Both the cavalier and the paladin open the combat by advancing on the most dangerous opponent, using a mounted charge when possible. The cavalier challenges that opponent and the paladin smites that opponent if he is sure it is evil. Each continues to focus on the chosen opponent, stopping occasionally to buff or otherwise assist allies who are in trouble.
What if the BBEG's mooks are the object of his Oath of Vengeance? Clearly he would be interested in wiping them out, vs. the BBEG. Obviously, all characters are not robots and make tactical decisions separate from their preferences or predilections. There may be SOME similarities, but there's similarities to Bards as well (the types of buffs you spread around). I don't see people complain that Bards and Beguilers are too similar, even though their abilities have serious overlap, nor Fighters and Barbarians or Wizards and Sorcerors. /shrug
Personally, I think restricting the Challenge to opponents directly relevant to the Cavalier's Order - i.e. must be personal enemy/threat if Dragon Cav, must have threatened/attacked Cav's party (so no using Challenge on ambushes of people you've been TOLD are bad, but have no personal beef with your allies), must be enemy/threat to your Regent/Leader if Order of Lion, etc... With targets relevant to your Oaths ALSO enabling Challenges (Oaths of Vengeance vs. Species/ Organization, Oath of Chastity vs. Defilers of Chastity, etc). This would add an element which re-enforces the connection between role-play aspects with game-play mechanics.
A min-max type character COULD choose Oaths/Orders most useful for the types of enemies they forsee, but then they need to LIVE UP TO THEM. More RP-orientated players could choose Oaths/Orders more suited to how they see their characters' personality, but they may not use Challenge QUITE as much (or rather, they're motivated to find ways their Enemies CAN cross their morals: "You would murder this peasant in cold blood? Do you even mock the name of King Leo himself? (Order of Lion) ). Further, some Oaths/Orders could be most amenable to Challenges, others could work more with the Cavaliers' OTHER abilities.
I pretty much like the direction of the Cavalier, specific abilities here and there could be fixed/improved, Order of Sword (Horse) could be beefed up both in the Mount department AND giving it non-Mount abilities, but it looks good over-all!
I was interested in comparing the role of a cavalier to the role of a paladin, so I conducted a thought experiment. I grabbed a stack of old adventures and went through each, asking myself how I would play both a cavalier and a paladin in each combat encounter I found therein.
--snip--
Problem: Challenge is too similar to smite evil. Both encourage characters to use identical "target the leader" tactics, making the offensive capabilities of the paladin redundant in a party that also has a cavalier.
Possible Solution: Instead of challenging a specific opponent, perhaps a cavalier should gain a "single combat" ability that triggers whenever certain tactical conditions are met.
Possible wording of this challenge substitute: "Whenever...
A lot of classes "step on the toes of another" as others have pointed out. Once you get past the basic classes a certain amount of that is inevitable. The question is how much is too much.
The single combat ability sounds good, but... I just don't see a Cavalier sitting back going "Who's lonely. Oh him! Him! Charge!". "Him" could be any Tom, Dick, or Harry (appologies to anyone with those names :D ). In order to use this ability the Cavalier would have to be very selective about his targets or all his friends would have to avoid the main bad guy(s). Flavor wise, I see the Cavalier (or Knight by any other name) calling his enemy out and then going for him, H3ll for leather, whatever the tactical situation. He wouldn't avoid the swirl of comabt and ditch a worthy opponent because they were already "threatened". *shrug* Of course, you could do that anyway minus the Challenge bonus, but it would be much less dramatic.
The flavor of this class strikes me as much the Arthurian (legendary, Mallory's La Morte d'Arthur) knight, right down to the greed bit for evil knights.
Thinking it over, the ultimate "hammer and tongs" short battle would be between two Cavaliers with a Challenge for eachother... could be interesting.
*edit* Some restrictions, a la Quandary's above, might be in order for the Cavalier's Challenge. Perhaps only challenging "worthy opponents" by some reasonable definition (class, level, special enemy, etc. ?).
I for have only had one playtest (GM) on the cavalier so far, and let me put it honestly. I have never seen or imagined a paladin as anythng close to what my player did.
