The intent of the Challenge ability in the playtest is to provide the cavalier with a boost to damage against a selected foe, whether that for likes it or not at the exclusion of others as a threat.I dunno about anyone else, but that sucks. We have two and a half classes (barbarians, paladins, arguably clerics) who do this already. In particular, it steps on the paladin's toes, since paladins already have a "Dude, I am totally hitting you in the face so hard" ability.
We just don't need a fourth "Imma chargin' mah melee" class.
Why not? There is a whole host of differences between how each class does it. No one is stepping on the paladins toes, after all, he has fullplate on, and thus metal shoes. He will be fine. If you are that concerned with toe stepping it is unlikely you will be satisfied with more combat classes in the first place.
It's become obvious by this thread that the Challenge "name" vs the Challenge abilities "intent" has become blurred by
A) The Knights challenge from PHB2
B) The definition of issuing a challenge to someone else vs
C) Challenging ones self.
D) The idea of a chivalric duel inherant with knights and cavaliers of history.
I agree with you that we've lost our focus, so I'd like to clarify something so that we don't continue to stray too far.
Regarding item C on your list: I have seen people say that the cavalier somehow "challenges himself" through the Challenge ability, which is somewhat incorrect.
The Cavalier "challenges himself" through the Oath ability, not the Challenge ability.
With an Oath, he swears to accomplish something, a specific goal.
With a Challenge, he provokes his opponent into engaging in battle.
So, to recap: a challenge is directed towards an opponent, not himself.
The Cavalier can take an Oath to defeat a certain enemy, but that's not the same thing as a Challenge.
I hope this makes sense.
The very first comment I made was, "Why is this precision damage?"
Well, I guess Jason did not want all this extra damage to be multiplied on a confirmed critical. Perhaps you can't challenge adequately in circumstances where sight is diminished (darkness, poor vision etc.)
While precision damage is perhaps not the best way to conceptualize this extra damage, it conveys the intention mechanically well.
'findel
[b]Kiai Smite (Ex):
[b]Staredown (Ex):
[b]Frightful Presence (Ex):
I could actually deal with this sort of thing. I'm not sure when frightful presence comes into play but that will save seems pretty high.
Also, in particular the frightful presence seems to imply intelligent opponents who might recognize the samuri. I think the challenge can be used against constructs and undead also (not looking at it right now)
It's become obvious by this thread that the Challenge "name" vs the Challenge abilities "intent" has become blurred by
A) The Knights challenge from PHB2
B) The definition of issuing a challenge to someone else vs
C) Challenging ones self.
D) The idea of a chivalric duel inherant with knights and cavaliers of history.
A) Well, that's not true. I barely even remember that class.
B)& C) this isn't losing sight of the issue, as concept is just as important as numbers. We SHOULD be discussing this.D) yes, absolutely, as this is the historical concept I think the cavalier is inspired by.
We can change the name if you want, but that isn't going to help matters, as the cavalier is largely a social warrior, and a challenge is something he SHOULD be doing, it's just not working out.
And, even if we change the name to some meaningless metagame concept, it's still going to be mechanically wonky. Why would this class be getting a precision-smite? And why doesn't it synergize with the other combat abilities of the class?
[b]Kiai Smite (Ex):
[b]Staredown (Ex):
[b]Frightful Presence (Ex):I could actually deal with this sort of thing. I'm not sure when frightful presence comes into play but that will save seems pretty high.
Also, in particular the frightful presence seems to imply intelligent opponents who might recognize the samuri. I think the challenge can be used against constructs and undead also (not looking at it right now)
I believe Frightful Presence is a Lv 20 ability, so it's a little extreme.
It does seem to imply that it's geared towards sentient/intelligent creatures because they must recognize the Samurai.I interpret the Cavalier's Challenge to also only work against sentient/intelligent foes because they must be able to understand and comprehend the Challenge. I would even go as far as to suggest that the target of a Challenge must be able to understand the Cavalier's spoken language or body language.
