more of a drawback.
The problem is that Challenge encourages dual-wielding. Because nothing screams horse-charging valiant than going up to a monster, flanking it with your large Wolf and making a dual wielding full attack for 5 attacks that deal d8+10+5d6 each (with the Wolf making a full attack later)
This is actually a good point, one which I hadn't considered (although I'm kicking myself for not seeing it, as it's the same reason it's best for rogues to duel-wield). There's a few solutions I can think of, with their own accompanying problems:
1. Tie Challenge damage to weapon damage, like Vital Strike. Problem: gimps sword-and-board Cavaliers.
2. Make Challenge only apply once per round. Problem: gimps overall damage unless the Cavalier can charge every round.
3. Tie Challenge to a specific weapon. Problem: that gets a bit into the mystical side of things.
4. Change Challenge to have some other effect than just added damage. Problem: the rewrite won't be thoroughly tested.
Maybe just don't allow challenge damage with light weapons?
Edit: This idea would make a lot more sense if Challenge damage were based on zealous determination, rather than being considered precision damage. Of course, IMO so would everything else about the ability. So yeah.
The problem is that Challenge encourages dual-wielding. Because nothing screams horse-charging valiant than going up to a monster, flanking it with your large Wolf and making a dual wielding full attack for 5 attacks that deal d8+10+5d6 each (with the Wolf making a full attack later)This is actually a good point, one which I hadn't considered (although I'm kicking myself for not seeing it, as it's the same reason it's best for rogues to duel-wield). There's a few solutions I can think of, with their own accompanying problems:
1. Tie Challenge damage to weapon damage, like Vital Strike. Problem: gimps sword-and-board Cavaliers.
2. Make Challenge only apply once per round. Problem: gimps overall damage unless the Cavalier can charge every round.
3. Tie Challenge to a specific weapon. Problem: that gets a bit into the mystical side of things.
4. Change Challenge to have some other effect than just added damage. Problem: the rewrite won't be thoroughly tested.
As is the rule makes any Cavalier not doing TWF isn't taking full advantage of his damage potential. He can destory his challenged target quickly with TWF and his full BAB makes it very viable. He may actually be the best TWF in the game now. Funny thing is with this requiring an extreme dex though he will not be wearing heavy armor very often (until maybe the point he can get mithril heavy armor, and even then...).
Seems an odd thing that cavaliers best builds will leave them out of heavy armor. Kind of the reverse of what I would have imagined.
The problem is that Challenge encourages dual-wielding. Because nothing screams horse-charging valiant than going up to a monster, flanking it with your large Wolf and making a dual wielding full attack for 5 attacks that deal d8+10+5d6 each (with the Wolf making a full attack later)This is actually a good point, one which I hadn't considered (although I'm kicking myself for not seeing it, as it's the same reason it's best for rogues to duel-wield). There's a few solutions I can think of, with their own accompanying problems:
1. Tie Challenge damage to weapon damage, like Vital Strike. Problem: gimps sword-and-board Cavaliers.
2. Make Challenge only apply once per round. Problem: gimps overall damage unless the Cavalier can charge every round.
3. Tie Challenge to a specific weapon. Problem: that gets a bit into the mystical side of things.
4. Change Challenge to have some other effect than just added damage. Problem: the rewrite won't be thoroughly tested.As is the rule makes any Cavalier not doing TWF isn't taking full advantage of his damage potential. He can destory his challenged target quickly with TWF and his full BAB makes it very viable. He may actually be the best TWF in the game now. Funny thing is with this requiring an extreme dex though he will not be wearing heavy armor very often (until maybe the point he can get mithril heavy armor, and even then...).
Seems an odd thing that cavaliers best builds will leave them out of heavy armor. Kind of the reverse of what I would have imagined.
I dont know that this is actually a problem, the same applies to paladin and smite, but most people I think are not going to do so because it just feels so off. I guess its a matter of taste, but i've always been of the mind that we shouldnt design our game with the mindset of fear of powergamers. Nothing will every be perfectly balance, but dont ruin an ability because of a few bad apples.
|
I personally like the idea of at least one class being very strong when using TWF. However that does not make it mandatory to play it as such (the paladin example was very accurate).