"That" was a halfling (level 7). Riding a medium-sized dog. Cavalier, Order of the Cockatrice. CN. Ended up turning a Chelich nobleman into roasted meat on a stick (lance) with some help from the other player, a gnome Oracle wit Flame Foci. I do not imagine any Paladin, or Paladin variant, fitting into that. (TRUE it was wretchedly far out, and earned a lot of laughter and some evil stares from the GM, in attempt to re-serious"ize" her players)
What I see in the Cavalier, in comparison to the Paladin is:
a. Truth be told, a lot of the same focus themes.
b. No spellcasting, for players wo aren't exactly focused on that.
c. Not two classes that will be too good for the same team - unless it's a relatively large one, or one where everyone plays paladin/mounted fighter/mounted ranger/cavalier themes/types.
d. Both the Paladin and the Cavalier manage some manner of fighting capability (if not exactly that of the fighter). They however would often tend to fight for different (roleplay aspect) ideals. The Paladin fights for the greater good, and the ultimate ideals of law and good. The Cavalier (of various orders) fights for some group/order/association's ideals. The Paladin is more of a "free idealist" with loads of religion on top of it. The only real association paladins typically have are within temples. That's not what the Cavalier is about.
All of this aside (I surely missed some points) I had a long discussion with a different player/fellow GM about the "Order of the Star" Cavalier. If one ype of Cavalier "paladins" a bit too much, my vote would be that one. However, as it was pointed out to me, the Paladin is an agent of the holy, working with holy magic and within the Church (of whoever). The Cavalier of the Order of the Star is more akin to a Temple Knight kind of person, who fights for the religion/church without directly being part of it. I (as a GM) see multiple NPC options where the Paladin will fit less than the Cavalier.
But well, to tell the truth I believe that the main reason that this (as well as the other) new class(es) is being published in the APG wit the exact purpose of providing some classes that, while not covering as much of a new area as the core classes provide an interesting mix/variation/alike-but-not-quite option to many classes. The Cavalier I am honestly tempted to call a mix of a fighter and a paladin, with a leader like role and no spells.
Just my results/opion.
Okay. We have a class. Its name is [censored].
[censored] is a melee class that uses martial weapons, heavy armor, has full BAB, and d10 HP.
[censored] gets an ability to deal significant amounts of extra damage and get various other benefits against a chosen foe, on a limited-use basis.
[censored] gets an animal companion to use as a mount, and indeed mounted combat is [censored]'s most effective mode of combat.
[censored] has certain particular conduct restrictions in order to maintain the use of class abilities.
[censored] gives the party minor, thematic morale bonuses, based on the idea that the character inspires the rest of the party.
Due to Charisma powering certain secondary class abilities, [censored] can with some difficulty serve as a party "face". What class name did I censor out?
Obviously (without consulting books) both Paladin and Cavalier fts this pretty well (curse my memory if not completely).
The point will still be, I believe, that they have some difference at the point of flavour and the Paladin using spells, while the Cavalier has even more focus on mounted combat, oaths and more "fighter-like" abilities, say bonus feats.
Okay. We have a class. Its name is [censored].
[censored] is a melee class that uses martial weapons, heavy armor, has full BAB, and d10 HP.
[censored] gets an ability to deal significant amounts of extra damage and get various other benefits against a chosen foe, on a limited-use basis.
[censored] gets an animal companion to use as a mount, and indeed mounted combat is [censored]'s most effective mode of combat.
[censored] has certain particular conduct restrictions in order to maintain the use of class abilities.
[censored] gives the party minor, thematic morale bonuses, based on the idea that the character inspires the rest of the party.
Due to Charisma powering certain secondary class abilities, [censored] can with some difficulty serve as a party "face". What class name did I censor out?
One of them is a LG holy warrior of his god and all that is good, the other is a mounted knight
The paladin gain, mercy's channel, smite, spells , immunity's and a host of other ability that just do not fit the cavaliers theme.
So they both ride mounts, wear armor and use weapons, fallow some type of code...other then that they are not much alike. The wizard/sorcerer is more alike then caviler/paladin really
Okay. We have a class. Its name is [censored].
[censored] is a melee class that uses martial weapons, heavy armor, has full BAB, and d10 HP.
[censored] gets an ability to deal significant amounts of extra damage and get various other benefits against a chosen foe, on a limited-use basis.
[censored] gets an animal companion to use as a mount, and indeed mounted combat is [censored]'s most effective mode of combat.
[censored] has certain particular conduct restrictions in order to maintain the use of class abilities.
[censored] gives the party minor, thematic morale bonuses, based on the idea that the character inspires the rest of the party.
Due to Charisma powering certain secondary class abilities, [censored] can with some difficulty serve as a party "face". What class name did I censor out?
One of them is a LG holy warrior of his god and all that is good, the other is a mounted knight
The paladin gain, mercy's channel, smite, spells , immunity's and a host of other ability that just do not fit the cavaliers theme.
