I can't come up with any encounter in which the paladin shines and the cavalier does not. Not one. During every encounter in which a paladin shines, a cavalier will shine, too.
Uh, no, notsomuch. Don't forget that Smite Evil does a helluvalot more than Challenge does, with a lot less drawbacks. The paladin will easily outshine the cavalier in any fight that he gets serious use of Smite Evil on. For example, a level 8 Cavalier and Paladin fighting a Rakshasa: the Cav is doing +10.5 damage per hit (average of 3d6) to the Rakshasa, while the Paladin is doing +23 damage per hit (+9 paladin level, +15 overcoming DR), hitting significantly more often (+Cha to hit), and being hit significantly less often (+Cha to AC).
harry
verb ( -ries, -ried) [ trans. ]
persistently carry out attacks on (an enemy or an enemy's territory).
• persistently harass : he bought the house for Jenny, whom he harries into marriage | [as adj. ] ( harried) harried reporters are frequently forced to invent what they cannot find out.
ORIGIN Old English herian, hergian, of Germanic origin, probably influenced by Old French harier, in the same sense.
Harry (Ex): Once per combat, a cavalier can harry a foe in combat. As a swift action, the cavalier chooses one target within sight to harry. A cavalier’s melee attacks deal extra damage whenever the attacks are made against the harried target. This extra damage is 1d6 at 1st level, and increases by 1d6 every three cavalier levels thereafter. This extra damage is considered precision damage, is not multiplied on a critical hit, and does not apply to attacks that deal nonlethal damage.
Harrying a foe requires much of the cavalier’s concentration. Melee attacks made against the cavalier, except those made by the harried target, treat the cavalier as if he is flanked. Such attacks receive a +2 flanking bonus. Improved uncanny dodge, and similar abilities, do not protect a cavalier from being flanked as the result of harrying.
Harrying persists until the target is dead, unconscious, or the combat ends. Harrying also includes another effect, depending upon the cavalier’s order.
The only downside here is that I had to noun the verb in some places. However, nouning is already an accepted practice with the paladin's smite. (also notice I verbed noun.)
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'.
That makes sense, but "confrontation" seems a little too generic. Any hostile situation could be considered a confrontation, so I think the name should be more unique in order to better identify the ability.
You could still call it a confrontation if you add a descriptor, like "Focused Confrontation".
The problem with the name discussion is that it's still not dealing with the mechanics and niche issues of the ability.
I can't come up with any encounter in which the paladin shines and the cavalier does not. Not one. During every encounter in which a paladin shines, a cavalier will shine, too.Uh, no, notsomuch. Don't forget that Smite Evil does a helluvalot more than Challenge does, with a lot less drawbacks. The paladin will easily outshine the cavalier in any fight that he gets serious use of Smite Evil on. For example, a level 8 Cavalier and Paladin fighting a Rakshasa: the Cav is doing +10.5 damage per hit (average of 3d6) to the Rakshasa, while the Paladin is doing +23 damage per hit (+9 paladin level, +15 overcoming DR), hitting significantly more often (+Cha to hit), and being hit significantly less often (+Cha to AC).
That's not to mention the level 20 Cavalier and his level 20 Pladin pal fighting a Pit Fiend: the Cav is doing +24.5 damage per hit (average of 7d6) to the Pit Fiend (and taking a penalty to defenses vs mobs), while the Paladin is doing +55 damage per hit (+40 paladin level, +15 overcoming DR), plus the Cha bonus to attack and AC.
The problem with the name discussion is that it's still not dealing with the mechanics and niche issues of the ability.
Yes and no. About half of the mechanics complaints have resulted from preconceptions about what "challenge" should do. You might be in the other half, asking about whether it works at all, rather than if it works as a challenge. Still, fixing the word does address many of the issues thus far raised, just not the ones you're concerned with.
The problem with the name discussion is that it's still not dealing with the mechanics and niche issues of the ability.
True, but the lead designer for the Pathfinder RPG asked us for ideas....you don't seriously expect us to say "not until you address all our concerns" do you?
|
Harry (Ex): Once per combat, a cavalier can harry a foe...
I think you have nailed it there.
Some of the other concepts like Nemesis and Sworn Foe gave too much of a sense of longevity. Those sound like something that would consume several sessions of play, not a single combat.