However nerfing the ability to do this would unnecesarily nerf many options that have notign to do with power gaming (my favorite was a TWF sword and board shield bash cavalier of doom) which is as of now fairly viable with the challenge mechanic. And feels very right flavorwise
While the full attack and feat line for TWF is very attractive perhaps the shield Bash line is what one will see used more often. Such a Sword and Board Cavalier will batter his foe and yet still keep a good armor heavy armor setup.
I dont know that this is actually a problem, the same applies to paladin and smite, but most people I think are not going to do so because it just feels so off. I guess its a matter of taste, but i've always been of the mind that we shouldnt design our game with the mindset of fear of powergamers. Nothing will every be perfectly balance, but dont ruin an ability because of a few bad apples.The problem is that Challenge encourages dual-wielding. Because nothing screams horse-charging valiant than going up to a monster, flanking it with your large Wolf and making a dual wielding full attack for 5 attacks that deal d8+10+5d6 each (with the Wolf making a full attack later)This is actually a good point, one which I hadn't considered (although I'm kicking myself for not seeing it, as it's the same reason it's best for rogues to duel-wield). There's a few solutions I can think of, with their own accompanying problems:
1. Tie Challenge damage to weapon damage, like Vital Strike. Problem: gimps sword-and-board Cavaliers.
2. Make Challenge only apply once per round. Problem: gimps overall damage unless the Cavalier can charge every round.
3. Tie Challenge to a specific weapon. Problem: that gets a bit into the mystical side of things.
4. Change Challenge to have some other effect than just added damage. Problem: the rewrite won't be thoroughly tested.As is the rule makes any Cavalier not doing TWF isn't taking full advantage of his damage potential. He can destory his challenged target quickly with TWF and his full BAB makes it very viable. He may actually be the best TWF in the game now. Funny thing is with this requiring an extreme dex though he will not be wearing heavy armor very often (until maybe the point he can get mithril heavy armor, and even then...).
Seems an odd thing that cavaliers best builds will leave them out of heavy armor. Kind of the reverse of what I would have imagined.
That would be very different from the design they went with for other classes were fear of power gamers dramatically altered some classes.
That would be very different from the design they went with for other classes were fear of power gamers dramatically altered some classes.
I dont think most of the changes they made had anything to do with powergamers. It had to do with obvious power imbalances. The fact that 2handed fighting with power attack was dramatically and obviously better then attacking with a one handed weapon in 3.5 required no munchkining to see. That ray of enfeeblement was one of the hands down best debuffs in the game up through level 20 was also little to do with optimization and all to do with the fact that this one thing on its own was outrageous.
The only change I think they made that really was with powergamers in mind was polymorph and its kind.
I dont have a problem with trying to keep things even, what I have a problem with, is nerfing everything and its grandmother out of fear that it will be exploited by some munchkin somewhere and we end up with a bunch of watered down uninteresting classes. The end result of that is what I see in 4th edition, where no one really does anything unique or exciting, but its almost imposible to munchkin anything. (Mind you I am not bashing 4th, I in fact find its a very fun game so long as you take it for what it is, I just think they went overboard and kept swimming away from the boat trying to keep things 'balanced').
|
|
So, for all that the Cavalier Challenge is... the fact that it gives so much base damage seems abusable, and there are direct solutions for its other problems. Cavalier/barb? How does Challenge interact with Improved Uncanny Dodge? OK no I'm not flanked but I'm flanked...? The answer to that isn't clear.
Improved uncanny dodge, and similar abilities, do not protect a cavalier from being flanked as the result of a challenge.
Seems pretty clear to me, while in a challenge the cavalier is flanked regardless of abilities. when out of a challenge he can make use of improved uncanny dodge.
The problem is that Challenge encourages dual-wielding. Because nothing screams horse-charging valiant than going up to a monster, flanking it with your large Wolf and making a dual wielding full attack for 5 attacks that deal d8+10+5d6 each (with the Wolf making a full attack later)
Any fixed damage like this lends itself to giving greater results the move attacks you get that's simple maths, although chance to hit often crops in the calculation as well which is sometimes less obvious. I Agree with you that perhaps it should be more tailored to the traditional fighting styles of the cavalier but to do that you run the risk of limiting the cavaliers choices. A duel wielding cavalier should not be penalised because he breaks with the traditional sword and broad role.
