Oooh... I just had a bit of a brainstorm.
The Cavalier is billed as being as much of a social figure as a battlefield one, right?
Well, why can't he use his Challenge in social situations as well as combat ones? Can't he be psyched up to confront the notorious Baron at the costume ball just as much as when he finally proves the Baron's evilness and faces him on the field of battle?
Why not allow Challenge in non-combat situations by making it grant social skill bonuses? Diplomacy, Bluff, Intimidate, Sense Motive. Increase the bonuses at the same rate the combat dice increase (ie, +1 at first level, and +1 for every 3 levels thereafter).
EDIT: Full credit to Maeloke, because his proposal is what sparked my brainstorm.
A bonus on Bluff checks? For a Cavalier? Just doesn't fit well to me. Like Perception and Sense Motive though.
The +4 to hit him is good, not sure if it should be melee only or not: if he's focused on a single opponent, that focus would distract him from incoming arrows too. Might be easier to make it a -4 to his AC, instead of a +4 to enemy attack rolls.
I also really like that if he voluntarily dismisses, there is a penalty. Great fit thematically. When people have been talking about dismissing, it's been bugging me until now (too easy), but that mechanic makes it work well IMHO.
I left in bluff from the ranger favored enemy list - the only real application in combat is feinting, and I like any excuse to spice up melee with actual maneuvers. The idea of a tricksy CN cavalier faking out a lich is fun, even if it's strategically irrelevant.
I know it really wants to be a flat penalty to the cavalier's AC rather than bonuses to hit the cavalier... except that then the chosen enemy gets the bonus as well, which makes no sense. Cavalier saunters out, picks the baddest baddie to duke it out with, and... stops paying attention to said villain's attacks? That's barbarian recklessness, right there. If anything, cavalier should get an AC boost vs. the challenge target. It's going to be an awkward template either way.
Hey, there's a thought: rather than different knightly orders, what about a list of challenge powers? Then you can reduce the base power of the challenge, and let players customize their particular variety of challenge. Something like...
At 7th level, the bonus damage increases to +4.
At 13th level, the bonus damage increases to +6.
At 19th level, the bonus damage increases to +8.
He may use this ability 3 times per day plus one half his cavalier level.
At 1st, 2nd, and every even-numbered level thereafter, the cavalier may choose a challenge power.
Challenge powers:
-Social warrior: The cavalier may declare a challenge in noncombat situations. He gains a bonus to opposed bluff, diplomacy, perception, and sense motive checks against the challenged target equal to his bonus damage. (Thanks Zurai, you got me started on this train of thought!)
-Dual challenge: The cavalier may declare a challenge against two opponents as a swift action by spending two daily uses of his challenge power.
-Lancer: The cavalier doubles (triples?) his bonus damage when charging a challenged target.
-Dodgy: The cavalier gains a +2 bonus to his AC against attacks from the target of his challenge.
-Zealous Foe: The cavalier chooses a creature type, such as Undead or Humanoid (elves). His bonus challenge damage against creatures of this type increases by +4.
-Determined: The cavalier gains DR 3/- against attacks from the target of his challenge. The cavalier must be level 10 or higher to select this power.
-etc...
Anybody like this version better? It gets us away from that icky zone of the risks of a class power outweighing the benefits, at least...
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').
They made many changes more then just polymorph to cut back on powergamers, many. Some went too far, so changed what was overpowered, in whole they missed as much as hit with their attempts. But I think it unwise to add in another potential problem like this. Make it only work with the weapon in your primary hand and try and avoid it as an issue.
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...
I hate to be negative (hey! it's what I do), but with this being a beta test I doubt that we will see a heavy re-write for any abilities. Paizo has already time & money to concept, design, illustrate, and certainly in-house playtested these up-coming classes. My feeling is that all class features are pretty much set. They just want playtest feedback to make certain that none of the abilities are horribly broken, or to catch other loop holes in descriptions or functions.