So they both ride mounts, wear armor and use weapons, fallow some type of code...other then that they are not much alike. The wizard/sorcerer is more alike then caviler/paladin really
I quite agree.
I quite agree.Okay. We have a class. Its name is [censored].
[censored] is a melee class that uses martial weapons, heavy armor, has full BAB, and d10 HP.
[censored] gets an ability to deal significant amounts of extra damage and get various other benefits against a chosen foe, on a limited-use basis.
[censored] gets an animal companion to use as a mount, and indeed mounted combat is [censored]'s most effective mode of combat.
[censored] has certain particular conduct restrictions in order to maintain the use of class abilities.
[censored] gives the party minor, thematic morale bonuses, based on the idea that the character inspires the rest of the party.
Due to Charisma powering certain secondary class abilities, [censored] can with some difficulty serve as a party "face". What class name did I censor out?
One of them is a LG holy warrior of his god and all that is good, the other is a mounted knight
The paladin gain, mercy's channel, smite, spells , immunity's and a host of other ability that just do not fit the cavaliers theme.
So they both ride mounts, wear armor and use weapons, fallow some type of code...other then that they are not much alike. The wizard/sorcerer is more alike then caviler/paladin really
I also agree, there is alot of difference both in mechanics and theme. A cavalier CAN be similar to a paladin but doesnt have to be. The challenge mechanic is different enough from smite where I dont think anyone's toes are being stepped on. After all EVERYONE tries to target the leader, or the big bad. Some are better at it then others, but if the wizard has a big debuff prepared, he doesnt throw it at the mooks does he? If the sorceror knows enervation does he enervate the evil wizard or the mook orcs?
If you are going to be that critical of similarities in abilities you will not be satisfied with any new classes, and you should stick to the core rules alot. I on the other hand love the new cavalier, a fresh taste of a knight like class with lots of roleplay opportunities, and some descent combat abilities. All without the constant restrictions paladins have to face that really limit what you can do with them from a story perspective.
I would like to see the Cavalier step on the paladin's toes less and step on the Bard's toes more. The bard is really the only game in town when it comes to morale based party buffs, but it's such a ponce that I never wanted to play one. I rather like the feel of a knight shouting orders to his allies from horseback and providing bonuses in that manner.
I don't see challenge as critical to this function at all, so I'm okay if it gets toned down a bit. The class is a little too paladinlike. Less psuedosmite and more party buffs sounds fine to me. (i don't have a problem with the mechanic of challenge, but it is a little too smite-like.)
Here's a potential solution: change the challenge into a party buff. Let the whole party reap +1 damage per four Cavalier levels against the challenged target. That's the kind of power I'd rather see, as it steps on the paladin's toes a lot less, and it's more or less original. Heck, you could even keep the penalty (although I'm not sure the flanked thing would work for this idea).
Anyway, less paladin, more bard(-like effects), would be nice.
I would like to see the Cavalier step on the paladin's toes less and step on the Bard's toes more. The bard is really the only game in town when it comes to morale based party buffs, but it's such a ponce that I never wanted to play one. I rather like the feel of a knight shouting orders to his allies from horseback and providing bonuses in that manner.
I don't see challenge as critical to this function at all, so I'm okay if it gets toned down a bit. The class is a little too paladinlike. Less psuedosmite and more party buffs sounds fine to me. (i don't have a problem with the mechanic of challenge, but it is a little too smite-like.)
Here's a potential solution: change the challenge into a party buff. Let the whole party reap +1 damage per four Cavalier levels against the challenged target. That's the kind of power I'd rather see, as it steps on the paladin's toes a lot less, and it's more or less original. Heck, you could even keep the penalty (although I'm not sure the flanked thing would work for this idea).
Anyway, less paladin, more bard(-like effects), would be nice.
I dont know that the bards role is something that needs replicating, the 3.5 marshal was something like that and to be honest it is really 5th party member. I dont think a martial class should be focused on buffing the party because you end up with a luke warm class, that is light on skills, light on offensive combat, and cant really do much else. The bard has spells and a solid amount of skills so it has its chance to shine. Where would the Calier get theirs if their key class ability is a party buff when they are a martial class? Sure its a nice to have in the party sort of thing, but to me they should never be a key class feature. I'd rather leave that niche alone.
|
I would like to see the Cavalier step on the paladin's toes less and step on the Bard's toes more. The bard is really the only game in town when it comes to morale based party buffs, but it's such a ponce that I never wanted to play one. I rather like the feel of a knight shouting orders to his allies from horseback and providing bonuses in that manner.