You can provoke a mindless opponent and make it angry enough to attack you, but that's not really a Challenge. Some animals may feel challenged if you enter their personal space, but I don't think that's the same thing as saying "Hey bear, I challenge you to a duel!"
I know it's kind of a restrictive interpretation, but like the Paladin's smite and the Ranger's favored enemy, I think it needs some limitations.
[b]Kiai Smite (Ex):
[b]Staredown (Ex):
[b]Frightful Presence (Ex):I could actually deal with this sort of thing. I'm not sure when frightful presence comes into play but that will save seems pretty high.
Also, in particular the frightful presence seems to imply intelligent opponents who might recognize the samuri. I think the challenge can be used against constructs and undead also (not looking at it right now)
I believe Frightful Presence is a Lv 20 ability, so it's a little extreme.
It does seem to imply that it's geared towards sentient/intelligent creatures because they must recognize the Samurai.I interpret the Cavalier's Challenge to also only work against sentient/intelligent foes because they must be able to understand and comprehend the Challenge. I would even go as far as to suggest that the target of a Challenge must be able to understand the Cavalier's spoken language or body language.
You can provoke a mindless opponent and make it angry enough to attack you, but that's not really a Challenge. Some animals may feel challenged if you enter their personal space, but I don't think that's the same thing as saying "Hey bear, I challenge you to a duel!"
I know it's kind of a restrictive interpretation, but like the Paladin's smite and the Ranger's favored enemy, I think it needs some limitations.
Limitations are fine, but i think like what paizo had to say about sneak attack, a major class ability should not be limited by a LARGE chunk of potential opponents. My group came across this problem alot with the 3.5 knight. We liked the class but it sucked in too many encounters. As dm you can give your ranger advice on what to take as favored enemy based on what you have planned or whats in the module, the paladin is a strong class that shines so well against hte big bad evil guy the lower effectiveness against neutral targets isnt a big deal. I dont think the cavlier is so potent that the exclusion of ALL animals, magical beasts, contrusts, almost all undead, and lots of aberations from their primary class feature is justified.
Like others have said, the challenge is a challenge of the knight to himself, to take down this enemy, not to provoke the enemy. It doesnt require reciprocation. And to require it completely removes the ability in a large portion of encounters.
|
So, we have (at least) two options:
1) Reword the fluff so that it is apparent that a Challenge is a purely personal thing and that it is the Cavaliers state of mind that is granting him penalties or bonuses
2) Keep it as a 'traditional' challenge and inflict a penalty on enemies (or their allies) that do not respond to it
Please no Intelligence/Language dependent challenge.
The challenge power should be about the cavalier, not a suped-up intimidate check. There are plenty of situations where a cavalier will need to ride in an diffuse a major threat that is actually a big dumb monster.
Intelligence/Language dependent challenge seems to be something people are lobbying for because they want to tie it in with a preconception they got from the name of the power.
The power as printed is non-psychological: The advantage is tactical focus at the expense of battlefield awareness. The enemy doesn't enter into it.
Intelligence/Language dependent challenge seems to be something people are lobbying for because they want to tie it in with a preconception they got from the name of the power.
The power as printed is non-psychological: The advantage is tactical focus at the expense of battlefield awareness. The enemy doesn't enter into it.
Yes, this seems to be the main cause for confusion.
You're right. The way it's written, the ability affects only the Cavalier and can be used against all creatures, regardless of intelligence.
It's all the extra "reading between the lines" that is causing so much hubbub.
It would be great if an extra sentence could be added to the ability's description to clarify and reduce the numerous interpretations.
Yes, this seems to be the main cause for confusion.
You're right. The way it's written, the ability affects only the Cavalier and can be used against all creatures, regardless of intelligence.
It's all the extra "reading between the lines" that is causing so much hubbub.
It would be great if an extra sentence could be added to the ability's description to clarify and reduce the numerous interpretations.
Something like "THIS IS NOT THE 3.5 knight, please see PHB II produced by wizards of the coast for that product" accross the top of the page?