Having said that, I think I like this concept of Challenge more than the beta. Maybe I'm just not an out of the box thinker, but it feels more in line with other class abilities we've used. A couple of thoughts: What if the it was a -4 to AC vs. all other opponents except the Cavalier's challenged foe? Others have suggested it, and I second that wording. What if the skills for bonuses were Bluff, Intimidate, and Sense Motive? Those skills seem in line with a challenge to me.
My own spin: I think this concept can work with +?d6 precision damage instead of bonus damage. Or, what if the Challenge were a charge related feature. Every time a Cavalier charged a foe, he has the option to issue a challenge. That challenge would grant him +?d6 based on level. This idea is somewhat like a certain scouting class from a completely adventurous book. Just a quick and rough idea.
Did you download the Cavalier and Oracle document - it states that this is a Beta test there, also Paizo announced that was the case, sent out emails stating that it was so.
All threads in this board started by Paizo members all state that this is a playtest. Look at the other threads from the beginning...
The discussions here on Cavalier and Oracle are to playtest the rules created for Pathfinder as a Beta test. Nothing cut in stone, but comments are in playtesting these rules. The Advanced Players Guide, for which these and 4 other new base classes are being Beta tested for intended publication in August 2010.
Open your eyes, its all been stated as so.
GP
|
Did you download the Cavalier and Oracle document - it states that this is a Beta test there, also Paizo announced that was the case, sent out emails stating that it was so.
All threads in this board started by Paizo members all state that this is a playtest. Look at the other threads from the beginning...
The discussions here on Cavalier and Oracle are to playtest the rules created for Pathfinder as a Beta test. Nothing cut in stone, but comments are in playtesting these rules. The Advanced Players Guide, for which these and 4 other new base classes are being Beta tested for intended publication in August 2010.
Open your eyes, its all been stated as so.
GP
Way to prove your capable of being both condescending and hilariously wrong. I never asked where it was stated that this was a playtest, I asked where it said this was a BETA playtest. The downloaded document doesn't say the word BETA anywhere on it does it? Or is it written in magical ink that only shows itself to your special monitor because it's imbued with fairy magic? All of the blog releases have stated that it's a playtest, but yet I don't remember seeing it stated as BETA anywhere, note the complete lack of the words beta in this entire section of the boards header titles? Or is it once again only displaying to that special magic monitor of yours.
|
|
Welcome to the Playtest
Friday, November 13, 2009
The playtest of the Pathfinder RPG Advanced Player's Guide begins today with the launch of two of the six new base classes set to appear in the book. The cavalier is a martial character. Like his name would suggest, he is at home fighting from horseback, but he is by no means crippled when his mount cannot be used. The cavalier gains a number of bonus abilities tied to his order, the oaths that he swears, and the challenges he makes. Next up in this playtest is the oracle. This spontaneous divine caster draws her power from the gods that support her focus, granting her special revelations as she goes up in level. This is your chance to take a look at these classes before they hit shelves in August. You can download the free PDF containing both of these classes here.
In the coming weeks, we will be releasing the other four classes, two each week. During these periods, we will be focusing discussion on the most recent classes, but the playtest itself will remain open until the end of January 2010. The release dates are as follows.
Group 1 (11/13–11/29): Cavalier and Oracle
Group 2 (11/30–12/13): Summoner and Witch
Group 3 (12/14–12/27): Alchemist and InquisitorJust like the Core Rulebook playtest last year, there are a pair of forums waiting for your feedback and comments. The first is a general forum, for discussing larger issues and announcements. The second forum is specifically for cavalier and oracle feedback. We will add an additional forum every two weeks as the new classes are released.
I want to take a moment to discuss what we are looking for out of this playtest. Since these are new classes, actual playtesting is of great importance. While comments and observations are still valuable, we need playtesters to actually use these classes in play and provide reports of their experiences. This sort of feedback will really help us ensure that these classes become a balanced and fun part of the game.
See you on the boards.