I don't see challenge as critical to this function at all, so I'm okay if it gets toned down a bit. The class is a little too paladinlike. Less psuedosmite and more party buffs sounds fine to me. (i don't have a problem with the mechanic of challenge, but it is a little too smite-like.)
Here's a potential solution: change the challenge into a party buff. Let the whole party reap +1 damage per four Cavalier levels against the challenged target. That's the kind of power I'd rather see, as it steps on the paladin's toes a lot less, and it's more or less original. Heck, you could even keep the penalty (although I'm not sure the flanked thing would work for this idea).
Anyway, less paladin, more bard(-like effects), would be nice.
Yeah, all of that. I like the idea of playing a knight, but hate being tied to an alignment and diety. I really like the Green Ronin Cavalier class from 3.5 which, like the ranger, can specialize in different types of combat, either mounted or foot.
I can leave the magical mount concept, as they seem too much like MMO "pets". Also, if you tie the class too much to the mount, they'll be useless in a large number of campaigns.
A combatant that can give buffs and has some flexibility would be a great modification.
It seems to me that "Marshal-like" functions are indeed an intended aspect of the Cavalier (bonus Actions for Allies?)
and I agree that this aspect would be a signifigant differentiator vs. Paladins,
beyond better Charge/Mount abilities, better skills & ability bonuses to skills, etc.
I dont know that the bards role is something that needs replicating, the 3.5 marshal was something like that and to be honest it is really 5th party member. I dont think a martial class should be focused on buffing the party because you end up with a luke warm class, that is light on skills, light on offensive combat, and cant really do much else. The bard has spells and a solid amount of skills so it has its chance to shine. Where would the Calier get theirs if their key class ability is a party buff when they are a martial class? Sure its a nice to have in the party sort of thing, but to me they should never be a key class feature. I'd rather leave that niche alone.
There are great thoughts, and you are probably right.
... but not if the powers are good enough!
The one aspect of this game that should always stand out is the idea of tailoring your game to fit your group or your DM's game setting. If one feels that the Cavalier and Paladin are too similar, you have the option to forego it altogether. I honestly was not all that impressed with the class when it was first put down in Unearthed Arcana and after a bit of thought probably won't be allowing it now. Should a time arise when mounted combat takes more of a role in my games I might consider it. But to be honest in my world any existing knights are fighters or paladins. The oracle looks like a great NPC class for my setting, but otherwise it smacks to much of the sorceror, which also doesn't exist in my world.
I'm not saying my opinion should influence how everyone recieves these new classes. I'm just showing examples of how we can tailor our game to fit our preferences or dislikes. The joy of these games is the customization that we have.
Now, alchemist? Can't wait to see that one.
I dont know that the bards role is something that needs replicating, the 3.5 marshal was something like that and to be honest it is really 5th party member. I dont think a martial class should be focused on buffing the party because you end up with a luke warm class, that is light on skills, light on offensive combat, and cant really do much else. The bard has spells and a solid amount of skills so it has its chance to shine. Where would the Calier get theirs if their key class ability is a party buff when they are a martial class? Sure its a nice to have in the party sort of thing, but to me they should never be a key class feature. I'd rather leave that niche alone.There are great thoughts, and you are probably right.
... but not if the powers are good enough!
Its really hard to balance that though. When a PC really gets to feel like they are shining via buffs, he is probably increasing his party members capabilities by quite a bit. It is much easier to balance the effects of an individual then on a whole party. I can look at the probabilies and figure out how much average damage a challenge will add, longsword 1d8, + 1d6 from flaming, and 3d6 challenge. I know what impact that is going to have. However, a +4 to my party's attack rolls? That could have a massive impact. Maybe the wizard manages to hit the enemy with an enervation on a high dex target, or maybe the 2 weapon fighter hits with ALL his attacks instead of just say half. Maybe Shaped druid with several secondary attacks is now hitting with all of them. There are lots of extra variables with buffing, which usually means they cant be a point of focus for a class.
The one aspect of this game that should always stand out is the idea of tailoring your game to fit your group or your DM's game setting... The joy of these games is the customization that we have.
Wait, what? You don't have your NPCs notarized? That's just dirty.
Its really hard to balance that though. When a PC really gets to feel like they are shining via buffs, he is probably increasing his party members capabilities by quite a bit. It is much easier to balance the effects of an individual then on a whole party.
Once more, I don't disagree at all, it is a more complex role to calibrate. But it is also an interesting and rewarding one, so we shouldn't exclude it just because it's complex. That's what open playtests are for. Your point is well taken, though.
|
|
The one aspect of this game that should always stand out is the idea of tailoring your game to fit your group or your DM's game setting... The joy of these games is the customization that we have.Wait, what? You don't have your NPCs notarized? That's just dirty.
