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.
I don't have a problem with him being a very defense focused guy, so he can surive hordes, but frankly I have no idea how you make him tougher then a paladin without making him effectively unkillable.
That being said I am ok but your idea, but don't know. A semi-smart foe will soon know to simply always engage others and force the cavalier to join in and thus negate his bonus. Sure if he's last man standing or holding the gates solo he will get it but it wont be a very common thing. Cavaliers are going to be a full class and to my mind that makes them somewhat common, or rather common enough most people/smart monsters who engage in combat will know the basics about them.
Anyway I would rather the cavalier be more bard then paladin and right now he looks mostly paladin.
I hate to be like this but I think the reason we all have trouble really coming up with what the class should do is that most of what is should do is done by others already. What a Cavalier to me really is well is a Paladin/Fighter who has taken knightly vows and upholds the some code of honor that while it may put him at some disadvantage also gives him strength to overcome.
The more I read posts about the class and how we each are searching for a purpose for it, the more I think it really and truly should be a PrC.
Director of Games
|
Let me address a few issues here...
1. The fact that the cavalier and the paladin both have "target the leader" abilities is not really all that unusual. As has been mentioned here, nearly every class can take that mentality. Changing the class to focus on "holding off minions" is not really the way that I would like to see this class go. I think that too is a role that most players fill at one time or another. Taking away the capability to take on a big foe really pulls a lot of life and interest from the class.
2. I like a number of the names for the mechanic that have been presented here. I am not going to mention a favorite just yet, but feel free to continue the debate.
3. I am not so worried about the bad guys running just because they are challenged. There are plenty of other abilities and spells that should trigger the same response, but they rarely do. Bag guys, in general are there to fight. I am possibly interested in abilities that keep the bad guy "glued" to the cavalier, but that is some tricky ground to tread. Especially since the cavalier is not based in magic in any way.
Thoughts.
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing
I actually like the Challenge name.
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.
See bolded text. I want a class -- just one -- that actually CAN run interference for his friends, without having to be a 3.5e spiked chain tripper. Someone with actual class features that actually allow him to intercept enemies and prevent them from passing him at will. That's a niche that no class currently occupies, because the RAW don't let them. Here's a chance to correct that!
|
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.
Currently - apart from the GM role-playing the challenged foe as being goaded into taking up the challenge and coming to fight the Cavalier. This makes Challenge into a verbal thing that will only work on humanoids that understand the language and have a personality that makes them accept a call to duel.
It's a tricky class to design... has anyone spotted anything from Jason or the other Paizonians that stated why these six class concepts were chosen for the APG and what they were hoping for from the Cavalier? It would make an interesting read at this point.
Currently - apart from the GM role-playing the challenged foe as being goaded into taking up the challenge and coming to fight the Cavalier. This makes Challenge into a verbal thing that will only work on humanoids that understand the language and have a personality that makes them accept a call to duel.
No need, if we designed actual class features that allowed blocking and interception to work effectively. The basic combat rules can't be rewritten at this point, but exception-based class features can.
See bolded text. I want a class -- just one -- that actually CAN run interference for his friends, without having to be a 3.5e spiked chain tripper. Someone with actual class features that actually allow him to intercept enemies and prevent them from passing him at will. That's a niche that no class currently occupies, because the RAW don't let them. Here's a chance to correct that!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.
Except that Jason has explicitly said that he doesn't want to go the Knight route with the Cavalier. He doesn't want the Cav to force his foes to do anything, because that gets into the realm of magic and the Cav is 100% nonmagic. I don't agree with that assertion (that it gets into the realm of magic), but when the lead designer asserts that something isn't going to happen, it's not really worth arguing.
Except that Jason has explicitly said that he doesn't want to go the Knight route with the Cavalier. He doesn't want the Cav to force his foes to do anything, because that gets into the realm of magic and the Cav is 100% nonmagic. I don't agree with that assertion (that it gets into the realm of magic), but when the lead designer asserts that something isn't going to happen, it's not really worth arguing.