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
And since you are so wise in the ways of the workings of this playtest here is the blog entry announcing the playtest of the classes. Since you have that oh so special monitor, maybe you can detect for me where they've hidden the word BETA, because my monitor doesn't reveal it, unfortunately I couldn't afford the special pixie dust that makes your monitor reveal paizo's hidden code.
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!
Rogues dress pretty distinctively. Nobody else uses light weapons for fun, and nobody else wears leather armor besides bard (and rarely are there ever 2 bards in the same room). There are rare occurrences where there's a surprise, but that happens to every class. He is still a full-BAB, full-proficiency melee character with 1/2 fighter feats when not challenging, which is enough to take a rogue to town face-to-face. In situations where he can't use challenge, he is not gimped; in fact, I doubt he'd use it except when he saw someone big & individual, and even then he doesn't have to use it until right before he strikes.
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?...
So, for some reason, in your examples, the Cavalier always mysteriously uses his Challenge before he's adjacent. I don't think he'd use it before he even got to his Challenge Target. You're hypothesizing that he'd have to walk through X rogues to get to his target, but why would he? He wouldn't use it until he was past them. He also can't identify Goblins as sneaky targets? Or tiefling guys in leather as rogues? I think that's a bit of a stretch. I also don't think you're properly considering his AC with shield and heavy armor-- maybe even a random oath bonus.
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!
If an assassin were to try to take him, I don't think he'd have used his challenge. He'd probably be asleep, or flat-footed, and yes, it would be bloody for both sides (because if he didn't die, he'd challenge the assassin and there would be a slugfest). Although saying a clever assassin could take a cavalier is like saying a Water Elemental could take a rogue. DR + precision immune++
I really just think you should have someone playtest it along side a class with a similar ability, like a barbarian. Hopefully, you'll find it isn't a huge drawback, and the barbarian will probably take more damage, overall (no heavy armor, no shield, -2 AC). The Cavalier even avoids this penalty to the target of his ability, which is probably the largest and most dangerous enemy in the room. It's possible that this player might find himself unable to avoid the drawbacks of his ability, but I don't know.
In conclusion, player control of ability + high AC to avoid + melee effectiveness, even without challenge, means it's probably fine. There are rare situations where he may have lots of trouble by being reckless, but every class has that.
Since this is a "play test" its not the final format, as the playtest helps decide on the final format. So though not officially mentioned, this is either an Alpha or a Beta, for certain. I would say a Beta Playtest version.
Actually your remarks before and after the post in question is rather condescending on your part - I'm just replying in kind.
GP
Since this is a "play test" its not the final format, as the playtest helps decide on the final format. So though not officially mentioned, this is either an Alpha or a Beta, for certain. I would say a Beta Playtest version.
Actually your remarks before and after the post in question is rather condescending on your part - I'm just replying in kind.
GP
Peace all. Look at it this way, Beta or not, "play test" or not, whatever is in the final version could be anything, even things no one has posted on. Better yet it could be something completely out of left field that stirs up some to riot. They've done that before so expect we are just talking amoung our friends if they happen to add something from the chatter that these boards are well maybe that's good, maybe it's not.
Most of the others have already expressed my sentiments. The people in my group dont care for it either. I really don't like the vagueness of some of the challenges. The idea of the class is good, but I don't like the execution.
I fully agree with what is stated above, to me the Cavalier in its present stae is a non-starter. The Oracle on the other hand is something that I at least find interesting.
I agree, no reason to get hung up on the word "Beta" its just semantics really - it doesn't change the nature of the questions and comments being put forth in the discussion. I had just gotten disgusted with all the sudden reprisal over the use of the word Beta, which offers nothing positive towards the discussion.
Edit: I've posted my version of the Oracle for my specific setting, Kaidan, in the Conversions board. I like the Oracle as is, and no need for any change, it works perfectly for my needs.
I don't need a cavalier class, so whether one is made or not, offers me no help, so I'm not so concerned about that would-be class.
GP
with this being a beta test I doubt that we will see a heavy re-write for any abilitiesWhere have they stated that this is a BETA playtest? I haven't seen that anywhere.