Something like "THIS IS NOT THE 3.5 knight, please see PHB II produced by wizards of the coast for that product" accross the top of the page?
Yes, this seems to be the main cause for confusion.
You're right. The way it's written, the ability affects only the Cavalier and can be used against all creatures, regardless of intelligence.
It's all the extra "reading between the lines" that is causing so much hubbub.
It would be great if an extra sentence could be added to the ability's description to clarify and reduce the numerous interpretations.
I don't know where the heck you guys are getting this PHBII knight stuff. It's possible to have a criticism of challenge that has nothing to do with that class (which I, the OP of this thread, don't even remember).
And, title or no title, the ability isn't that great mechanically.
|
|
To me, the creature being intelligent doesn't enter into the issue.
What does factor in would be relative strength of the enemy. I have no problem with the cavalier challenging a massive grizzly bear that just mauled his friend halfway to death.
I have a major problem with a 10th level cavalier challenging a CR 1/3 goblin warrior scout that they were lucky enough to spot before it could run. That isn't challenging or honorable by any means.
There should be some sort of restriction based on the creatures CR; if not, I'll definitely be houseruling it in.
Yeah, like in all the stories, where the villain challenges the hero to single combat and the hero's friends take the opportunity to beat the villain to hamburger.
Wait, no, that doesn't happen because it's retarded.
I'm not sure which stories you're reading. The folly of bravado is a common theme, whether it's the heroes or the villains suffering from it. Depending on the theme of (and point in) the story, either "the coward's path ultimately brings failure" or "the blustering idiot gets his ass handed to him."
This causes enemies to avoid the cavalier again, though. Is that what you really want?
Yes! Hell, you're the one who raised the issue of them having no extra defensive abilities. Intelligent enemies being wary about attacking in the first place is a pretty good one IMO.
YMMV, but "Ha! Look at them run! And now to savor the chase..." is a perfectly common trope, and appropriate flavor for a class whose name is literally "dude on a horse."
The very first comment I made was, "Why is this precision damage?"Well, I guess Jason did not want all this extra damage to be multiplied on a confirmed critical.
But that comes from it being extra dice. Doesn't matter whether it's precision, fire, or not specified.
Director of Games
|
Hey there all,
So, there seems to be a bit of confusion over the flavor behind the challenge mechanic... so let me take a moment to make the intent clear.
Leave aside the name challenge for a moment. The point of this ability is that the cavalier picks a foe and dedicates all of his focus to bringing that foe down. He does this by studying where best to strike and how to inflict the most deadly wounds possible. This has little or nothing to do with the foe being cognizant of the challenge itself. It is all about the cavalier and his drive to bring the foe down.
This was done for a few reasons. Having it tied to the foes reaction limited the ability way too much and forced certain assumptions on the foe that I am not comfortable with in absence of magic (which the cavalier does not possess in any way). Such taunting mechanics or marking mechanics are not something I am overly fond of, as it takes forces certain behaviors in a monster that might not make sense.
So.. with this in mind... we end up with the ability as currently written. The orders affect this by giving a small spin on the way that the ability manifests, but it is still the same at its core.
As for comparison to the other classes. Every melee class needs a chance to shine at one time or another. The paladin has his smite, the ranger has his favored enemies, the barbarian has rage, and the fighter acts as a sort of improved base line. The point with the cavalier was to give him a chance to peg targets that the others have limited effectiveness against by allowing him to go after the foes that the others cannot adequately take on. That is not to say there will not be overlap at times, but I think the cavalier is doing a pretty decent job, as currently written, of filling this role. Flexibility in targets is key. His damage pegs a little lower than a others in some situations, but overall he can take a "shine" in a number of situations.
So.. I am a little concerned that the name "challenge" might be giving the wrong impression, but I think the mechanics are heading in the right direction.
Thoughts?
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing
Hey there all,
So, there seems to be a bit of confusion over the flavor behind the challenge mechanic... so let me take a moment to make the intent clear.
