So, we've had a couple of days to look at the new classes. I'm thrilled overall, but, I think it's time to start breaking the new mechanics down a little more specifically and asking "does this work?"
In that vein, let's about the "challenge" ability. Any time I look at a new ability, I always ask "what is it" and "Do the mechanics represent this" when deciding whether or not something works.
A: What is a challenge?
A challenge, at its most basic level, represents calling one specific foe out in some way. Depending on order, you might insult your foes honor, brag about your own exploits, or even request a formal duel against the foe. You might gain a boisterous surge of confidence from issuing this challenge, or your foe might look the fool. This isn't a taunt button, and it isn't a mark mechanic, but, more likely than not, you're going to end up face the face with the one you challenge.
B: Do the mechanics represent this?
here's where I think there's a bit of a problem. First of all, the Cavalier already has decent damage boosting abilities from order and charging, and doesn't need an extra 7d6 precision damage. Also, I'm not sure how calling somebody to fight lets you hit them where it hurts for more damage.
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.
Thoughts?
After giving it a go, I didnt really see the challenge mechanic as over the top as you say. The flanked penalty came into play many times, and the cavalier was still getting out damaged most of the time, by both the paladin and the monk in my group, a rogue would also out damage him. the bonus to damage from the orders is virtually non-existant (the only one is dragon which is really hard to get) and the charging bonuses from the mount are REALLY circumstantial, after all half the time the mount isnt even going to be there, and when he is, you wont always have room/opportunities to charge.
I totally disagree with you on what the challenge represents, flavorwise. The target is irrelevant; when the cavalier issues the challenge, he's psyching himself up with bravado: "I'm gonna take that bastard down!" It doesn't matter if the opponent is completely unaware of the challenge, because the opponent is not the one affected.
In short: Don Quixote was a cavalier.
Sorry, I misstyped, it should have said -2 to ac v your allies instead of +2 to to hit by your allies, but it's pretty much the exact same thing there. My point is, making your buddies more able to hit doesn't make a ton of sense.
I totally disagree with you on what the challenge represents, flavorwise. The target is irrelevant; when the cavalier issues the challenge, he's psyching himself up with bravado: "I'm gonna take that bastard down!" It doesn't matter if the opponent is completely unaware of the challenge, because the opponent is not the one affected.
In short: Don Quixote was a cavalier.
So you view a challenge as challenging yourself, rather than challenging the target? That just doesn't feel very cavalierish. (Maybe more self-help bookish).
But that's not what a challenge is
It's exactly what a challenge is: "I'm gonna fight you." Or hell, even "I'm gonna provide you with a challenge." Note that it's (Ex) and all of the effects are on the cavalier himself, so I don't get the idea that there should be any sort of compulsion (whether literal or "honor-bound"), nor why he should care what the opponent thinks of it at all.
and there's a challenge ability the debuffs the target.
...when you're threatening their square. That's the cavalier interfering directly, not an effect on the target any more than cover.
So you view a challenge as challenging yourself, rather than challenging the target? That just doesn't feel very cavalierish. (Maybe more self-help bookish).
What exactly "feels cavalierish" to you? Cavalier just means "horseman," so I'm guessing the challenge mechanic comes from its later association with nobility (the folks who own horses) and the resulting adjective form, which essentially means "disdainful." I see the cavalier sneering at one particularly revolting foe, and gaining strength from that focused hatred. It's more like rage than smite.
Regarding a challenge:
It takes two to tango. Two people are involved in the challenge- the challenger (the cavalier) and the challengee (the opponent).
I believe the effects of the challenge should be equal and opposite, with the opponent receiving the same bonuses and penalties as the cavalier.
Think about the situation: two opponents lock eyes and wade through the battlefield with singleminded determination in order to engage in one-on-one combat.
The "tunnel vision" aspect is a cool idea, but I'm not sure I like how it's implemented.
I almost think the challenge should be treated as some sort of non-magical enchantment spell, allowing the opponent to roll a will-save. If he fails the save, then he "takes the bait" and is drawn into the challenge. If he rolls a successful save, then he is not affected by the challenge.
If the opponent is successfully drawn into the challenge, he should be "compelled" to fight the cavalier. Both the cavalier and the opponent should face penalties, like becoming shaken, if they back out of the challenge.