My oh my... this went extraordinarily too far and with too little civility. Let's just acknowledge my mistake in calling this a beta test. I thought that I recalled reading that somewhere. Clearly, I was incorrect. Regardless, I think that my comments still stand. I suppose if the overall board/playtest reaction is very negative to these classes, alterations will be more extreme.
I didn't mean to start something.
|
|
Since this is a "play test" its not the final format, as the playtest helps decide on the final format. So though not officially mentioned, this is either an Alpha or a Beta, for certain. I would say a Beta Playtest version.
Actually your remarks before and after the post in question is rather condescending on your part - I'm just replying in kind.
GP
The post in response to yours was condescending because I was responding in kind.
The post before though, how in the heck is asking a question condescending?
[humor]Oh wait I just asked another question, does that count? oh crap there it goes again what can I do? ARGH! why can't I stop being condescending? Aghh! I did it again. Wait, if it ends in a period it must not be condescending. Phew, escaped the cycle.[/humor]
|
|
Are we going to get multiple stabs at play tests? i.e. Are they going to be taking our feedback from the play test, re-drafting the classes with changes to address our concerns, and then allowing us to play test the resulting class again before making a final version?I would like to release a few revisions, but it will depend heavily on my available time.
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing
Just thought I'd share the awesome.
Since this is a "play test" its not the final format, as the playtest helps decide on the final format. So though not officially mentioned, this is either an Alpha or a Beta, for certain. I would say a Beta Playtest version.
Actually your remarks before and after the post in question is rather condescending on your part - I'm just replying in kind.
GP
The post in response to yours was condescending because I was responding in kind.
The post before though, how in the heck is asking a question condescending?
I guess I read a "tone" that was not really there. Asking the question regarding whether it was "beta" or not kind of set the tone for me, but I guess I "read" it wrong.
Anyway, semantics, so forget about it, let's get back into actual discussion, which I'm done with - Oracle is a just fine name for me, and as I said, no needs for any changes here, I've already officially adopted it into my published setting.
Cavalier do not belong in Kaidan, so no issues there for me at all. Besides neither I nor any of my gaming group has ever played a Knight, Warlord, so Cavalier in under any rules system will never see the light of day in our games, so no concern here.
|
|
Since this is a "play test" its not the final format, as the playtest helps decide on the final format. So though not officially mentioned, this is either an Alpha or a Beta, for certain. I would say a Beta Playtest version.
Actually your remarks before and after the post in question is rather condescending on your part - I'm just replying in kind.
GP
The post in response to yours was condescending because I was responding in kind.
The post before though, how in the heck is asking a question condescending?
I guess I read a "tone" that was not really there. Asking the question regarding whether it was "beta" or not kind of set the tone for me, but I guess I "read" it wrong.
Yeah, no, I was under the assumption that we were in ALPHA so when he said it was a BETA playtest I was just honestly asking where they said it was BETA. When you told me to open my eyes, it got under my skin so I responded in kind, maybe I should have just let it go, but I've never taken well to being talked down to without just cause. It happens, no harm done.
Anywho I really like the cavalier, what worries me is how people seem to think the cavalier only fits one concept, that of the medieval knight. Yeah that's the most obvious thing that comes to mind when reading it, but as I posted in another thread I can see all kinds of different builds to make with it, from saber wielding Arabian's to a more combat focused rogue type. My problem is that I DM and can't find a game to get in on, even if I do I have to figure out whether I want to play my halfling cavalier/rogue or my Camel riding Arabian. Cest la vie.
Again, while I'm not personally into playing Cavalier types, I have the creativity enough to see all kinds of opportunities for such a class.
Off the top of my head, I can see a party of nothing but horsemen. Let's borrow from Native American Dakota (Souix). Imagine a nomadic culture of horse peoples (doesn't have to be American, just the idea of the natives). Some would be mounted archers, some would be mounted infantry types - ride to battle, unhorse and fight, even a Shaman/spell caster could have skills in riding while not specifically a mounted armed combatant. Finally a cavalier among the party of horseman who provide buffs to the party and emphasis on the BBEG of a party of opponents.