I've seen birds harry things that came too close to their nest. The image of an attacker that is too persistent to ignore is perfect for this I think.
True, but the lead designer for the Pathfinder RPG asked us for ideas....you don't seriously expect us to say "not until you address all our concerns" do you?
No, I suppose I don't. I just hate seeing another thread turned into the name game while ignoring any other issues.
Harry (Ex): Once per combat, a cavalier can harry a foe in combat. As a swift action, the cavalier chooses one target within sight to harry. A cavalier’s melee attacks deal extra damage whenever the attacks are made against the harried target. This extra damage is 1d6 at 1st level, and increases by 1d6 every three cavalier levels thereafter. This extra damage is considered precision damage, is not multiplied on a critical hit, and does not apply to attacks that deal nonlethal damage.
Harry (Ex): The cavalier sprouts manly chest hair. Ladies swoon and his nancy-boy opponents sulk with jealousy. Effects last until his chest is waxed.
The iconic should look like Burt Reynolds.
Harry (Ex): The cavalier sprouts manly chest hair. Ladies swoon and his nancy-boy opponents sulk with jealousy. Effects last until his chest is waxed.The iconic should look like Burt Reynolds.
You know, I had that reservation when I suggested it. :P Nevertheless, the word in proper context sounds great, and has a great tradition in the stories of medieval combat. It would be a shame to lose it to a nickname and a state of grooming. It also works far better as a transitive verb than "smite" did... I always thought it strange that you could be "smiting" an opponent in between actually striking them!
You know, I had that reservation when I suggested it. :P Nevertheless, the word in proper context sounds great, and has a great tradition in the stories of medieval combat. It would be a shame to lose it to a nickname and a state of grooming.
Harry (Ex): The cavalier sprouts manly chest hair. Ladies swoon and his nancy-boy opponents sulk with jealousy. Effects last until his chest is waxed.The iconic should look like Burt Reynolds.
Nah, I'm just kidding. You nailed it. :)
You know, I had that reservation when I suggested it. :P Nevertheless, the word in proper context sounds great, and has a great tradition in the stories of medieval combat. It would be a shame to lose it to a nickname and a state of grooming. It also works far better as a transitive verb than "smite" did... I always thought it strange that you could be "smiting" an opponent in between actually striking them!
Harry (Ex): The cavalier sprouts manly chest hair. Ladies swoon and his nancy-boy opponents sulk with jealousy. Effects last until his chest is waxed.The iconic should look like Burt Reynolds.
Yeah, I almost posted a warning about the inevitable "Harry Cavalier" jokes, but decided against it. Woops.
|
|
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
Something that occurred - a way to reword the fluff so that 'Demanding Challenge' remains focussed on what the Cavalier is doing:
Harass (Ex): At 12th level, ferocity of a Cavaliers attacks against a challenged foe becomes such that the ability of the foe to defend themselves from others is diminished. When attacked, the foe takes a –2 penalty to its AC from attacks made by anyone other than the cavalier for one round.
I've removed the 'threatened area' clause as it seems odd that the target would be less distracted by the Cavalier once they entered hand-to-hand.
|
|
I think you have nailed it there.Harry (Ex): Once per combat, a cavalier can harry a foe...
That would be especially appropriate if the harry focused less on dealing damage on its own and more on granting bonuses to your allies' damage against the same opponent.
Sort of a reverse sneak attack. I hit you, so the next guy that hits you this round gets some bonus damage dice. Then everyone gets to shine. Heck, since that would require teamwork and tactical positioning, you don't even need to limit it to once per combat.
I was wondering with Harass whether it should grant other attackers their usual number of dice of precision/sneak damage, with a minimum of 1d6 for those who don't usually get it. The Cavalier keeping the foe so tied up with a hail of blows that one of their comrades gets a chance at a killing strike.
Seriously, I just don't understand the concept.
I must say first that I'm in love with the oracle. Great design, and most importantly, it fills a new niche. Impossible to reduce it to another already existing class. It adds something to the game. But I feel the Cavalier as it is designed now, adds almost nothing that you could not easily do with another one, a couple of new feats and some fluff. I know this sound harsh, but let me explain :
Pally's smite, we understand the power is somehow related to piety, holyness and sanctity. They get a dammage bonus. Limited on number of uses.