IMO the intent of the challenge is to buff the challenger, as it is him challenging himself to defeat that foe. By putting his honor on the line, he compels himself to win. The bonus damage seems to be balanced, as it is a huge advantage against a single enemy and a serious disadvantage against multiple dishonorable enemies.
It is common sense that cavaliers should be unable to issue a proper challenge against a dishonorable group. Normally he would demand a single combat.
Comparing sneak attack with the challenge proves it is not overpowered. While sneak attack is circumstantial, deal more damage bonus and extra penalties, the challenge is highly circumstantial, deals less damage with no extras, and has drawbacks, making it a perfect complementary ability for a full melee class.
The challenge that is a small buff/ debuff for opponent already exists as the knight's class. I DMed a lot of games with some players with that class, and the mechanic just failed.
I believe there should be an additional mechanic to keep the challengee locked in combat. A free AoO every time he attacks another ally of the cavalier should do the trick. Or maybe a free aid another action.
|
So you view a challenge as challenging yourself, rather than challenging the target? That just doesn't feel very cavalierish. (Maybe more self-help bookish).I totally disagree with you on what the challenge represents, flavorwise. The target is irrelevant; when the cavalier issues the challenge, he's psyching himself up with bravado: "I'm gonna take that bastard down!" It doesn't matter if the opponent is completely unaware of the challenge, because the opponent is not the one affected.
In short: Don Quixote was a cavalier.
I'm inclined to agree with tejón on the intent of the challenge. From a game point of view it makes much more sense to have an ability that affects yourself only instead of having a plethora of rules to define its use on someone else. This is where the knights challenge in the PHB2 fell short.
I prefer this challenge over the PHB2 version but it still feels like its lacking in some flavor. Perhaps attaching some form of favored challenge vs certain opponents or granting conditions that result from a successful challenge would liven it up a bit.
And this is where the cavalier class feels disjuncted, it needs more ways to alter and improve his challenge as a class defining ability, so far it only improves in damage or becomes demanding. So far the cavalier has 3 major aspects of leveling , challenges, orders and oaths but this hinders multiclass viability. to top that the charge aspect of his attacks kicks off at level 3 adding a 4th progressive ability.
I would like to see a cavalier improve on his challenge as he levels, not just in additional damage but by perhaps imbueing his damage with an alignment or of a specific type of damage. However i'm still inclined to make the cavalier a more defensive combatant than offensive.
i'm still inclined to make the cavalier a more defensive combatant than offensive.
Hmmm...I don't know about that.
By most definitions, a cavalier is someone who charges into battle, which is essentially an offensive action.Unless the horse and cavalier are weighted down in bulky armor, I don't think mounted combat lends itself to defense. I think offense is the primary focus of this class and maneuverability is crucial.
But I agree that it would be neat to see a defensive class, like the Dwarven Defender, at some point in the future, but I don't think we'll find that in the cavalier.
|
|
i'm still inclined to make the cavalier a more defensive combatant than offensive.Hmmm...I don't know about that.
By most definitions, a cavalier is someone who charges into battle, which is essentially an offensive action.Unless the horse and cavalier are weighted down in bulky armor, I don't think mounted combat lends itself to defense. I think offense is the primary focus of this class and maneuverability is crucial.
But I agree that it would be neat to see a defensive class, like the Dwarven Defender, at some point in the future, but I don't think we'll find that in the cavalier.
My thoughts where along the line that the cavalier is defensive in nature, hes slow and steady relying on heavy armor and shield to protect him, he doesnt get the benefits a fighter gets with armor training so always has that penalty to overcome and his proficiency with weapons doesnt equal a fighters beyond the basic feats. His mount however grants him the thing he lacks, increased maneuverabiilty makes him more agile on the field, while the height advantage grants a small bonus to attacks and the charge with a lance increased damage.
Off his horse the cavalier is inferior to a fighter in many ways but give him a mount and he likely equals if not exceeds the fighters potential. I just think that giving him a stronger defence is more suited than a stonger offence when at his most vulnerable.