Borrow this idea and use Mongol horsemen, Orc worg riders, Russian Cossacks, Elven plains riders... use your imagination.
There are plenty of opportunities for a Cavalier class in any campaign setting.
Folks, arguing over if this is an Alpha, Beta, or some other kind of playtest is unproductive.
I think we're passed that.
|
Rogues dress pretty distinctively. Nobody else uses light weapons for fun, and nobody else wears leather armor besides bard (and rarely are there ever 2 bards in the same room). There are rare occurrences where there's a surprise, but that happens to every class. He is still a full-BAB, full-proficiency melee character with 1/2 fighter feats when not challenging, which is enough to take a rogue to town face-to-face. In situations where he can't use challenge, he is not gimped; in fact, I doubt he'd use it except when he saw someone big & individual, and even then he doesn't have to use it until right before he strikes.
Most rogues I see actually wear chain shirts which happens to be a favorate armor of many classes. besides that I often see druids and rangers wearing leather, sometimes even eldrich knights and with the addition of the arcane armor training many spellcasters will also find themselves wearing leather.
Add to that the a typical cheese of 1 level rogue X level fighter that grants you 8 skill points and an extra 1d6 damage when your flanking (regardless of light weapons or not) theres alot of opportunities for someone to gain sneak attack yet not actually look like a typical rogue.
and did I mention rogues get the disguise skill as a class skill?
So, for some reason, in your examples, the Cavalier always mysteriously uses his Challenge before he's adjacent. I don't think he'd use it before he even got to his Challenge Target. You're hypothesizing that he'd have to walk through X rogues to get to his target, but why would he? He wouldn't use it until he was past them. He also can't identify Goblins as sneaky targets? Or tiefling guys in leather as rogues? I think that's a bit of a stretch. I also don't think you're properly considering his AC with shield and heavy armor-- maybe even a random oath bonus.
Only my first example used movement before engagement, The Other examples where indicating that once active if the cavalier could not get to his challenge because they moved away he was still vulnerable to sneak attack damage and would have a hard time avoiding it.
At low levels AC might be an issue but not much of one. given a 1st level cavalier the best armor he could afford is scale mail, with a 16 dex (unlikely) and a heavy shield he would have an AC of 20 before feats.
A typical 1st level rogue would have a tough time hitting AC 20
but lets assune 14 str with a shortsword hes got +2 to hit but gains an additional +2 from the flank, thats a 16 or better or 20% chance.
Now lets assume a combat heavy rogue; 20 dex human rogue with weapon finesse and two weapon fighting. If he uses 1 attack he is at +7 (13+) to hit the cavalier, if he uses two weapons hes at +5 (15+) to hit with both attacks. Given shortswords thats 1d6+2+1d6 and 1d6+1+1d6 if both attacks hit doing an average of 13 hit points of damage and a maximum of 27 hit points in one round from a single rogue all because the freshman cavalier chose to activate his challenge at the wrong time.
Sure it could happen to any character, but any other character can at least try to avoid it (by moving out of the flank) while the cavalier can only remove it by defeating his challenge.
At high levels rogues lose out on the attacks but cavaliers dont gain much improvement in the way of AC either.
Assuming a +5 shield and +5 full plate armor only takes the cavalier to 33 AC (with max dex) which a 20th level rogue can hit 10% of the time before you apply any attack modifiers. Although I hate using magic items in a class comparison you would hopefully imagine a 20th level cavalier have invested in some heavy fortification armor, but even a 75% chance to negate it doesnt help much when a rogue is getting 3+ attacks per round with sneak attack damage.
As I said dont get me started on the assassin...