Rangers have fav ennemies, They learn how a certain type of creature fight in order to be more efficient against that type. Limited by circumstances.
Barbs rage, they access their inner rage to focus on offense, disregarding defense. Limited in number of rounds. Limited by malus to defense.
The Cavalier? Bonus dammage, agains one ennemy, not restricted by alignment or creature type, more often than the paladin, without the need to know the ennemy, explained by a "inner" focus, getting yet another malus to defense.
Seems it tries to fit a niche already well covered. I was hoping the flavor would be that of a leader, more bardic-like (mind affecting, sentient creatures only), based on diplomacy or intimidation.
I say, limit Challengs in scope (intelligent, loyal or neutral creature only) and just drop the malus to defense. Seems it will not as much steps on the toes of the pally, barb and ranger and be a balanced limiting factor. Let it also affect those challenged creatures as a bard song. Why?:
Buff/debuff is not yet covered for high bab characters - we have healing and killing one ennemy faster(paladin), skills and killing types faster(Ranger), and getting high dammage and doing nice tricks while raging (barb). Another Hig BAB character should fill a new niche.
I am proposing that Buff/Debuff and mind affecting tricks of leadership and intimidation is that new niche, and it fits well with the concept - why repeat the same when you have something new there? Yes, it will steps on the toes of the bard, but the bard will still have more skills and magic.
As for the rationalisation : How can you explain mind affecting effects if the Cavalier is not a caster?
The monk is not a caster, but still gets "supranormal" gimmicks so where is the problem? Explain it by the power of dedication to an ideal, so deeply rooted it can alter reality. Instead of being focused on the perfection of the self (as the monk), it is being focused on the power to show others you can change the world with ideals. Think Charisma taken to an uncanny art - letting you imposing your ideals on others. There you go - an "outer" monk, getting from charisma what the monk gets from wisdom.
Else, I can just tell my player to play a fighter and get a horse, and replace the entire Cavalier class by a couple of feats mimicking challenges and oaths. I don't need that class as it is designed, and I would not pay for yet another class doing what three others are doing well.
But I will still buy the book for the oracle - a very clever design ;-)
The bigger problem, however, is that the individual foe takes no penalty from this. The idea is that they're honor-bound to fight you or that, at the least, they look the fool for not doing so. But, logically, other than RP, the character has no particular incentive to face you. In fact, they're mechanically encouraged not to face you. They're buddies have a benefit when trying to hit you, and they themselves take a great deal more damage from you.
The flanked component of the ability doesn't seem to work. I think it's cool that you have tunnel vision toward your particular foe, and I like that, should his buddies choose to be dishonorable, they get a bonus to hit you. But, not being able to perceive your opponents isn't represented by flanking, it's represented by being flat footed.
Later, this ability creates an even bigger problem when your allies gain a bonus to hit the target of your challenge. Are you calling the guy out so your friends can fight him? That doesn't quite make sense. What will happen in any remotely tactical game is that you'll challenge your foe, his buddies will attack you, and yours will attack him.
My recommendation: Let's make challenge what it should be: A debuff. The bonus damage needs to be toned down a bit, and, your opponent should get a penalty to hit your allies, while a bonus to hit you (-4 and +4 maybe?), as he looks the fool if he hits the little lady in robes while you're standing there making jabs at him.
This is the problem with the challenge mechanic right now. Velderan makes a good point here about how it's better for the challenged opponent to run away than it is for him to fight you.
The bigger problem, however, is that the individual foe takes no penalty from this. The idea is that they're honor-bound to fight you or that, at the least, they look the fool for not doing so. But, logically, other than RP, the character has no particular incentive to face you. In fact, they're mechanically encouraged not to face you.
This is the problem with the challenge mechanic right now. Velderan makes a good point here about how it's better for the challenged opponent to run away than it is for him to fight you.
Hmmm... almost as though they were being "harried." Hmm....
Hmmm... almost as though they were being "harried." Hmm....
LOL, somebody's proud of himself.
Really though, in all seriousness, I just don't think that component of challenge is very good.
Hmmm... almost as though they were being "harried." Hmm....LOL, somebody's proud of himself.
Really though, in all seriousness, I just don't think that component of challenge is very good.
I am!