He said that with regards to the silly Knight's Challenge ability, and I agreed with him, and still do. Blocking and interception isn't magic, and isn't mind-affecting, and doesn't make your opponents' decisions for them. It goes against nothing that the designer nixed.
Except that Jason has explicitly said that he doesn't want to go the Knight route with the Cavalier. He doesn't want the Cav to force his foes to do anything, because that gets into the realm of magic and the Cav is 100% nonmagic. I don't agree with that assertion (that it gets into the realm of magic), but when the lead designer asserts that something isn't going to happen, it's not really worth arguing.See bolded text. I want a class -- just one -- that actually CAN run interference for his friends, without having to be a 3.5e spiked chain tripper. Someone with actual class features that actually allow him to intercept enemies and prevent them from passing him at will. That's a niche that no class currently occupies, because the RAW don't let them. Here's a chance to correct that!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.
There's a precedent with the duelist PrC and the parry ability that could be re-used/built-on for the cavalier?
|
Your preception is flawed. The full plate knight was never ackward and helpless. The only reason he would be ackward and helpless *after* falling from his mount is because who else wouldn't BE after falling off a horse?
On foot, the knight was still a formidable opponent, you needed another knight/squire/man at arm (the middle or last two lost either their horses and couldn't replace them or never been able to afford horse in first place, otherwise they have similar equipment) or a group of warriors working together to contest him. The horse is an important aspect in that it give him mobility AND the ability to be a shock troop through mass charge, lacking the mount doesn't make him weaker against other troop on ground when he's on foot.
I think you read my post incorrectly, and my sentance could have been better constructed.
If I had written ...
The best way to kill a knight in full-plate was to have him fall from his horse, once on the ground, his heavy and awkward armor would often leave him prone and helpless, unable to stand without assistance.
... then I guess we both agree on the issue. full-plate prevented shoulder and leg movement to such a degree that standing up from prone was almost impossible without help :)
The knight was formidable as a foot soldier but not always because of full plate. full plate was designed to protect against melee attacks. with the huge plates of metal covering his entire body very few weapons could penetrate this hard shell.
Then came the crossbow, and eventually firearms and ultimately the decline of plate armor. With projectile weapons the knight found himself at a huge disadvantage, he couldnt move quickly enough to avoid such projectiles that had such a great penetration power. in the early years knights would wear half plate and half chain to increase their maneuverability to minimise their weaknesses, and would also allow them to stand from prone if knocked off their mount.
What about something in the "Challenge" mechanic that allowed a Cavalier to move with his opponent barring that opponent having a mode of movement the paladin did not?
That's why I started bring up combat manuvers. Mighty Charge at 11th level has some very ineresting uses I'm keen to play test now. Trip is a no-bainer and a rather big debuff to most bipedal foes. Bullrush is another, which on theory would effecivly allow the cavalier to drag a target with him.
Zurai how does a double move, impact combat reflexes with trip or Stand Still not work? If your taking about the targets moving around the cavalier, any space big enough for that kind if bypass should also be one where th Cavalier is charging. In smaller dungeon or indoor spaces, when unmounted these should be the mundane battlefield control people are perhaps looking for. As you pointed out ther is a bit of a feat/stat tax (and I'll be checking this out in a set of test bulid hopefully this evening) but Thad something that could be adressed in the class itself.
Heroic charges (best mounted) and heroic stands (best on foot) feed to allied insperation and buffs?
full-plate prevented shoulder and leg movement to such a degree that standing up from prone was almost impossible without help :)
False. This is ONLY true of Jousting Plate, which is a specific subset of full plate that was -- get this -- only used in formal jousts, where the challenge was over as soon as someone was unhorsed. I've seen people in what D&D considers full plate not only stand up quickly and easily unaided after being unhorsed, but do cartwheels, jumping jacks, play hopskotch, and so on.
Zurai how does a double move, impact combat reflexes with trip or Stand Still not work?
Sorry, I misremembered the text of Stand Still.
It's still a non-obvious feat and MAD tax and as such needs to be avoided.
Actually no. The full plate is far more comfortable and allow a wide array of movement than a full chainmail suit because it's weight is better distributed.