The issue here is not how easy or hard it would be for a creature with sneak attack damage to hit a cavalier, its the fact that under normal circumstances a rogue must work to gain his sneak attack bonus damage against EVERY class. Yet against a cavalier he gets it handed to him on a silver platter with a +2 to hit to boot!! Again I challenge anyone to point out a class that grants another class that sort of freedom because of an ability they used.
|
|
My players do not want this class (like this) or only few levels .
you raise a good point, wasn't it the intent of the pathfinder class system to provide a solid reason to remain dedicated to a specific class all the way to level 20? The cavalier clearly falls short on this in many ways turning it into a multiclass option only.
As EV MASTER pointed out the cavalier doesn't have the freedom of other core classes, favoring open battlefields where mounts are used to the exclusion of others such as dungeons where mounts cannot go. This was a flaw of the paladins mount so why replicate it for a class that uses a mount almost exclusively?
How so, you say that, yet there's no real backing to that statement.This class is medieval knight , no Mongol or primitive cavalier .
Yeah, the cultures who used horses for war also had their own mounted champions.
|
|
How so, you say that, yet there's no real backing to that statement.This class is medieval knight , no Mongol or primitive cavalier .
I'm not an expert on mongol culture or history but wheren't they famed for their skilled horseman archers? yet the cavalier seems to concentrate on charging which is typical of a mount/lance combination and indirectly tied to the knight and jousting.
Sure its not impossible to conceive a light armored mongol style cavalier but where was the mongols order and oaths? Its yet another aspect of the cavalier drawn from the idea of a knights chivalry.
Drop out orders oaths and the charging mechanics and you might as well play a ranger with mounted combat feat and a horse animal companion, in fact they probably make for a better mongol cavalier than the cavalier class itself.
I'm not an expert on mongol culture or history but wheren't they famed for their skilled horseman archers? yet the cavalier seems to concentrate on charging which is typical of a mount/lance combination and indirectly tied to the knight and jousting.
While the Mongols used horse archers very effectively, they also had exceptional lancers and were masters of siege warfare as well.
Yes, Mongols were famed for archers and Rangers for Mongols is probably a better fit.
But... many things...
Mongols did in fact have elite units within their overall cavalry forces, elite organizations that could easily be represented by Orders. The same is true for Native Americans - think of the Dog Soldiers, for example.
The word "Knight" is derived from Anglo Saxon warriors who served a king, yet the Anglo-Saxons weren't known for their horsemen, rather infantry - part of the reason they lost the Battle of Hastings against the horse riding Normans... Knight doesn't necessarily imply horseman by default.
Paizo never intended class glut as one of trouble spots in Pathfinder, so I doubt they are going to create "horseman" for every kind of culture and that Cavaliers cannot refer exclusively to the European mounted knight. Are they going to create another horseman for Mongols, Native Americans, heck dwarves and halflings too?!?
Its true also that charging is one of the attack forms of the typical European style knight cavalier, and mentioned in this "build" but otherwise: Challenge, Oath and Order (the primary Cavalier features) aren't exclusively for charging, nor exclusively for European Knight.
Charging is a major attack form from a mount in the RPG game, that I think is more game focused rather than strictly culturally focused. Oriental Adventures 3e, included a charge attack based Samurai prestige class, even though Japan did not have "lancers" in the historical record. It was more for shoe-horning in the Charge concept of the game, into a game setting culture - not to specifically describe an historical attack form by a given culture - Japanese, Mongol or whatever.
I will agree that the default fantasy setting for most is European based, and that Paizo is currently emphasizing development for typical fantasy settings, that's why such things as Asian settings are being pushed off for a few years, just yet.
However, I think imagining this Cavalier build as exclusively serving a European knight is both lack of imagination by some of the posters here, as well as them "wearing cultural blinders."
GP
|
|
and again we fall into the trap that is the naming of a class or ability. fighter, rogue, wizard are very broad categories and can mean many different things to different cultures. Yet cavalier is specific to a single form.
Cavalier
n.