This is actually a good point, one which I hadn't considered (although I'm kicking myself for not seeing it, as it's the same reason it's best for rogues to duel-wield). There's a few solutions I can think of, with their own accompanying problems:
4. Change Challenge to have some other effect than just added damage. Problem: the rewrite won't be thoroughly tested.
All 4 suggested changes have the testing problem but this is the option I would prefer, as to what, I'm not sure.
Basically you're taking a situation where the monsters abuse the Cavalier's Challenge. Taking the opposite situation where the Cavalier abuses the Challenge... it seems quite a bit more dangerous with much fewer drawbacks.
Buts its still only against a single target and thats the nature of the game, in fact is one of the biggest issues with instant kill spells and abilities, while its ok to kill 1 out of 20 opponents over 4-5 encounters in a single day for the party, having 1 opponent in each of the 4-5 encounters with the same ability against 4 PCs can spell disaster for any adventure.
Wasting a powerful damaging ability like challenge on a mook might be vastly more powerful than against the boss but the results are greatly reduced. Its like using finger of death on one of 8 goblins instead of risking a saving throw against the ogre boss.
Here's my concern from another view point:
To kill a goblin the cavalier challenged will likely take less than 2 rounds, he is likely to take 4+ attacks against him that are considered flanked in this time, zero if he drops him on the same round he activates it.
However to kill the ogre the cavalier challenged is likely to take 3+ rounds depending on hit ratio and damage rolled. During this time the cavalier will take 12+ attacks against him that are considered flanked. Even if only one is a rogue and only 1 level that's still +3d6 potential damage against the cavalier, if all are rogues...
*WARNING* Council of Thieves Spoilers Follow
If the PCs somehow reached this area undetected, they face a total of eight tiefling rogues, Vethamer, and Dravano all at once—a CR 5 encounter, and one that most 2nd-level parties will likely need to flee from if they’re not lucky.
In fact I think a real challenge for this class would be to see how a cavalier would survive in the Council of Thieves AP, which I will test if I can get one of my players to switch.
|
|
Like I said in a previous post, a less problematic cavalier challenge would be akin to atk/dmg bonus granted to rangers for fave enemy... effectively, you challenge someone, and he BECOMES your favored enemy...
So, just like ranger, except MORE flexibility (i.e. anything you fight effectively becomes favored enemy, so reduce the bonus by half compared to ranger)
For example:
RAW:
"Favored Enemy (Ex): At 1st level, a ranger selects a
creature type from the ranger favored enemies table. He
gains a +2 bonus on Bluff, Knowledge, Perception, Sense
Motive, and Survival checks against creatures of his
selected type. Likewise, he gets a +2 bonus on weapon
attack and damage rolls against them. A ranger may
make Knowledge skill checks untrained when attempting
to identify these creatures.
At 5th level and every five levels thereafter (10th, 15th,
and 20th level), the ranger may select an additional favored
enemy. In addition, at each such interval, the bonus against
any one favored enemy (including the one just selected, if
so desired) increases by +2."
--> So a ranger could have the following "max" bonus against his "first" fave enemy: (remember this is situational, and thus considered "super good")
Level // Bonus
1 // 2
5 // 4
10 // 6
15 // 8
20 // 10
--> My suggestion is to make the cavalier's challenge an atk/dmg bonus going by the following schedule, and remove the "flanked" drawback:
Level // Bonus
1 // 1
5 // 2
10 // 3
15 // 4
20 // 5
There you go: balanced, and without silly flank. With such an atk/dmg bonus, you effectively gain what you'd get with weap focus, weap spec, great weap focus, great weapon spec (it's actually better by one, and can apply to two different weapons if you are a dual wielder, so it's better than what a fighter will get with the weapon focus/specialization feats)
Seems pretty clear to me, while in a challenge the cavalier is flanked regardless of abilities. when out of a challenge he can make use of improved uncanny dodge.