After all, in history, 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. Thats kind of the reason behind half-plate to retain some form of manuverability by wearing a chain and plate mix, but the D&D rules dont reflect this at all and simply class half-plate as an inferior version of full-plate. Full-plate was mostly used for ceramonial purposes only as a show of wealth... but I digress...
|
Regarding a challenge:
It takes two to tango. Two people are involved in the challenge- the challenger (the cavalier) and the challengee (the opponent).I believe the effects of the challenge should be equal and opposite, with the opponent receiving the same bonuses and penalties as the cavalier.
Think about the situation: two opponents lock eyes and wade through the battlefield with singleminded determination in order to engage in one-on-one combat.
The "tunnel vision" aspect is a cool idea, but I'm not sure I like how it's implemented.
I almost think the challenge should be treated as some sort of non-magical enchantment spell, allowing the opponent to roll a will-save. If he fails the save, then he "takes the bait" and is drawn into the challenge. If he rolls a successful save, then he is not affected by the challenge.If the opponent is successfully drawn into the challenge, he should be "compelled" to fight the cavalier. Both the cavalier and the opponent should face penalties, like becoming shaken, if they back out of the challenge.
I really like the idea of it being an (ex) enchantment ability, allowing a will save. This represents the challenged foe dismissing the chevalier as not being worth their time, etc. The save would have to be affected by the chevaliers charisma, ideally.
If the target fails the save, then I also like the idea of equal and opposing buffs/debuffs for the challenger and the target. If the target makes the save, I think the chevalier should have some sort of effect representing the blow to his pride, be it a debuff (penalty to will?) or a buff (+1 to hit the insulting foe?).
My thoughts where along the line that the cavalier is defensive in nature, hes slow and steady relying on heavy armor and shield to protect him, he doesnt get the benefits a fighter gets with armor training so always has that penalty to overcome and his proficiency with weapons doesnt equal a fighters beyond the basic feats. His mount however grants him the thing he lacks, increased maneuverabiilty makes him more agile on the field, while the height advantage grants a small bonus to attacks and the charge with a lance increased damage.
Off his horse the cavalier is inferior to a fighter in many ways but give him a mount and he likely equals if not exceeds the fighters potential. I just think that giving him a stronger defence is more suited than a stonger offence when at his most vulnerable.
After all, in history, 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.
I see what you're saying, but here's how I delineate between the two classes:
Obviously, the fighter is trained in hand to hand combat, whereas the Cavalier is trained in mounted combat. These are essentially two different types of offensive "weapons" with slightly different purposes.
I see the fighter as being a master at arms and armor and feats. He uses his versatility and staying power to control the battlefield around him. He's a one man tank.
The cavalier, on the other hand, is great from getting from point A to point B. With his challenge and his charge abilities, he's almost like homing missile.
While the fighter is great at controlling the field around himself, the cavalier is able to use his maneuverability and speed to control parts of the field that might otherwise be out of reach.
I envision that he would be great at "herding" distant enemies towards the fighter where they can be dispatched with ease. He could also be used for mop up duty against fleeing enemies.
I'm not a big baseball fan and I hate to use such a cheesy analogy, but think of the fighter as playing "first base" and the cavalier as playing "outfield".
If the target makes the save, I think the chevalier should have some sort of effect representing the blow to his pride, be it a debuff (penalty to will?) or a buff (+1 to hit the insulting foe?).
Yeah, since it's only a swift action to elicit a challenge, it's not as if the cavalier would have wasted his entire turn if the target succeeds on the save, so some kind of minor penalty seems appropriate. Maybe a -1 penalty to his CHA for 1d4 rounds? Also, if the opponent succeeds on his will save, he should be immune to any further challenges for 24 hours.
People are serious about changing the mechanic to be situational across creatures? Intelligence? Language?
I'm fine with it as it stands.
"I'ma kill you, Ooze!"
Personally, I like the fact that the challenge mechanics are centered on the cavalier and cavalier only.
I'm not against a debuff mechanic per say, but then it should also apply to other types of challenges as well, such as the guards with crossbows shouting "drop your weapon, you're surrounded!" or being marked by a tiger. As those debuffing challenges are not part of the game, I appreciate the fact that they are not introduced by (and exclusive to) a single character class.
'findel
Those are threats.
I fail to see the distinction in this context. If we were comparing a verbal challenge with a verbal threat the distinction would be somewhat meaningful. But an active challenge bears a striking resemblance to an active threat .