But also, I can think of worse things than for a highly maneuverable melee character to do than drive people away from a section of the fight. I'm not an expert on game tactics, but I'm pretty sure this is a useful role for cavalry in real life.
I understand the accepted wisdom that melee fighters need to soak up attacks, but is there any way that the Cavalier's abilities could be well applied in convincing enemies to bug off? I suppose it is a curiosity of Hit Points that gives us a reality where getting hit by a sword real hard is not a sufficient reason to move away. Ah well.
Even so, if we actually have a power that encourages enemies to disengage (if they are magically aware of it), is that not tactically applicable? Serious question! Could be I am very wrong.
|
I can't come up with any encounter in which the paladin shines and the cavalier does not. Not one. During every encounter in which a paladin shines, a cavalier will shine, too.Uh, no, notsomuch. Don't forget that Smite Evil does a helluvalot more than Challenge does, with a lot less drawbacks. The paladin will easily outshine the cavalier in any fight that he gets serious use of Smite Evil on. For example, a level 8 Cavalier and Paladin fighting a Rakshasa: the Cav is doing +10.5 damage per hit (average of 3d6) to the Rakshasa, while the Paladin is doing +23 damage per hit (+9 paladin level, +15 overcoming DR), hitting significantly more often (+Cha to hit), and being hit significantly less often (+Cha to AC).
And against undead the paladin is even more devastating (double the smite damage I believe...)
|
|
Harry (Ex): Once per combat, a cavalier can harry a foe in combat. As a swift action, the cavalier chooses one target within sight to harry. A cavalier’s melee attacks deal extra damage whenever the attacks are made against the harried target. This extra damage is 1d6 at 1st level, and increases by 1d6 every three cavalier levels thereafter. This extra damage is considered precision damage, is not multiplied on a critical hit, and does not apply to attacks that deal nonlethal damage.Harry (Ex): The cavalier sprouts manly chest hair. Ladies swoon and his nancy-boy opponents sulk with jealousy. Effects last until his chest is waxed.
The iconic should look like Burt Reynolds.
Harry and the Andersons?
Harry and Kumar?
Harry so can get there already?
(I would have too much fun with this... hence it could become a D&D.. err... PRPG classic! :P )
Yeah, I specifically didn't choose a double-damage target (Rakshasa are evil outsiders, but not Outsider [evil]).
Harry (Ex): Once per combat, a cavalier can harry a foe in combat. As a swift action, the cavalier chooses one target within sight to harry. A cavalier’s melee attacks deal extra damage whenever the attacks are made against the harried target. This extra damage is 1d6 at 1st level, and increases by 1d6 every three cavalier levels thereafter. This extra damage is considered precision damage, is not multiplied on a critical hit, and does not apply to attacks that deal nonlethal damage.Harry (Ex): The cavalier sprouts manly chest hair. Ladies swoon and his nancy-boy opponents sulk with jealousy. Effects last until his chest is waxed.
The iconic should look like Burt Reynolds.
Harry and the Andersons?
Harry and Kumar?
Harry so can get there already?
(I would have too much fun with this... hence it could become a D&D.. err... PRPG classic! :P )
Don't forget Harry Potter!
It talks about how it is mechanically better for the challenged foe to let his buddies take you on, but ultimately it is up to the DM to decide their actions. Not what it smartest, what the enemy would do (this is roleplaying people). If the enemy is a coward, yeah he'll run. If he is an orc boss he'll probably charge you screaming a battlecry.
P.S. Power to the DMs
It talks about how it is mechanically better for the challenged foe to let his buddies take you on, but ultimately it is up to the DM to decide their actions. Not what it smartest, what the enemy would do (this is roleplaying people). If the enemy is a coward, yeah he'll run. If he is an orc boss he'll probably charge you screaming a battlecry.
P.S. Power to the DMs
Not to mention that the cavalier is unlikely to activate his power until he is in position to actually attack his challenge foe.
So the Cavalier fights his way through the melee and gets to his chosen enemy and gets nice and cozy and says "I'm gonna get mid-evil on your ***" and busts out an extra large can of hurt.
So while the enemy may try and avoid the cavalier he won't be aware of the nature of the threat until he's up close and personal... the mechanics of the flanking, etc pretty much guarantee that's how it will be played. I suppose someone can be silly and challenge the BBEG from across the battlefield but there is no benefit to that at all. Feats like step up and lunge seem like good choices to let the cavalier stay in hurting range.