1. A gallant or chivalrous man, especially one serving as escort to a woman of high social position; a gentleman.
2. A mounted soldier; a knight.
3. Cavalier A supporter of Charles I of England in his struggles against Parliament. Also called Royalist.adj.
1. Showing arrogant or offhand disregard; dismissive: a cavalier attitude toward the suffering of others.
2. Carefree and nonchalant; jaunty.
3. Cavalier Of or relating to a group of 17th-century English poets associated with the court of Charles I.[French, horseman, from Old Italian cavaliere, from Late Latin caballarius, from Latin caballus, horse.]
I don't disagree that the word "cavalier" has a specific connotative meaning, especially in regards to armored and mounted chevalier, especially among the French - however, I see Pathfinder's class specifically targetting mounted fighters, which though traditionally defined cavalier is described in your definition, also describes other horseman warriors in many cultures.
Does Paladin only refer to an armored knight in a European setting as well.
Does Oracle only refer to "Greek Oracles" or other Shamanistic cultures.
I don't think any "class" designed by Paizo ever describes a one-culture only phenomena, including the Cavalier. How many French knights rode on wolfs for a mount? This too is mentioned under the Cavalier class playtest, I have to think Paizo was thinking fantasy mounted warrior/oath-taker, and that couldn't possibly be just French knights - could it?
I don't believe any of Pathfinder's classes were designed to be culture specific! Again, that would mean dozens of different horseman classes, let alone, spell casters, paladins, barbarians, etc, etc. Paizo is smarter than that.
GP
|
|
*Disclaimer* This post reflects my first impressions, as the thread title implies, and has in no way any weight of actual playtesting behind it.*Disclaimer*
Challenges:I feel that being perma-flanked is not a good enough balance for the challenge mechanic. In exchange for extra damage vs one foe, you might take more damage from one type of PC-classed foe. Nah. Maybe if you lost your dex bonus (like flanked but worse) vs everyone but the challenged, maybe. Also, bonus challenge damage should be with the primary weapon only (no two-weapon challengers). It should also be a per day ability, not per encounter.
Oaths: I wanted to like this, but it's just not worth the effort. Some of the oaths are stupid-easy to fulfill, and the benefits are peanuts. Many lend themselves to odd behavior on the part of the cavalier (Oath of Protection = mouse in my pocket).
Mount and Bonus Feats: These are fine, except maybe the bonus feats should from a short list of mounted combat feats and shield fighting feats.
Orders: These are mostly fine, except Order of the Dragon screams "NPC Advesary" and Order of the Cockatrice/Order of the Lion scream "only viable PC choice".
IMO, oaths should be rolled into feat paths. S&SS had a good idea with the Player's Guide to Monks and Paladins. In it, they had feats based on the Seven Virtues (opposite of Deadly Sins). Each of them granted some benefit if the character abstained from the converse sin (Virtue of Chastity vs Sin of Lust, for example). Rolling oaths into a similar feat path/tree would be more standardized, mould behavior better, and would also lend itself nicely to the concept of Orders (Cavaliers of a certain order pride themselves on their Humility or Chastity).
Finally, I feel that the battlefield control abilities of the 3.5 ed PHBII Knight class should have an equivalent in this class. This Cavalier isn't really a mounted combat specialist, a battlefield controller or party buffer (not the armored Bard that was first suggested when the class was first announced). It's just a knight-themed fighter with some wonky, fiddly bits. The Cavalier PrC from 3.5 ed at least fills one of these 3 niches better than this class does.
|
|
I'm probably wasting my time here since Jason and others have said on numerous occasions the name will not change but perhaps "Soldier" is a better name for this class? As a soldier you separate this class from a regular fighter through military training. Soldiers follow orders may take oaths but may also specialise in mounted combat, infantry combat, or scouts or even general warfare. the class would change little but the name would open up ideas for alternate paths and fighting styles.
Yes, a fighter can be a soldier but a fighter can also be a thug, bandit, or bodyguard, something the soldier doesn't fit so well into allowing the two to remain exclusively different without encroaching on the others abilities.