The mechanics clearly represent an active challenge, which is hardly an obscure concept, yet everyone keeps complaining that they don't accurately represent a verbal challenge. Well yeah, of course they don't. Kind of like how "flurry of blows" doesn't mean you hyperventilate on your opponent.
Those are threats.I fail to see the distinction in this context.
A challenge should be more honorable. Something like:
"Get down here and fight me, you coward!"-or-
"Villain, I challenge you to a duel!"
Saying "I'm going to punch you in the face!" is definitely NOT a challenge. That's a straight-up threat.
A challenge should DARE and GOAD the opponent into fighting you.
It should be dominating and intimidating, like a battle of the wills.
A true challenge should be against sentient opponents that understand they're being challenged.
You can't challenge a house cat or a brick wall because they can't accept your challenge.
The point is that cavaliers should say "Do you dare face me?" and not "I am going to hit you with an axe, dude." By reinforcing that in the rules, by giving foes who think they can handle it a reason to move in and foes who are cowards a reason to run away, you encourage enemies to say "Bring it on!" or "Forget this, I'm gone!" depending on their abilities or temperament. Right now, the only smart answer is "Forget this, I'm gone!" because there's no incentive whatsoever to answer a challenge.We have two and a half classes already that say "I am totally going to hit you in the face with an axe, dude" and get boosts for saying that. To avoid making the cavalier into a third, then Challenge needs to give foes an interesting reason to answer the challenge.
Forgive me if I'm off base here, but...
The enemies incentive is role-playing, I don't think we need a mechanic to represent this. If the enemy is a coward then he will flee, if he is not then he will except the challenge. If there were a mechanic to compel the enemy then it would seem more like a fantastical effect. If every challenged foe just outright flees, then isn't that just poor role-playing on the GM's behalf?
If every challenged foe just outright flees, then isn't that just poor role-playing on the GM's behalf?
Furthermore, how is that an undesirable outcome? If they ran, you beat them. You're gonna get your XP. You might not get to loot their personal gear and they might just go be dastardly somewhere else, but those are 100% realistic side-effects of issuing honorable invitations to duel instead of just kicking their asses.
The class allows chaotic evil. I really don't see how "Face me like a man, cur!" jives with that, whereas "I shall be your unmaking, cur!" works for absolutely anyone. You still get to say "cur," isn't that enough? :D
I much prefer the concept that a Cavalier uses his Ex challenge to self buff rather than as some sort of debuff. I've never cared for this idea that a 'marked' target is somehow penalized if he doesn't attack party member X. The idea that it's a sort of targeted rage is much more appealing to me.
Then make it a targeted rage!
The cavalier gets a big boost to damaging his challenged target, and his target also gets a modest boost against him.
Or, ooh! I know! Because he's got total tunnel vision against the main target, he's not paying attention to anyone else. So the main guy, who he's focused on, doesn't get any special bonuses; but all his friends can, Idunno, treat the cavalier as flanked or something.
Constructively: What if there was an out? Like... any time the cavalier is dealt damage by a foe he can see, he can change his challenge target to that attacker. This doesn't allow him multiple challenges per combat - it ends as soon as an enemy is killed while it's his challenge target. This could actually solve some of his defensive issues, too: the more enemies attacking him, the longer he can make his challenge last by swapping it when hit before actually killing someone, so intelligent enemies might be a bit hesitant.
"Though you seemed strong, you are clearly a coward. This knave at my back is most worthy of my wrath!"
I much prefer the concept that a Cavalier uses his Ex challenge to self buff rather than as some sort of debuff. I've never cared for this idea that a 'marked' target is somehow penalized if he doesn't attack party member X. The idea that it's a sort of targeted rage is much more appealing to me.
Knowing that somebody is targeting you directly and coming after you can be an unnerving and scary experience.
I view this as uber-intimidation.I don't see why weaker foes couldn't suffer some kind of penalty.
I suggest the opponent roll a will-save or become shaken.
Maybe the "flanked" should only apply in a round where the Cavalier attacks his challenged foe. Something like:
"Anytime the Cavalier attacks his challenged foe, he is considered flanked until his next turn."