Leave aside the name challenge for a moment. The point of this ability is that the cavalier picks a foe and dedicates all of his focus to bringing that foe down. He does this by studying where best to strike and how to inflict the most deadly wounds possible. This has little or nothing to do with the foe being cognizant of the challenge itself. It is all about the cavalier and his drive to bring the foe down.
This was done for a few reasons. Having it tied to the foes reaction limited the ability way too much and forced certain assumptions on the foe that I am not comfortable with in absence of magic (which the cavalier does not possess in any way). Such taunting mechanics or marking mechanics are not something I am overly fond of, as it takes forces certain behaviors in a monster that might not make sense.
So.. with this in mind... we end up with the ability as currently written. The orders affect this by giving a small spin on the way that the ability manifests, but it is still the same at its core.
<snip>
So.. I am a little concerned that the name "challenge" might be giving the wrong impression, but I think the mechanics are heading in the right direction.
The problem I have with it Jason is you are violating your own stated aims with this :
Demanding Challenge (Ex): At 12th level, whenever a cavalier declares a challenge, his target must pay attention to the threat he poses. As long as the target can see the cavalier, it takes a –2 penalty to its AC from attacks made by anyone other than the cavalier. This penalty does not apply if the cavalier is within the target’s threatened area.
Here you are forcing something off the cavalier and onto the target, which you stated above you didn't want to do. I prefer your stated aim over what actually ended up in the class. I would prefer, short of magic, that the Cavalier's bonuses and boosts all be internalized, or granted to his allies, rather than imposed on the enemies. If you impose something on the enemy, you have to limit it to sentient creatures (that ooze doesn't care if you call it a mama's ooze), and even to lawful creatures. Internalizing it to the cavalier (and allies) bypasses this issue.
Hey there all,
**explanation**Thoughts?
You will get no arguments from me, I think this particular part of the cavalier is just fine, even if it needs a little work in how its described and named. I dont want to see abilities that are highly restricted based on the enemies faced like the 3.5 knight was, it puts strain on players and on the DM. I shouldnt have to worry if someone picks to be a cavalier in my campaign against animals/constructs/undead etc, that they will feel overshadowed in all the fights I have planned, because they cant challenge most of the foes.
The point of this ability is that the cavalier picks a foe and dedicates all of his focus to bringing that foe down.
Flavor-wise, how is Challenge different than an Oath to defeat an enemy then?
I think that you need to make it clearer in the flavor of the ability that the cavalier isn't "calling the foe out" but rather focusing on him. Perhaps you could change the name to something like "sworn foe."
That being said, making the cavalier counted as flanked when challenging an opponent may be too much of a weakness, especially against rogues.
Indeed, with the description and power that is intended, perhaps a different name could be worth looking into, sometihng like hinting at the personal focus it requires or the intensity of the strike... or something else.
And well, as for overlap, I think that has always been there. A paladin on the team overlapped the cleric a little on healing, without doing it effectively enough to seem remarkable in comparison. But the paladin would give the cleric room to do other things as well. Same here I think.
Or maybe people will simply avoid playing the classes in the same game, if overlap is unwanted/unintended for the game. But, at some point, a full team of Cavaliers charging into battle with lances and warhoses... am I the only one seeing glory?
Here's my concern, though:
Each melee character has a damage niche, but the Cavalier's is much closer to the Paladin's than anything else. Sure, he can handle non-evil targets, but his power works the same way as smite (bonus d6) and I think that's the problem for me. If it was more like a rage mechanic, weapon spec, or favored enemy, that would be more fair to the paladin... but right now this guy just seems like the Paladin's handsome cousin who doesn't have an alignment pre-req or healing baggage.