Now there is an excellent cavalier specific power, one that prevents his challenged foe from fleeing or allows the cavalier to pursue.
The numbers are different, but the two classes end up playing the exact the same way. The paladin gets to go ding and activate his signature "target the leader" attack. The cavalier gets to go ding and activate his signature "target the leader" attack.It's like having two evocation-focused sorcerers in the same party, one focusing on electricity spells and the other focusing on fire spells. Sure, the fire-based sorcerer gets to deal more damage when fighting a cold-based opponent. But that doesn't change the fact that the two sorcerers are going to end up doing the exact same thing in an encounter with a cold-based opponent: unload a bunch of damage-dealing spells. So if damage-dealing spells in general win the day, both sorcerers got to shine, because they were the ones unloading the damage-dealing spells.
Your example isn't quite a good one. Instead, make it one force focusing evocation sorcerer, and one fire-focused sorcerer. Now, also put a geas on the fire-focused sorcerer that doubles his damage dice vs cold creatures but he can only target cold creatures.
Now your example is closer. The Paladin is all great and shiny and if the bad guy is evil, he will clobber him into dust. The cavalier will come along and knock some large stones off the bad guy too, while they paladin is busy pulverizing him, of course, but the paladin will do most of the damage.
If the bad guy is not evil, then the cavalier will still be in their knocking chunks off, but the paladin will be sitting there hacking to knock off a few stones here and there.
And, if the bad guy is actually two evil bad guys of the same power, then the paladin takes the BBEG on the left, and the Cavalier the guy on the right. Then, two turns later, when the paladin is done smashing the left hand guy into pulp, he comes over and finishes off the guy the Cavalier was still knocking chunks out of.
And, finally, if the big bad is actually two neutral big bads, then the Cavalier takes the guy on the right and knocks chunks off him, while the Paladin takes the guy on the left and tries to hold him off until the cavalier can finish knocking the guy on the right into gravel. Then the cavalier comes over and he and the paladin whale on the big bad on the left until somebody dies and they hope it's not them because they've both shot their wad for this fight.
I've to agree. The mechanic is a good idea (and I love both the cavalier and the cookies maker...pardon, oracle), but it needs clarifications at least.
How the hell could I challenge a cow? a dinosaur? an ooze? (I know, I know, it's precision-based damage...).
It doesn't make sense at all. There are just too may casistics.
My take on the whole matter: the chivalry orders are a really good idea. Let's differentiate the damage type and the effect considering the style of the order, and grant the cavalier a secure mean for actually USE their power.
es. Order of the phoenix (I know, there isn't one...for now): challenge damage is bonus FIRE damage. The cavalier can magically fly towards its target, and gets a magical fire aura that burns everybody except its target. Nobody is immune, also an ooze can be burned down.
Order of the sword: challenge damage is bonus PRECISION damage, due to the extreme training and focus of the cav. Every target with intelligence score feels with instinct a great menace from the cav. It's considered flat-footed against all the other combatants and gets a -2 penalty to every saves except to the cav's ones.
Order xxx:
-Insert damage type and justify the damage
-Insert weakness or immunity
-Insert mean for the cav to reach the enemy or to induce the enemy itself to attack the cav.
Bye!
|
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
I posted some thoughts on related names in a previous reply to this thread but will repeat them here...
Valor, Valiant, Brave, Resolute, Courageous, Audacious, Dauntless, Intrepid, Unfearing, Fearless, Hardy, Bold, relentless, stalwart, tenacious, steadfast, valiancy, unwavering, champion, indomitable, unflinching, lion-hearted, valorous, heroic...
I kind of like Audacious, Resolute and Lion-Hearted myself.
Though none really hit the mark for the single name of the ability described it does provide a number of like abilities to expand on the idea.
As for a name I dont think a singular word is enough. Valorous strike, Focused Champion, and Relentless Assualt jump out at me the most.
Heres also a paragraph I pulled from the web that may help build on the concept...
To challenge oneself one needs to find one’s limits and set a target beyond that; so that these limits keep extending. It is said that human mind has unlimited capacity. To really tap into it you need to guide it by intelligently creating challenges. There is no benefit in going lax. It doesn’t achieve anything. It’s like an unforced error that’s wrong in every way. So you got to tighten your belt and get ready for the voyage.