To me this solves alot of problems...If a bunch of rogues appear (since they seem to be everywhere in other peoples campaigns) while the Cavalier is dueling it out, he can go and tend to them and his flanking penalty will go away within a round. The challenge bonus stays in effect as normal, so when the Cavalier resumes his attacks vs. his prime foe he can still deal his extra damage, and is again flanked until his next turn.
I much prefer the concept that a Cavalier uses his Ex challenge to self buff rather than as some sort of debuff. I've never cared for this idea that a 'marked' target is somehow penalized if he doesn't attack party member X. The idea that it's a sort of targeted rage is much more appealing to me.Knowing that somebody is targeting you directly and coming after you can be an unnerving and scary experience.
I view this as uber-intimidation.
I don't see why weaker foes couldn't suffer some kind of penalty.I suggest the opponent roll a will-save or become shaken.
*shrug* seems more like a mystical ability, like a hex or a super natural power. I see the Cavalier as having more innate abilities. The fact that it's an Ex sort of points to that being the intent (innate ability rather than magic or divine power).
A: What is a challenge?
A challenge, at its most basic level, represents calling one specific foe out in some way. Depending on order, you might insult your foes honor, brag about your own exploits, or even request a formal duel against the foe. You might gain a boisterous surge of confidence from issuing this challenge, or your foe might look the fool. This isn't a taunt button, and it isn't a mark mechanic, but, more likely than not, you're going to end up face the face with the one you challenge.
B: Do the mechanics represent this?
here's where I think there's a bit of a problem. First of all, the Cavalier already has decent damage boosting abilities from order and charging, and doesn't need an extra 7d6 precision damage. Also, I'm not sure how calling somebody to fight lets you hit them where it hurts for more damage.
Why not something like this (just a crude idea in my not so good english):
The Cavalier may, once per encounter, challenge what seems to be the worthiest - most dangerous foe on the battlefield. (Diplomacy/intimidate check? After all a bard needs to do perform checks... Move action?) Everybody able to understand a challenge is being made is subject to be affected one way or another. (A challenge may be voiced or gestured and only an intelligent being is able to understand a challenge, thus no challenging a black pudding, a zombie, or a bear.)
If the challenge is accepted (same conditions - the reply must be clearly voiced or gestured - running to engage the Cavalier is a proper way to signify the challenge is accepted) then the Cavalier gets his bonus when engaging the challenged foe, and a certain malus against all the others.
If the challenge is ignored or declined, then every intelligent, non-chaotic* foe that was able to understand the challenge takes a certain moral malus for the encounter, including the one challenged. Their leader or most impressive asset is, after all, not showing leadership. (Kind of a reverse inspire courage - at upper level could lead to impose the shaken status, or something similar.)
*It seems fun to Challenge a chaotic leader and see him decline, only to show his neutral followers what a selfish bastard he is... But if the followers are chaotic (and then not really followers) then they should be immune to this effect. That would make the challenge mechanism more effective against neutral and loyal foes, and make the Cavalier effective where the Pally is not.
As an alternative to a damage bonus for the Cavalier, every ally (includind the Cavalier) could be under something like an inspire courage effect as long as the Cavalier is engaged in combat with the challenged foe and not joined by other allies, and the effect could linger a little if the challenged foe is defeated by the Cavalier alone. Would makes him more of a team player and makes him different from the Pally.
I really don't have a big problem with challenges as they are written. Most of the suggested changes in this thread make it more complicated and marginal.
Flanking is harsh, yes, but that's just something to account for when using this power... you generally only want to do it in mano-e-mano situations, or where your buddies are running interference, which makes perfect sense to me. I am not scared of this consequence, I will just use the power wisely.
I understand that rogues might make this an especially bad idea, so here's a suggestion: don't challenge if you know there are unoccupied rogues around. Kind of like don't cast if you you are within reach of a magekiller.
I haven't got a chance to play yet, but I'd definitely like to see some actual play examples from anyone making the case for change here. Try not to get hung up on situations that may only rarely occur in play (like the whole rogue thing, which is sort of irrelevant when the party runs into a tentamort... making challenge a very usable power — but not so if it becomes intelligence or language dependent as some are suggesting ). I'm sorry if you all play with jerk DMs who would throw rogues in every fight just to ruin your class ability. Don't play rangers, paladins or wizards either.