I specifically stated that it was ackward and helpless NOT because of the armor, but because of a fall from the horse would have done the same for EVERYONE else not JUST the knight. The full plate doesn't make him unable to GET up from the gound, it's a myth that the plate armor was ackward and hindering that the knight needed help to move around. Ask any good medieval scholar.In the early years they worn half plate and half chain because the full plate was too expensive to mass produce *yet* at that time. Consider it. Why didn't they keep the half plate half chain IN later years?
I erred in that the full plate isn't also the reason it make the knight formidable. In fact, all kinds of heavy armor in general made him a formidable opponent because the bulk of your average army doesn't have such equipment.
It is still HARDER to get up off the ground with 80lbs of metal on. He wouldnt be unable, but a lightly armored enemy could easily get to him and kill him before he got back to his feet. Even on foot Fully armored knights were indeed formidable, but off their horses they were far more vulnerable. They were slower and prone to becoming tired because of the weight and heat of the armor. Knocking a knight from his mount was still the best way to kill him, though he would not likely be 'helpless'.
|
|
Said some stuff that doesn't hold historically true.
Ok, there are some misconceptions that constantly come up when having these full plate discussions. Maneuvering in full plate is not as hard as one urban legends lead you to believe. The fact of the matter is that the reason you wanted the knight of the back of the horse was it decrease the amount of damage the knight did.
Once the knight was on the ground, there are factors to consider. Sometime the fall was enough to kill him. Freak accident, but it can kill him.
If the ground was soft and muddy, he could get stuck, Check your Henry V about the French knights who had a bad time with a wet muddy field.
However, if you have an able bodied man in true armor of the day, He's going to get up pretty quick and he's going to start hacking and bashing your rank and file troops.
The armor is not that heavy and those older Victorian ideas of knights needing assistance just ot mount thier horses are in fact garbage.
All the swords, and armor that are created today to be used in "staged combat" are much heavier than thier true analogs.
For more informaton check out http://www.thearma.org/
I'd like to take this time to express my view that hit points don't accurately represent—
oh wait. nevermind.
Zurai how does a double move, impact combat reflexes with trip or Stand Still not work?Sorry, I misremembered the text of Stand Still.
It's still a non-obvious feat and MAD tax and as such needs to be avoided.
. Feat tax perhaps but then again they won't be as robust as a manouver based fighter. Then again combined with the bonus feats from class and those from character there is only there are only so many mounted combat feats they can take.
Another thought is midigation of the requirement. Extra attacks of opertuinty of defense oaths instead of AC which could be used to reactivly 'block' for your defended target.
Or just say that cavaliers can take Stand-Still without meeting its normal prerequisites, the same way rangers can take Improved Two-Weapon fighting without meeting its normal prerequisites.
Doesn't work, because Combat Reflexes and a high Dex score are a requirement for actual USE of the feat, in addition to the ability to take the feat. It works off of AoOs, which means you're limited to 1/round without CR+Dex.
Heck, I've rarely seen a fight against a final boss in which the boss doesn't take a 5-foot step back from the PCs at least once. And the instant he takes that step, the cavalier charges in and hits him in single combat. Not only does "single combat" make the cavalier awesome when separated from the party. It also functions as a de facto debuff, since it penalizes opponents for using 5-foot steps or withdraw actions to escape other front-liners.
Wow, you're already advocating a RAW interpretation that is obviously counter to RAI as you yourself describe them! I'm speechless.
What about something in the "Challenge" mechanic that allowed a Cavalier to move with his opponent barring that opponent having a mode of movement the paladin did not?That's why I started bring up combat manuvers. Mighty Charge at 11th level has some very ineresting uses I'm keen to play test now. Trip is a no-bainer and a rather big debuff to most bipedal foes. Bullrush is another, which on theory would effecivly allow the cavalier to drag a target with him.
Zurai how does a double move, impact combat reflexes with trip or Stand Still not work? If your taking about the targets moving around the cavalier, any space big enough for that kind if bypass should also be one where th Cavalier is charging. In smaller dungeon or indoor spaces, when unmounted these should be the mundane battlefield control people are perhaps looking for. As you pointed out ther is a bit of a feat/stat tax (and I'll be checking this out in a set of test bulid hopefully this evening) but Thad something that could be adressed in the class itself.