This wasn't a satisfactory ruling to me, so I reread it, and it specifically mentions imp. uncanny dodge as something that doesn't help. Sooo... I guess that solves that.
4. Change Challenge to have some other effect than just added damage. Problem: the rewrite won't be thoroughly tested.All 4 suggested changes have the testing problem but this is the option I would prefer, as to what, I'm not sure.
Yeah, I prefer that, too. It does need some extra damage to keep up, regardless of Mount status. If they treat their mount like an animal companion, I'd hate to keep having small tunnels in places so mounts couldn't get through.
*WARNING* Council of Thieves Spoilers Follow
Yes, it's true that a den of thieves would be a problem area for him, but he just doesn't have to turn it on, in that case. That's under player control. An ability that is as good as the paladin smite/encounter should be limited by a large drawback. Rogues have to flank, he gets flanked. Seems reasonable, given the similar damage bonuses and the fact that he has bigger HD and more armor (and a mount).
That said, I don't really like way the ability fits within the class, but I think the drawback is well-deserved, if not large enough.
|
|
Yes, it's true that a den of thieves would be a problem area for him, but he just doesn't have to turn it on, in that case. That's under player control. An ability that is as good as the paladin smite/encounter should be limited by a large drawback. Rogues have to flank, he gets flanked. Seems reasonable, given the similar damage bonuses and the fact that he has bigger HD and more armor (and a mount).
That said, I don't really like way the ability fits within the class, but I think the drawback is well-deserved, if not large enough.
My problem is that the cavalier has no way of knowing the target is going to get such a great benefit against him until hes flanked - being a rogue doesn't mean you dress like one.
A paladin can detect evil creatures and thus can choose with incite when to use his smite, a ranger knows how to identify his prey and many categories are obvious if not hidden by magic.But a Cavalier has no way of knowing just what sort of threat he's opening himself to until its too late, and once active cannot be stopped until the target is dead, unconscious or the combat is over!
Can you imagine if the target of a cavaliers challenge took to the air with a simple fly spell while his rogue buddies decimated the party?
Here's another consideration; rogues use Tactics to achieve additional sneak attack damage, fighters use tactics to avoid it, so why would a cavalier under the restrictions of a challenge find himself unable to use the most basic form of tactic? They are supposed to be skilled combatants yet even a wizard casting a full round action spell doesn't suffer from sneak attacks and he's technically unable to move!
It just seems completely ludicrous unfair, and unbalanced to inhibit such a huge penalty on the cavalier! and don't get me started on how easy it is for an Assassin to kill a cavalier!
in how many situations when engaged with multiple opponents in melee would your character be flanked anyway by some or all of those opponents, and how does this compare to the number of situations in such a melee where your character would not count as flanked by some or all of those opponents?
Standard formation will generally have 2 allies standing next to each other with 2-4 opponents in front. Unless your outdoors rooms normally restrict to 30 ft wide or less with corridors 10 ft or less. its normally extremely difficult to get a flank at the start of combat but as opponents start to die and breaks appear in the ranks (or in specific ambushes) flanks will occur. however for a cavalier the moment he activates challenge he's risking flanks from every angle be it one foe or many.
take a 10 ft wide corridor leading into a 20 ft room with 8 goblins.
C= cavalier
P= Party member
g= goblin
______
|____|
|____|
|gggg|
|gggg|
_|CP|_
______
Its a pretty common scenario to have the two tanks blocking the room to prevent the goblins from getting more than 2 or 3 attacks in and it also protects the casters at the back. lets assume all the goblins are 1st level rogues. none will get sneak attacks unless they somehow perform some manoeuvre to threaten one. all they can do is attack and it will generally be 2 on the cavalier and 2 on the paladin.
Now IF the cavalier activates his challenge 3 of the goblins are likely to attack him and leave one who cannot reach to attack the other party member. Agreed it unlikely he would but this could be an ambush the cavalier was unaware of, he could have declared his challenge on an ogre who fled into this room and the party gave chase too. unlikely you say? maybe but the fact remains for ANY other character running into this scenario its just a minor inconvenience, for the cavalier it could be fatal!