I'm inclined to agree with tejón on the intent of the challenge. From a game point of view it makes much more sense to have an ability that affects yourself only instead of having a plethora of rules to define its use on someone else. This is where the knights challenge in the PHB2 fell short.
Well, that's not really true. Order abilities aside, the class skeleton itself has abilities which allow it to affect pretty much the entire battlefield. I'm just not sure it's doing it the way it should.
What exactly "feels cavalierish" to you? Cavalier just means "horseman," so I'm guessing the challenge mechanic comes from its later association with nobility (the folks who own horses) and the resulting adjective form, which essentially means "disdainful." I see the cavalier sneering at one particularly revolting foe, and gaining strength from that focused hatred. It's more like rage than smite.
Well, this particular version of a cavalier, between order and oath, seems inspired by romantic knight stories (rather than a knight-templar like the paladin).
Sneering at them with disdain doesn't sound like rage OR smite. It sounds like an entirely new mechanic (or, at closest, like a bard ability). I just don't understand how a largely social action against a foe has anything to do with you deal precision damage to them. This is a major problem, as both smite and rage, IMHO, both make sense. This version of challenge feels extremely arbitrary, and I think it's very important that things do what they say they do (this is what separates the d20 system from others).
(also, as a side note, I find it odd that this class has two chains of damage special abilities that don't particularly synergize with one another. Sure, you can challenge AND charge, but they don't work together particularly well).
I just don't understand how a largely social action against a foe has anything to do with you deal precision damage to them.
Agreed 100% on that point, for what it's worth. The very first comment I made was, "Why is this precision damage?"
|
Having given it some thought myself perhaps a possible solution would be instead of giving it some minor semi/magical abilities would be to give him the affect of certain feats whilst challenging against that one opponent?
For example (Bolded for emphasis)
Challenge (Ex): Once per combat, a cavalier can
challenge a foe to combat. As a swift action, the cavalier
chooses one target within sight to challenge. A cavalier’s
melee attacks deal extra damage whenever the attacks
are made against the target of his challenge. 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.
Challenging a foe requires much of the cavalier’s
concentration. Melee attacks made against the cavalier,
except those made by the target of his challenge, treat
the cavalier as if he is f lanked. Such attacks receive a +2
f lanking bonus. Improved uncanny dodge, and similar
abilities, do not protect a cavalier from being f lanked as
the result of a challenge.
The challenge remains in effect until the target is
dead, unconscious, or the combat ends.
Whilst challenging a cavalier has the benefits of the step up, Combat reflexes and stand still feats but only against the opponent he has challenged
|
|
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.
The simple fact is that a duel senario in the middle of an adventure does not fit 99% of the time. rogues wizards ogres demons and dragons simply dont follow the chivalry a knight or cavalier would demand while many other threats to the party simply wouldnt know how to respond.
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 foe likes it or not at the exclusion of others as a threat.
With that thought I think the biggest issue here is the name "Challenge" so I did some searching for alternative names...
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.
|
|
Why not something like this (just a crude idea in my not so good english):The Cavalier may, once per encounter, challenge what seems to be the worthiest - most dangerous foe on the battlefield. (Diplomacy/intimidate check? After all a bard needs to do perform checks... Move action?) Everybody able to understand a challenge is being made is subject to be affected one way or another. (A challenge may be voiced or gestured and only an intelligent being is able to understand a challenge, thus no challenging a black pudding, a zombie, or a bear.)
If the challenge is accepted (same conditions - the reply must be clearly voiced or gestured - running to engage the Cavalier is a proper way to signify the challenge is accepted) then the Cavalier gets his bonus when engaging the challenged foe, and a certain malus against all the others.
If the challenge is ignored or declined, then every intelligent, non-chaotic* foe that was able to understand the challenge takes a certain moral malus for the encounter, including the one challenged. Their leader or most impressive asset is, after all, not showing leadership.
I think that this is a good idea that could use some more discussion than it is currently getting. Perhaps a -2 morale penalty on attacks by the enemy side if the leader does not answer the challenge? I think I'd apply it even to chaotic foes because it simplifies things and even chaotics feel slighted if their buddy isn't pulling his weight.