Heroic charges (best mounted) and heroic stands (best on foot) feed to allied insperation and buffs?
According to Hollywood, what you say may be true, but according to reality this is not true at all. Although I'm sure I lack the stamina now to do so, being 46 years old, 25 years ago, while in the Army, I participated in the SCA (Society for Creative Anachronism) and frequently practiced and fought wearing plate mail and shield, wielding a rattan sword.
I'm a little guy, 135 pounds back then, the armor weighed more than I did, roughly 150 pounds including helm and shield. We didn't fight on horseback, aside from the expense it was too dangerous. As Jason mentioned in his last post, the real issue was falling off the horse, which could lead to broken arms, wrists, neck, back, hip or legs. If anyone had that occur to them while wearing armor, getting up was problematic at best.
However, if you weren't truly injured, getting up off the ground from your back in full armor is no big deal. Roll over onto your chest, tuck your knees under your torso, push your arms off the ground and stand up. Remember, I didn't have 5 plus years as a squire skilled in doing this, I really lacked the endurance for a long melee in full armor, so I'm underclassed compared to a fully trained knight. Still I could get up off the ground with no problem, having to do that all the time.
Full plate armor weighs even less than plate mail, and the latter was the kind of armor I had worn.
All fighting in the SCA is on foot wearing full armor, and the armor was essentially identical to the real thing, by weight and construction.
Basically your point about not being able to get off your back into a standing position in full armor is completely false. It only took about 30 seconds to get up from a prone position and a really weak guy like me could do it, then any cavalier could do the same more easily.
Your assumption, though endorsed by Hollywood is a false one. I'm not blaming you on your lack of knowledge on this point, however relying on that arguement is no way to win this one regarding the Cavalier.
Edit: I think I quoted the wrong person in this post, sorry 'bout that.
Edit2: I now just read Meepo's post regarding keeping historical reality out of discussion - which I'm fine with, as long as the "I've fallen and I can't get up!" argument doesn't rear its ugly head in the discussion.
GP
Doesn't work, because Combat Reflexes and a high Dex score are a requirement for actual USE of the feat, in addition to the ability to take the feat. It works off of AoOs, which means you're limited to 1/round without CR+Dex.
Which is why in my rambling fashion I suggest giving out AoOs for various defense based oaths, espically if they are used to prevent attacks directed at your defendie. Daulists parry mechanic again or some variation.
Unless you want to build all new mechanics to give the Cavalier battle field control. Trip, knocks things down (debuff to hit and ac, pesists until a move action us spent), bullrush knocks people into different and likely worse locations (needs to spend actions to return to orgional or better spot). Neither of those two CM options are not like the Knights 'fight only me' whammy. Granting conditional AoOs also influance the field in both passive and active ways.
I don't want to sound like I'm advocating the return of the Chain Trip master... However I'm sure we've all seen how brutally effecive that kind of battle field control can be as a non-magical non-foe spesific way.
|
I would like the see whatever form the ability finally be given that it can function WITHOUT the use of a battle mat. Right now pfRPG can be played without using a battle mat and all classes get to use their abilities/powers. This is not true of 4e for example where non-mat groups lose their class powers because they are impossible to keep track of. IF the abilities/powers of classes in pfRPG were to head down the "4e track" then (and I'm being honest here) I think that 4e is a much better RPG-board game. This stems from the fact it was designed that way from the ground up. pfRPG as we all like to remind 4e players came directly from 3.5e, which came from 3e, etc and miniatures/mat free play was/is possible.
S.
|
|
2. I like a number of the names for the mechanic that have been presented here. I am not going to mention a favorite just yet, but feel free to continue the debate.Just some quick suggestions, but how about 'Devotion', 'Dedicated Foe', 'Persistent Foe', 'Ardor/Ardent', 'Fervor/Fervent' or 'Zeal'?
What about "Marking the target" - oh hang on that's been used in another game... Darn.