I do take issue with the class skills. I like what's there, but no knowlege (nobility)? That is nuts. I know that certain orders grant it as a class skill, but ALL Cavaliers should get it. The class has a feature called Banner...which means all Cavaliers have some kind of heraldic symbol. I believe it is intrinsic to the class, and in fact I would support granting them half their Cavalier level as a bonus and let them make checks in Knowledge (nobility) untrained.I think having Know:Nobility as a general Cavalier Class Skill is reasonable, but the 1/2Level Bonus and extra stuff should be specific to specific Orders. It's clear that all Orders are NOT about the Chivalry as much, or the Mount as much, and that's a good thing IMHO.
Cavaliers should have Know: Nobility, but let certain orders get a bonus to their role due to the orders focus on that or even give an order skill focus: Nobility.
|
|
Quiejenoth:
I am a little confused by your example situation. As far as I can make out the chain of events you propose goes like this:
1) Party encounters ogre.
2) Cavalier uses Challenge ability on ogre.
3) Ogre (maybe after taking some hits) runs.
At this point, as far as I can see the combat with the ogre has ended, and therefore the Cavalier's Challenge also ends. Whether or not the party has done enough to defeat the ogre and earn XP is a matter for the GM, and what comes later.
The ogre encounter doesn't start until he is in the room with the goblins. The first encounter in the previous room is a simple parley until initiative is rolled. Those who beat the ogre get one round of attacks before he joins the rest of the encounter (ambush). This kind of set up is used quite frequently but not always as straight forward as a simple retreat.
For example.Dragon parleys with PCs, PCs engage in combat, dragon flys to vantage point while his minions deal with threat.
Salamander parleys with PCs, PCs engage in combat, salamander summons forth squad of fire elementals before retreating across a wall of flame...
I used the room scenario because it was the easiest to portray on a forum.
A lenient GM might consider allowing a cavalier to start as a new encounter even though initiative wasn't re-rolled but that's not how the RAW interprets it. I agree letting them drop it early seems fair but again raw needs to consider such occurrences because right now any roguish ambush with this typical "parley with BBEG who you will encounter later" scenario can prove fatal to the cavalier through actions beyond his control to rectify.
RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32, 2011 Top 16
|
After thinking it over for a while, I also think that the challenge mechanic probably should have a limiting factor other than 1/encounter. First, all of the other classes main ability has a limit on how often they can use it - rounds per day for rage and bardic performance, spells per day for the casters, ki points and lay on hands for monks and paladins, favored enemy only works on chosen creature types, and even sneak attack is situational, the rogue can't simply say I'm sneak attacking that guy all combat, they have to set it up with flanking, feinting, or making the target lose his Dex bonus to AC.
Also, the 1/encounter usage will have a greater impact on easy fights than on hard ones. On the hard fights, it's balanced, but when the cavalier can also use it for the easy fights, they just become easier, and won't use an appropriate amount of resources as they're supposed to. While the other classes are saving their limited resources, the cavalier isn't in those combats.
I think making it work more like sneak attack or favored enemy is a better route, by applying a restriction on when it can activate. Maybe requiring it to be only usable on a worthy opponent, such as one with CR equal to or greater than the cavalier's total character level? In a particularly tough fight against multiple tough opponents, the cavalier might be able to use challenge on each in succession, but in most fights it wouldn't apply unless there's a leader or tough single foe present.
This might need some in game reason for the cavalier to determine which foes are worthy, or you can just say that cavaliers are shrewd judges of an opponent's threat level, and call it a day.
I've got a few words to say.
The cavalier is too tough.
After thinking it over for a while, I also think that the challenge mechanic probably should have a limiting factor other than 1/encounter. First, all of the other classes main ability has a limit on how often they can use it - rounds per day for rage and bardic performance, spells per day for the casters, ki points and lay on hands for monks and paladins, favored enemy only works on chosen creature types, and even sneak attack is situational, the rogue can't simply say I'm sneak attacking that guy all combat, they have to set it up with flanking, feinting, or making the target lose his Dex bonus to AC.