Edit: Given the sheer bonus to damage that the Cavalier gets, I think on reflection that a more serious penalty to the other side is needed. Perhaps minions have to make a will save at DC 10 + number of Cavalier levels or be Shaken and those that fail by 10 or more are Frightened?
What exactly "feels cavalierish" to you? Cavalier just means "horseman," so I'm guessing the challenge mechanic comes from its later association with nobility (the folks who own horses) and the resulting adjective form, which essentially means "disdainful." I see the cavalier sneering at one particularly revolting foe, and gaining strength from that focused hatred. It's more like rage than smite.Well, this particular version of a cavalier, between order and oath, seems inspired by romantic knight stories (rather than a knight-templar like the paladin).
Sneering at them with disdain doesn't sound like rage OR smite. It sounds like an entirely new mechanic (or, at closest, like a bard ability). I just don't understand how a largely social action against a foe has anything to do with you deal precision damage to them. This is a major problem, as both smite and rage, IMHO, both make sense. This version of challenge feels extremely arbitrary, and I think it's very important that things do what they say they do (this is what separates the d20 system from others).
(also, as a side note, I find it odd that this class has two chains of damage special abilities that don't particularly synergize with one another. Sure, you can challenge AND charge, but they don't work together particularly well).
Actually I for think that the "I challenge You!" and then a charging into the face of the person makes perfect sense.
On the subject of the Challenge ability itself, I actually have to agree with some points here:
- it kind of looks a bit too "less than rogue's sneak attack but more frequent" and "less than the Paladin's smite" but more repeatable. Which is good. But maybe could be more awesome.
- it's awfully sad that it doesn't have any consequence what-so-ever (except maybe getting attacked anyway, but seriously...) to run away from a challenge. I believe it could be awesome for the Challenge to have a more obvious effect on how people behave.
Conclusion: I am a huge fan of a suggestion I saw somewhere about making the Challenge somewhat akin to the rage POOL and the ki POOL and oter such.
The bonus damage is cool. Sure.
But what if you could instead choose to apply, say, a penalty (of some size, most likely level/"challenge point" dependent to all actions that does not have the Cavalier as target. Cowardize in face of a noble, honorful Challenge cannot be accepted!
Or perhaps a large damage penalty to all attacks the target of the challenge makes against anyone but the Cavalier. Maybe at higher levels the (supposed) Challenge Pool could include a "spell-like" geas/quest-like effect on the target of the Challenge, to furher penalize "not facing the Challenge, but cowardly fleeing".
Maybe another Pool option could give the target a social penalty of some size to all Charisma-based skill rolls for a while after or for a long time with those who saw the Challenge being made.
These are just loose ideas upon a concept I like, but if others seem to agree with this idea, I am considering to write some more and more fully formulated ones.
*shrug* seems more like a mystical ability, like a hex or a super natural power. I see the Cavalier as having more innate abilities. The fact that it's an Ex sort of points to that being the intent (innate ability rather than magic or divine power).
I liken the Cavalier's Challenge ability to some of the Samurai's abilities, which use his CHA bonus to intimidate opponents and buff himself.
The Samurai's abilities are also Ex and are non-mystical.Here are some examples:
Kiai Smite (Ex): Once per day, a samurai can give a great cry during combat that invigorates him. When a samurai shouts (a free action), his next attack gains a bonus on the attack roll and the damage roll equal to his Charisma bonus (minimum +1).
Staredown (Ex): A samurai becomes able to strike fear into his foes by his mere presence. He gains a +4 bonus on Intimidate checks and can demoralize an opponent.
Frightful Presence (Ex): A samurai's bravery, honor, and fighting prowess have become legendary. When the samurai draws his blade, opponents within 30 feet must succeed on a Will save (DC 20 + samurai's CHA modifier) or become panicked for4d6 rounds (if they have 4 or fewer Hit Dice} or shaken for 4d6 rounds (if they have from 5 to 19 Hit Dice). Creatures with 20 or mote Hit Dice are not affected. Any foe that successfully resists the effect cannot be affected again by the same samurai's frightful presence for 24 hours.
Check out the Complete Warrior book for more info on the Samurai.
I think Challenge would work well with this type of system.