This is a mechanic that ultimately takes away from the DM (and the fighter for that matter). Have a cavalier, have him challenge, but make it something cavaliery (that's not a word btw). This ability is just a rogues limited "backstab" under another name. I would scrap the current version and make something unique to the cavalier. I would suggest something with a saving throw and so is related to the likelihood of the critter to "play ball" with the cavalier.
As I said I find this dull, dull, dull. Every single encounter, the cavalier finds the biggest thing, challenges it, and then gets to roll tonne more dice. That's a win for excitement if ever I've heard one.
It may sound like I don't like pfRPG, that is far from the truth. I sleep with a copy under my pillow. I harass the sales people at Paizo to sell me a second printing, which they won't until they sell out of the bloody 1st printing... BUT I ALREADY HAVE A 1st PRINTING!!! (sorry, 2nd printing envy - I KNOW Paizo has them).
The pfRPG core book is genius, shear genius. But what I'm seeing so far is rehashed/repackage classes (cf: 4e). If they were new and weren't already sort of covered by the core classes I would be chomping at the bit for this new book. As is I'll be saving my cash for AP's.
S.
I am possibly interested in abilities that keep the bad guy "glued" to the cavalier, but that is some tricky ground to tread.
"This extra damage is doubled if it results from an attack of opportunity."
Edit: ...huh. What if that were the cavalier's trick in general? Add their challenge dice (or some other progression) to all attacks of opportunity. Punish the fleeing cowards, or whatnot. It's something no other class does. Then go with Epic Meepo's idea of a single-combat bonus when nobody else is adjacent to himself or his enemy, which is just as iconically appropriate as the current "calling out" mechanic.
This creates a bit more versatility for the class, depending on weapons and tactics. Bravado cavalier seeks out solo opponents, and has his companions keep the enemy separated; keep-away cavalier wields a polearm and does particularly nasty things to anyone stepping past it; valiant cavalier wades into a group and defies them to step away; crackshot cavalier picks off runners and scouts or herds the enemy into a nice fireball cluster.
|
|
The best way to deal with battlefield control for the cavalier is to steal the idea from the knight class, Bulwark of Defence. The cavalier makes all squares he threatens difficult terrain for his opponents. It prevents 5ft steps and provokes attacks of opportunities for such movement. One clarification missing from the knight class is wether this AoO applies only to the knight or if allies benefit from it as well, I'm inclined to go with the latter.
I dont think you have to modify or increase the challenge damage here. The benefit alone fills 2 of the roles outlined by Jasons plan for the cavalier, aidiing allies and battlefield control. Yet wording it this way doesnt stop oppoenents that have abilities to ignore difficult terrain, a flaw present in the flanking aspect of challenge which allows an ability of an opponent that requires an application of effort without then actually applying any effort to it at all.
|
|
When I think of the concept of challenge, I think of :
Hectoring
That hectors; intimidating or domineering.
Which is from the verb;
Hector
to hector (third-person singular simple present hectors, present participle hectoring, simple past and past participle hectored)
(transitive) To intimidate or dominate in a blustering way.
(intransitive) To behave like a bully; swagger.
And all of this comes from of course from the character Hector from the Iliad.
From Wikipedia:
In Greek mythology, Hectōr (Ἕκτωρ, "holding fast"[1]), or Hektōr, is a Trojan prince and the greatest fighter for Troy in the Trojan War. As the son of Priam and Hecuba, a descendant of Dardanus, who lived under Mount Ida, and of Tros, the founder of Troy,[2] he is a prince of the royal house. He acts as leader of the Trojans and their allies in the defence of Troy. In the European Middle Ages, Hector figures as one of the Nine Worthies noted by Jacques de Longuyon, known not only for his courage but also for his noble and courtly nature. Indeed Homer places Hector as the very noblest of all the heroes in the Iliad: he is both peace-loving and brave, thoughtful as well as bold, a good son, husband and father, and totally without darker motives.
Hector gaining his fame and reputation from the Trojan War.
Personally I think this fits the concept of the Cavalier very well.