Perhaps instead of calling them Challenges, they could be called instead Confrontations. A cavalier confronts an enemy, and by confronting him, initiates his special abilities. A challenge has a connotation of a duel, where as a Confrontation has the connotation of 'standing up to' or 'getting in the face of'.
|
Director of Games
|
The problem I have with it Jason is you are violating your own stated aims with this :Here you are forcing something off the cavalier and onto the target, which you stated above you didn't want to do. I prefer your stated aim over what actually ended up in the...
Demanding Challenge (Ex): At 12th level, whenever a cavalier declares a challenge, his target must pay attention to the threat he poses. As long as the target can see the cavalier, it takes a –2 penalty to its AC from attacks made by anyone other than the cavalier. This penalty does not apply if the cavalier is within the target’s threatened area.
Yeah... and I have reservations about that specific ability. It was very close to being cut from the playtest version, specifically for the reasons cited. I left it in to float the concept of challenges that affect the foe. My reasoning here is that at that level, the cavalier's challenge can not be so simply ignored...
I am still not comfortable with the concept. Lets not toss the whole idea because of one violation of concept... after all. My keyboard has a delete key... a well used delete key, let me tell you.
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing
Hey there all,
So, there seems to be a bit of confusion over the flavor behind the challenge mechanic... so let me take a moment to make the intent clear.
I really like the challenge mechanic, it is simple and clear as written. When people begin to over-analyze something like this they tend to lose site of what it really is. If challenge stayed exactly the same, word for word, in the final product, I would be happy.
BTW, awesome job bringing a fresh perspective, and creative edge to the game. After switching to PF, my game has improved ten-fold. The intent in the product really shows, and my players feel that. I think they are inspired to push there role-playing to new levels by your flavorful and exciting products. Keep up the good work!|
Director of Games
|
Perhaps instead of calling them Challenges, they could be called instead Confrontations. A cavalier confronts an enemy, and by confronting him, initiates his special abilities. A challenge has a connotation of a duel, where as a Confrontation has the connotation of 'standing up to' or 'getting in the face of'.
Thats not a bad name... any others?
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing
Yeah... and I have reservations about that specific ability. It was very close to being cut from the playtest version, specifically for the reasons cited. I left it in to float the concept of challenges that affect the foe. My reasoning here is that at that level, the cavalier's challenge can not be so simply ignored...I am still not comfortable with the concept. Lets not toss the whole idea because of one violation of concept... after all. My keyboard has a delete key... a well used delete key, let me tell you.
I don't mind the idea, but internalize it instead. Instead of making it a -2 AC to the enemy, make it a +2 Insight bonus (or circumstance, or some other bonus) to the Cavalier's allies. Not even himself, and he has to be in melee with the target. Basically, he's harrying the enemy so much, and being so much in his face, that the cavlier's allies find it easier to hit the distracted foe.
This gives the same general bonus, but fits the class a lot better.
EDIT : And then call the ability 'Harassing Confrontation' (or Harassing Challenge) :)
"Joust" would actually seem to be a very appropriate name for the ability. "Contend" could be good too.
Can I ask why it's precision damage? To me it seems that the extra damage should be as much from verve and adrenaline, as from carefully placed blows. More importantly, does the fact that it's precision damage (currently not a properly defined term) mean it's non-functional through concealment, or only that it doesn't work outside of 30 feet? The latter I can deal with, but the former really doesn't seem right to me. Lance doesn't hit as hard at twilight?
Why not? There is a whole host of differences between how each class does it. No one is stepping on the paladins toes, after all, he has fullplate on, and thus metal shoes. He will be fine. If you are that concerned with toe stepping it is unlikely you will be satisfied with more combat classes in the first place.Paladins pick a dude, then charge at him on their mounts, getting scaling extra damage.
Cavaliers pick a dude, then charge at him on their mounts, getting scaling extra damage.
And depending on feat choice the fighter could too charge on a mount and get 'scaling damage' (combination of vital strike, weapon spec and spirited charge is essenstially scalling damage for the fighter).
The barbarian rages and charges at a dude. Some mechanics will overlap, the cavalier theme is not going to be completely exclusive to the paladin but there is still room for it.