The numbers are different, but the two classes end up playing the exact the same way. The paladin gets to go ding and activate his signature "target the leader" attack. The cavalier gets to go ding and activate his signature "target the leader" attack.
Exactly.
Exactly.The numbers are different, but the two classes end up playing the exact the same way. The paladin gets to go ding and activate his signature "target the leader" attack. The cavalier gets to go ding and activate his signature "target the leader" attack.
And the wizard zaps the leader with enervation, and the cleric hits him with hold person, the barbarian rages and charges him, the monk flurries him, the bard tries to charm him. Most classes will do SOMETHING like this.
|
|
And the wizard zaps the leader with enervation, and the cleric hits him with hold person, the barbarian rages and charges him, the monk flurries him, the bard tries to charm him. Most classes will do SOMETHING like this.
This. Every class is going to have something to do against the BBEG that they've been saving up. Otherwise there'd be little to no point to having class features or magic in the first place.
I'm not too concerned about overlap. Again, my concern is that a group of level 1 PCs are exploring sewers and attacked by a few dire rats.
The Cavalier shouts, "Have at thee, cur!!!!" and goes medieval on a freaking dire rat while the rest of the group sits there with their mouths hanging open wondering if this guy should be allowed to have a pointy sharp object.
And the wizard zaps the leader with enervation, and the cleric hits him with hold person, the barbarian rages and charges him, the monk flurries him, the bard tries to charm him. Most classes will do SOMETHING like this.This. Every class is going to have something to do against the BBEG that they've been saving up. Otherwise there'd be little to no point to having class features or magic in the first place.
I'm not too concerned about overlap. Again, my concern is that a group of level 1 PCs are exploring sewers and attacked by a few dire rats.
The Cavalier shouts, "Have at thee, cur!!!!" and goes medieval on a freaking dire rat while the rest of the group sits there with their mouths hanging open wondering if this guy should be allowed to have a pointy sharp object.
So then perhaps you would be more satisfied with a per day mechanic or a rounds per day mechanic as opposed to once per combat?
Although I initially had no problem with the new cavalier "challenge" mechanic (or name, for that matter), I find Meepo's arguments extremely persuasive. In short, I, too, would LOVE to see a mechanic that activates in single combat, rather than one that reinforces the usual "gang-up-on-the-BBEG" thing.
|
|
Although I initially had no problem with the new cavalier "challenge" mechanic (or name, for that matter), I find Meepo's arguments extremely persuasive. In short, I, too, would LOVE to see a mechanic that activates in single combat, rather than one that reinforces the usual "gang-up-on-the-BBEG" thing.
General question:
If the party Cavalier had some abilities that gave them large bonuses to fight the BBEG, but only if they were the only party member physically attacking them, would you as a player be content dealing with the minions?
Although I initially had no problem with the new cavalier "challenge" mechanic (or name, for that matter), I find Meepo's arguments extremely persuasive. In short, I, too, would LOVE to see a mechanic that activates in single combat, rather than one that reinforces the usual "gang-up-on-the-BBEG" thing.General question:
If the party Cavalier had some abilities that gave them large bonuses to fight the BBEG, but only if they were the only party member physically attacking them, would you as a player be content dealing with the minions?
Indeed, single combat mechanics are poor in a party based system. I saw that in the dragon order ability, i pretty much never got it. You rarely get to fight an enemy completely alone and to require it means you need a party that has no other combatants for it to work often.
If the party Cavalier had some abilities that gave them large bonuses to fight the BBEG, but only if they were the only party member physically attacking them, would you as a player be content dealing with the minions?
Flip it around. If my cavalier could get huge bonuses when holding off minions singlehandedly -- while the paladin and ranger gang up on the BBEG as usual -- I'd LOVE to be able to do that!
If the party Cavalier had some abilities that gave them large bonuses to fight the BBEG, but only if they were the only party member physically attacking them, would you as a player be content dealing with the minions?Flip it around. If my cavalier could get huge bonuses when holding off minions singlehandedly -- while the paladin and ranger gang up on the BBEG as usual -- I'd LOVE to be able to do that!
Doesn't fit my picture of a knight in shining armor at all though.