Once more, I don't disagree at all, it is a more complex role to calibrate. But it is also an interesting and rewarding one, so we shouldn't exclude it just because it's complex. That's what open playtests are for. Your point is well taken, though.
Its really hard to balance that though. When a PC really gets to feel like they are shining via buffs, he is probably increasing his party members capabilities by quite a bit. It is much easier to balance the effects of an individual then on a whole party.
I don't think the main focus of this class should be buffing. The main focus would be a front-line melee combatant, but the ability to add buffs to himself and his companions would be what differntiates (sp?) him from a fighter (tons of feats) and a paladin (channeling holy power, kewl supernatural abilities, etc).
I don't think the main focus of this class should be buffing. The main focus would be a front-line melee combatant, but the ability to add buffs to himself and his companions would be what differntiates (sp?) him from a fighter (tons of feats) and a paladin (channeling holy power, kewl supernatural abilities, etc).
Then what class ability would you give to the cavalier to support that front lining? A front line combatant means one of two things, hits hard, or is hard to hit. A front liner should have his major class ability support that. A buffer should have their primary class ability support that, give bonuses to himself and others, but not on par with what a class should get for itself from its major class features. But dont call something a front line melee combatant and then have their major class ability not work with that. That is how you end up with the 3.5 marshal and a 5th party member (nice to have).
It seems to me that "Marshal-like" functions are indeed an intended aspect of the Cavalier (bonus Actions for Allies?)
and I agree that this aspect would be a signifigant differentiator vs. Paladins, beyond better Charge/Mount abilities, better skills & ability bonuses to skills, etc.
I agree. I would like to see more "leadership" abilities gear to buffing a party in the manner of the Marshal.
Perhaps a selection of commands that they can learn seperate from the order abilities. These could even be ties to the challange mechanic somehow.
|
|
Then what class ability would you give to the cavalier to support that front lining? A front line combatant means one of two things, hits hard, or is hard to hit. A front liner should have his major class ability support that. A buffer should have their primary class ability support that, give bonuses to himself and others, but not on par with what a class should get for itself from its major class features. But dont call something a front line melee combatant and then have their major class ability not work with that. That is how you end up with the 3.5 marshal and a 5th party member (nice to have).
I don't think the main focus of this class should be buffing. The main focus would be a front-line melee combatant, but the ability to add buffs to himself and his companions would be what differntiates (sp?) him from a fighter (tons of feats) and a paladin (channeling holy power, kewl supernatural abilities, etc).
The cavalier is going to be hard to hit with the heavy armor and shields. I don't see the logic why a heavily armored fighter with good BAB isn't a front-line fighter. Also, I am not one to rank one class as "better" than another, just offering some ideas to differentiate it from the fighter and paladin.
One of them is a mounted knight with holy vows that give him special abilities
False. Paladins are no longer archetypical mounted knights. In fact, the special mount is decidedly the weaker of the two options available to Paladins.
The cavalier is going to be hard to hit with the heavy armor and shields. I don't see the logic why a heavily armored fighter with good BAB isn't a front-line fighter. Also, I am not one to rank one class as "better" than another, just offering some ideas to differentiate it from the fighter and paladin.
While he will not be easy to hit, he will be no harder to hit then a warrior of his level. That to me is not adequate to call him a front line PC class. I am not saying he has to hide in the back I am just saying if you dont put his primary abilities toward his expected role, he will not be very good at it compared to the other classes. The cavalier should be GOOD at what he does, not just capable of it, and there should be something he's the 'best' at.
The cavalier is going to be hard to hit with the heavy armor and shields.
That can't be true.
As was pointed out, repeatedly, about another class and heavy armor - heavy armor isn't any better than medium armor.
The Cavalier shouldn't be much harder to hit than any class that is proficient with medium armor.
One of them is a LG holy warrior of his god and all that is good, the other is a mounted knightYes. One of them is a mounted knight with holy vows that give him special abilities, and the other is a mounted knight with non-holy vows that give him special abilities.
Without more mechanical difference between them, there's just not enough of a conceptual niche for both.
Technically the paladin could just have philosophic vows as I don't think he needs to make them to a diety but just an ideal. Which in truth is what all cavaliers are doing, they are vowing to uphold an ideal, maybe not a good one but still...
Also the way the class is written up well I just don't get the any alignment, lawful seems more well correct.
Anyway a little more distance between the paladin and this cavalier would be nice.