Paladins pick a dude, then charge at him on their mounts, getting scaling extra damage.
Cavaliers pick a dude, then charge at him on their mounts, getting scaling extra damage.
Wizards pick a dude, then drop a fireball on them.
Sorcerers pick a dude, then drop a fireball on them.
I'm just not seeing Paladins and Cavaliers crossing the streams more then most classes do.
It does seem to imply that it's geared towards sentient/intelligent creatures because they must recognize the Samurai.
So you wouldn't be able to Challenge a Bullette, a Stone Golem, a Tyrannosaurus Rex, or a Purple Worm? I'd prefer the ability be more general purpose than being limited to creatures who can speak and recognize you. Also, how does this affect intelligent extra planar creatures?
I interpret the Cavalier's Challenge to also only work against sentient/intelligent foes because they must be able to understand and comprehend the Challenge. I would even go as far as to suggest that the target of a Challenge must be able to understand the Cavalier's spoken language or body language.
I can see this point of view but I kind of feel it would limit the value of the class. There are tons of encounters where the cavalier would be a fifth wheel.
I see it more as an internal thing rather than something that effects other creatures. The Cavalier becomes internally focused on one opponent. The flanking bit sort of aligns well with that also.
Paladins pick a dude, then charge at him on their mounts, getting scaling extra damage.
Cavaliers pick a dude, then charge at him on their mounts, getting scaling extra damage.
I agree, there is a lot of overlap there. In particular since they were talking about making Templars, essentially variant paladins for more alignments.
Paladins pick a dude, then charge at him on their mounts, getting scaling extra damage.
Cavaliers pick a dude, then charge at him on their mounts, getting scaling extra damage.
Wizards pick a dude, then drop a fireball on them.
Sorcerers pick a dude, then drop a fireball on them.
I'm just not seeing Paladins and Cavaliers crossing the streams more then most classes do.
Yes, and let's not forget: Paladins are divine champions who can channel energy, heal, and cast spells...and is required to be Lawful Good! That is often a hindrance to someone who wants the knightly type, but not a knight-templar.
Perhaps instead of calling them Challenges, they could be called instead Confrontations. A cavalier confronts an enemy, and by confronting him, initiates his special abilities. A challenge has a connotation of a duel, where as a Confrontation has the connotation of 'standing up to' or 'getting in the face of'.Thats not a bad name... any others?
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing
Ironically, something with 'focus' in it would seem natural....after you change the oracle's Focus to....Enigma!
|
|
I don't mind the idea, but internalize it instead. Instead of making it a -2 AC to the enemy, make it a +2 Insight bonus (or circumstance, or some other bonus) to the Cavalier's allies. Not even himself, and he has to be in melee with the target. Basically, he's harrying the enemy so much, and being so much in his face, that the cavlier's allies find it easier to hit the distracted foe.
This gives the same general bonus, but fits the class a lot better.
EDIT : And then call the ability 'Harassing Confrontation' (or Harassing Challenge) :)
I like this idea a lot, of internalizing it and giving the reciprocal of the debuff to the Cavaliers allies instead. Same end effect, much more befitting flavor.
i like Confrontation myself.
Other options for naming to me would be "Nemesis" or "Stand and Deviver"?
The problem I have with it Jason is you are violating your own stated aims with this :
Here you are forcing something off the cavalier and onto the target, which you stated above you didn't want to do. I prefer your stated aim over what actually ended up in the class. I would prefer, short of magic, that the Cavalier's bonuses and boosts all be internalized, or granted to his allies, rather than imposed on the enemies. If you impose something on the enemy, you have to limit it to sentient creatures (that ooze doesn't care if you call it a mama's ooze), and even to lawful creatures. Internalizing it to the cavalier (and allies) bypasses this issue.
Demanding Challenge (Ex): At 12th level, whenever a cavalier declares a challenge, his target must pay attention to the threat he poses. As long as the target can see the cavalier, it takes a –2 penalty to its AC from attacks made by anyone other than the cavalier. This penalty does not apply if the cavalier is within the target’s threatened area.