Also, the 1/encounter usage will have a greater impact on easy fights than on hard ones. On the hard fights, it's balanced, but when the cavalier can also use it for the easy fights, they just become easier, and won't use an appropriate amount of resources as they're supposed to. While the other classes are saving their limited resources, the cavalier isn't in those combats.
I think making it work more like sneak attack or favored enemy is a better route, by applying a restriction on when it can activate. Maybe requiring it to be only usable on a worthy opponent, such as one with CR equal to or greater than the cavalier's total character level? In a particularly tough fight against multiple tough opponents, the cavalier might be able to use challenge on each in succession, but in most fights it wouldn't apply unless there's a leader or tough single foe present.
This might need some in game reason for the cavalier to determine which foes are worthy, or you can just say that cavaliers are shrewd judges of an opponent's threat level, and call it a day.
I mentioned above that the challenge should be a worthy opponent as determined by some criteria (i.e. CR as you mentioned etc. - perhaps within 2 CR of the Cavaliers level). Something to prevent him from trotting it out for trivial fights with opponents who don't present a challenge, literally, to him. This would probably eliminate the over use of the ability and eliminate the need for book keeping / point value systems. The once an encounter limit would be a reasnable limit if it was only applied to "worthy opponents". The Cavalier might be able to make a rough assessment of who is worthy, either automatically or by a characteristic check or skill.
In regards to the "flanked" problem, I suggested the Cavalier be allowed an AoO againts any opponent who attempts to stop him from reaching his target BY attacking him (not just a failure to get out of the way) and failing to kill / drop him. This might make people (and yes, NPCs are people too) think twice about interfering with a challenge. Say, half the damage bonus that he gets against the opponent of his challenge. Righteous fury and all that. Think of the Cavalier making a bee line for his enemy, with others getting out of the way of trying to stop him only to be struck down (if they don't succeed). Very cinematic / dramatic. And, it fits with the image / idea of the cavaliers challenge.
In any event, I think the challenge should be limited if you're going to let him forge through others to reach his target. That kind of fury should be reserved for special circumstances, not routine non-threatening opponents. Should the limit be a point based system, the points could be spent issuing the challenge and in AoO to allow him to reach the target.
A couple of ideas. My 2cp.
I really like Purple Dragon Knight's idea about adapting the challenge ability to mimic the ranger-type favored enemy bonuses. Here's a top-town rebuild of the ability, including some tweaks to other components people have been concerned about.
Challenge (Ex):
A Cavalier may challenge a foe to combat as a swift action. The cavalier gains +4 to all melee damage rolls against that target, as well as +4 to bluff, perception, and sense motive checks against the target. While the challenge persists, the cavalier grants all opponents other than the target of his challenge +4 to hit his AC in melee.
At level 5, the damage and skill check bonuses increase to +6.
At level 9, the damage and skill check bonuses increase to +8.
At level 13, the damage and skill check bonuses increase to +10.
At level 17, the damage and skill check bonuses increase to +12.
At level 20, the damage and skill check bonuses increase to +15.
The challenge persists until the target is dead, the cavalier is unconscious, or he chooses to dismiss it as a free action. In any case, the bonuses end immediately; if the cavalier voluntarily dismisses the challenge, the penalty to AC persists for 3 rounds after the challenge ends.
A cavalier may issue a number of challenges per day equal to 3 plus half his cavalier level, but may only have one active at a time.
Observations: This provides no bonus to *hit*, so we increase damage and skill bonuses above ranger levels. Damage IS multiplied on critical hits, so we choke back on total damage bonus - you can expect these guys to be swinging keen short swords, so you don't want things getting too out-of-hand.
The flanking drawback is replaced by a straight-out AC penalty like a raging barbarian gets (which will stack with flanking, incidentally). Rogues are still dangerous, but no longer unreasonably so.
We remove the per-combat complication (a little too 4.0) and instead make it a per-day power, with voluntary cancellation as an option (hybrid smite/rage).
All the numbers are open to argument, of course. The challenge is the main thing the class has going for it over the paladin (aside from alignment freedom) so it should be a darn impressive ability.