Think about it, the glorious knight in shining on of which the bards sing ballads wasn't the one who fought the dragon, no that was the Paladin the cavalier fought the kobold minions. The knight in shining armor who took down the Frost giant Jarl wasn't the cavalier, no it was the Ranger, no the cavalier was fighting the ogre guards Bob and Steve while the ranger killed the Jarl.
I understand your desire to find him a job other then kill the boss for which there are already many other who have that job. But I think you're looking at the wrong focus.
Instead of the cavalier doing extra damage why not let me inspire others to do most. Instead maybe he could grant his allies more damage against their foes. Prehaps the cavalier instead of getting tunnel vision he could give it to his enemies. Because of his very out going in your face style he draws attention to himself. Thus allowing his allies to more easily get good shots in. Basically if he hits a foe that foe is now considered flanked by all others.
That to me is a nitch that no other class really fills. I know it's really still an aggro trick of sorts and I am not thrilled by that but I think it is soft enough of one to make it ok.
I'm strongly opposed to the cavalier only increasing his allies' ability to kill things. That would mean that he, himself, is the worst full-BAB character at killing things. Does that make any sense? He should be on par with the others, not below them.
Think about it, the glorious knight in shining on of which the bards sing ballads wasn't the one who fought the dragon, no that was the Paladin the cavalier fought the kobold minions.
So, never mind Roland at Roncesvalles? The ballads get sung about him holding off the Paynims. Nobody remembers who killed the saracen general in that cycle.
Change the mechanic from "you get huge offensive bonuses against the BBEG, at the expende of defense against everyone else" to "you get huge offensive and defensive bonuses, and blocking ability, against anyone you fight without your friends helping." If you hold off hordes of minions to allow your friends to gang up on the BBEG, you shine. If your friend the wizard controls the mooks while you take out the BBEG, you shine. Everyone keeps their own role, and you get your own.
Instead of the cavalier doing extra damage why not let me inspire others to do most. Instead maybe he could grant his allies more damage against their foes. Prehaps the cavalier instead of getting tunnel vision he could give it to his enemies. Because of his very out going in your face style he draws attention to himself. Thus allowing his allies to more easily get good shots in. Basically if he hits a foe that foe is now considered flanked by all others.That to me is a nitch that no other class really fills. I know it's really still an aggro trick of sorts and I am not thrilled by that but I think it is soft enough of one to make it ok.
The problem there is the cavalier is thus not a reasonable part of a 4 player party. If you provide mostly buffs, you still need a mage, a healer, a guy who hits things (fighter paladin, barbarian) and a skill focused character. I would expect there isnt going to BE someone to grant a bonus to damage to in a 4 person party except perhaps the rogue, who would not last long if he went one on one with the big bad.
The cavalier needs to be able to directly impact the combat himself, not through buffs alone. I like the challenge mechanic in that sense, and I think party buffs should be secondary.
Think about it, the glorious knight in shining on of which the bards sing ballads wasn't the one who fought the dragon, no that was the Paladin the cavalier fought the kobold minions.So, never mind Roland at Roncesvalles? The ballads get sung about him holding off the Paynims. Nobody remembers who killed the saracen general in that cycle.
Change the mechanic from "you get huge offensive bonuses against the BBEG, at the expende of defense against everyone else" to "you get huge offensive and defensive bonuses, and blocking ability, against anyone you fight without your friends helping." If you hold off hordes of minions to allow your friends to gang up on the BBEG, you shine. If your friend the wizard controls the mooks while you take out the BBEG, you shine. Everyone keeps their own role, and you get your own.
Except that there's no way for the cavalier to force those hordes of enemies to fight him. Which means they won't. Which means the cavalier is useless.
Stand Still feat and the linked in Combat Reflexes being used for Trip or perhaps Bull rush attempts. If a Cavalier gained that kind of battle field control with bonuses from oaths and or banners, and without the need for a super high dex, that would give the class the basic tools to 'stop' hords.
That would also work well with an abillity name change, I think a very good one was already suggested.
One part kill BBEG from house back, one part hold foes at bay while on foot.
Stand Still feat and the linked in Combat Reflexes being used for Trip or perhaps Bull rush attempts.
Doesn't work if they double-move. Also imposes a feat tax and an attribute tax that are non-obvious to a casual player.