I have to agree. I would love to see some ally buffs tied to the "challenge." Perhaps allies gain a small bonus to saving throws or gain a bonus to caster level checks to overcome SR.
Perhaps instead of calling them Challenges, they could be called instead Confrontations. A cavalier confronts an enemy, and by confronting him, initiates his special abilities. A challenge has a connotation of a duel, where as a Confrontation has the connotation of 'standing up to' or 'getting in the face of'.Thats not a bad name... any others?
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing
Contest?
Defiance? ("I defy you!")
Yeah... and I have reservations about that specific ability. It was very close to being cut from the playtest version, specifically for the reasons cited. I left it in to float the concept of challenges that affect the foe. My reasoning here is that at that level, the cavalier's challenge can not be so simply ignored...
I am still not comfortable with the concept. Lets not toss the whole idea because of one violation of concept... after all. My keyboard has a delete key... a well used delete key, let me tell you.
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing
If the intention was to force the opponent to focus its attention on the cavalier, the concept could be conveyed by extra attacks of opportunity from the cavalier. It would remain something that the cavalier gets, as opposed to a penalty that the opponent receives. Basically, make it harder for the 'challengee' to disengage the challenger without serious consequences (short of a withdraw action perhaps?)
For what its worth, I have no problem with the word challenge and think it should stay. Regardless of the chosen term, chances are that it would be just as applicable to another situations as 'challenge' anyway. Not that confrontation is a bad choice, but it doesn't bear less 'fluff connotation' than challenge; only a different one. (You can't tell me that a raging barbarian isn't confrontational...) Yet the ability must bear a name, and challenge is actually a rather good choice of word. A duel may bear a more romantically just-and-fair connotation, but a challenge does not have to be a duel...
[edit] On second thought, a challenge usually involves and expects an answer (take or decline). Since you are trying to keep the 'challenge' on the side of the cavalier only, it may not be the best term after all...
my 2 coppers...
'findel
Perhaps instead of calling them Challenges, they could be called instead Confrontations. A cavalier confronts an enemy, and by confronting him, initiates his special abilities. A challenge has a connotation of a duel, where as a Confrontation has the connotation of 'standing up to' or 'getting in the face of'.Thats not a bad name... any others?
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing
How about:
Exaction. As in "To exact payment in blood."
or
Clash. As in "A clash of arms." (or Titans at high level)
(snip)
any others?Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing
how about 'assault'
or if we are permitted compound words:
resolute assault?
staunch assault?
unyielding assault?
stalwart assault?
[edit] I like the sound of Staunch Assault, partially because it echoes the rogue's Sneak Attack with which it shares similarities. A bit too well perhaps, as the two ability would bare the same initials (SA)...
The point of this ability is that the cavalier picks a foe and dedicates all of his focus to bringing that foe down.Flavor-wise, how is Challenge different than an Oath to defeat an enemy then?
Exactly.
Thats not a bad name... any others?Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing
Hey Jason,
Thanks for responding. If the intent of the ability really is for the cavalier to pick out a specific foe to fight, I might change the name of the ability to "chosen foe."
Now, unfortunately, I feel like this creates two problems:
First of all, I know that some overlap with other classes is unavoidable in making a class, but, really, this concept is SO much already a paladin thing. The Paladin picks out the worst, nastiest foe on the field (who is typically evil) and brings his holy wrath to bear against him. Unfortunately, this is exactly what the current Cavalier mechanic is going to feel like. I think a lot of us would actually prefer a "Challenge" over a "Chosen foe" (and I'm not talking a taunt mechanic. That's what roleplaying and social skills are for).
Second of all, It doesn't really synergize with the other combat abilities the cavalier brings to the table. There's just something odd about having all of those charge multiplier abilities, then adding precision damage to it. It just doesn't have the neat, clean feeling of focusing on smite or focusing on sneak attack.