Basically I see the challenge as a psyching up of the warrior. Just like a prize fighter or football player or works themself up. It's smack talk (and a character who's about smack talk is a good thing) It's different than a Barbarian's rage. it's differant from the paladin's zeal. It's differant from the Fighter's shear gutsiness and brawn.
It's focused power by birthright, training, experiance and dedication. The cavalier could be chaotic but is also team player. He knows his place and his function, he's the center of the storm and by being the center, allows the other characters do their best around him.
Lancelot could be a Cavalier just as much as he could be a Paladin.
I like the idea behind the challenge, I don't think it should inflict somthing on the opponent. I think it should continue buffing the player.
|
3. I am not so worried about the bad guys running just because they are challenged. There are plenty of other abilities and spells that should trigger the same response, but they rarely do. Bag guys, in general are there to fight. I am possibly interested in abilities that keep the bad guy "glued" to the cavalier, but that is some tricky ground to tread. Especially since the cavalier is not based in magic in any way.Thoughts.
I hate marking mechanics. It doesn't really make any sense, to me. Challenge is about a single-minded focus that leaves the Cavalier vulnerable to collateral attacks (particularly from the least rigid combatants of all, the sneakers); that makes sense to me and also has balance and flavour. A mechanic to stop the challenged opponent from zipping off not only doesn't make sense to me, I also think that it has bad flavour (the baddie running away when the noble combatant declares a mighty challenge is good, as is the baddie running away when he realises the noble challenger is more than a match for him) and also sounds like it has the serious risk of being unbalanced*.
*Significant extra damage to a guy that then finds it hard to retreat is too much, surely? It also means every bad guy has to have sneakers around, and there's already enough difficulty planning a BBEG encounter, let alone making it flavourful and logical.
You can't challenge a house cat or a brick wall because they can't accept your challenge.
The brick wall, sure. A house cat, not so. (Now, unless you're playing Bunnies & Burrows or Mouse Guard or something, you're unlikely to do so.) Animals understand the concept of challenges just fine; just roar at it or move to catch its attention or make yourself look large or something. Animals challenge each other, even.
Challenges should work on anything subject to mind-affecting effects. [/QUOTE
I agree. It is up to the player to issue the challenge in a way that the opponent can understand.
(snip) A mechanic to stop the challenged opponent from zipping off not only doesn't make sense to me, I also think that it has bad flavour (the baddie running away when the noble combatant declares a mighty challenge is good, as is the baddie running away when he realises the noble challenger is more than a match for him) and also sounds like it has the serious risk of being unbalanced*.
Agreed, but I'd like something that would prevent the baddies from 5- foot stepping away and cast a spell, drink a potion or load a crossbow and shoot the cavalier in the face... Basically, anything short of the withdraw action.
In the mindframe that the challenge affects the ability of the cavalier rather than those of his opponents, I'd give him something in the theme of AoOs and the ability to perform them against 5 ft. step or something.
I wouldn't have a problem if this would come at a higher level, like instead of the -2 to opponent's AC for example (which I find counter-intuitive from the intention that the challenge mechanics affect the cavalier only...)
'findel
|
|
(snip) A mechanic to stop the challenged opponent from zipping off not only doesn't make sense to me, I also think that it has bad flavour (the baddie running away when the noble combatant declares a mighty challenge is good, as is the baddie running away when he realises the noble challenger is more than a match for him) and also sounds like it has the serious risk of being unbalanced*.Agreed, but I'd like something that would prevent the baddies from 5- foot stepping away and cast a spell, drink a potion or load a crossbow and shoot the cavalier in the face... Basically, anything short of the withdraw action.
In the mindframe that the challenge affects the ability of the cavalier rather than those of his opponents, I'd give him something in the theme of AoOs and the ability to perform them against 5 ft. step or something.
I wouldn't have a problem if this would come at a higher level, like instead of the -2 to opponent's AC for example (which I find counter-intuitive from the intention that the challenge mechanics affect the cavalier only...)
'findel
They could always take (or get) the Step Up feat, I guess. I mean, if that's not enough then it's not enough for the fighter, either...