The cavalier as written screams Arthurian Knight.
Unfortunately, that's about the only concept that it fits. It just seems to be too specialized from a roleplay perspective.
Added to that, there really isn't any new mechanic that warrants the creation of a new class.
Challenge = repackaged sneak attack
Banners = bardic music variants
Oaths are new, but hardly enough to base a class on.
Its been stated that this class was intended to fill the role of the battlefield leader, and the class as written can do that. But so can the fighter, paladin, cleric, or bard.
I think a better implementation would have been to add feats that make it easier for those classes to fill that role.
A feat to allow a player to pick up a mount. (Similar to whats been proposed for the Cavalier)
Feats to allow a character to focus on battlefield leadership. A rally feat to counter an ally's failed fear save for example.
Even the knightly orders would be better represented as feat chains. (Does the Order of the Shield not admit fighters or paladins?)
I'm probably rambling, but the cavalier just seems to be a too focused concept to be its own class.
Surkin
...
I'm probably rambling, but the cavalier just seems to be a too focused concept to be its own class.Surkin
I agree. The concept (and the Pathfinder RPG as a whole) would have been better served by feat chains. I'm afraid the APG might end up being the harbinger of a flood of crunch for crunch's sake; a temptation I'm sure the fantastic sales of the corebook have made very hard to resist.
So, knights are pretty cool ++ for a lot of people (me included), I don't have a problem there. I think your gripe is rather similar to my gripe in that it is a class that seems to have too many deals going at once and ends up pulled into a strange place.
He is simultaneously the front line mounted charger, the protector of innocents, the inspiring noble leading his allies into battle, and the well-trained master of battle forms and tactics. All this has to somehow translate into AC, +attack, +damage, and other things. Some of it makes sense as a challenge, some as oaths, vows, some as ridiculous extra action attacks (Act as One, we need to have a talk, sir, you've been giving the barbarian free charges that I don't feel he needs), but in the end it seems as if he's just pirating the other classes and taking what he likes.
I guess people generally think druid/paladin/bard/fighter for companion/challenge/banner/feats. Is it that the abilities attributed to other classes outshine his charging abilities, his oaths, and his vows? When not riding horse, he does turn into a druid fighter beater.
I see these comments, and I think that perhaps one ability needs to take the center and tie everything in (like rage does). Challenge seems the best candidate, would that somewhat assuage your feelings on the horse-mounted pirate? Or do you want to see an inspiring tactical leader that gives extra actions and orders, via Protect the Meek, but more a neutered Act as One? (I think those abilities in particular give me the chills with game balance, but if that's his shtick, then it could be integrated.)
No, thats not it, its just that I can already make a knight. Using fighter or paladin, or even cleric. Being a knight is a roleplay concept. The existing classes already support that concept.
I think a 20 level core class, should support many roleplay concepts.
How many different fighter concepts can you think up?
How many wizards?
Even the monk, one of the more tightly focused classes, lends itself to many different character concepts.
But the cavalier? Its an arthurian knight ... its not a horrible knight, but you can't make it anything but a knight.
Its too tightly defined to lend itself to other roleplay concepts. You might be able to bang a samurai out of it, but even thats a stretch.
Are we going to have a class specifically tailored to represent a native american hunter in the near future? Or should we keep useing ranger or barbarian to build that concept?
My point is, that this class shouldn't be a class at all.
Surkin
|
Actually Samurai fits a similar concept as the Cavalier does.
Though I do agree with the concept of feat chains or talent tree's to really costumize classes would be a huge plus. But I would rather see more core classes than not. I tend to prefer to see more options, even if I don't like the option. Odds are someone will and the more people that are happy the better the game does over all. Which is good for all of us.
The general roleplay niche I see for the cavalier is as a warrior who draws power from his own blustering bravado. The paladin protects others out of duty to faith; the cavalier does it because he's a g#$++#n knight in shining armor and he needs all the world to know it. The mounted combat theme goes with the class name, but the oaths and (with some tweaks) challenge are where I see the real flavor.
Basically: there are several classes which can be played as righteous jackasses/douchebags, but the cavalier only functions at all because he's a righteous jackass/douchebag.
I'm afraid the APG might end up being the harbinger of a flood of crunch for crunch's sake; a temptation I'm sure the fantastic sales of the corebook have made very hard to resist.
It could be, but the facts seem to be imply that it isn't really the case.
Actually Samurai fits a similar concept as the Cavalier does.
Though I do agree with the concept of feat chains or talent tree's to really costumize classes would be a huge plus. But I would rather see more core classes than not. I tend to prefer to see more options, even if I don't like the option. Odds are someone will and the more people that are happy the better the game does over all. Which is good for all of us.
I've been barking up that tree forever...since early Beta.
How many different fighter concepts can you think up?
How many wizards?
Even the monk, one of the more tightly focused classes, lends itself to many different character concepts.But the cavalier? Its an arthurian knight ... its not a horrible knight, but you can't make it anything but a knight.
Its too tightly defined to lend itself to other roleplay concepts. You might be able to bang a samurai out of it, but even thats a stretch.
With your variety of concepts, I rather disagree.
Cavaliers can represent knights errant, traditional court nobles, sheriffs, wild knights of the forest who ride on wolves and have an inflated sense of honor, Dragonriders, maybe even extremely disciplined pirate water-cavalry (kraken-rider?). Anybody with discipline and an animal.
Okay so it's not as diverse as the core classes you mentioned, but some of the core classes are amazingly restrictive, too. Bard, perhaps? Paladin? Any bard I can think of doesn't have anything to do with combat or is an army/king's herald.
It could potentially be a prestige class, but a better idea is probably expanding its role to accomodate other mounted cultures, like horse-archers or chariots (hmm... sometimes my ideas are bad), and perhaps centralizing its abilities to work around honor and discipline. Fighters cover all sorts of combat-related classes, but there's nothing that specifically covers codes of discipline, because paladin is only LG and is very much divine oriented.
Cavaliers can be any alignment, but only the greed oath is something I would consider evil/neutral. Would it help if they came up with oaths that better represented all alignments? Oath of Recklessness? Oath of Brutality? Oath of Destruction? Oath of Excess? It does seem like those don't fit the current Cavalier, but would that make you more satisfied about its role in class concepts? They would then be Warriors who focus on the mindset of battle, disciplining a single aspect of their battlefield desires, instead of all its weapons and tactics?
They would then be Warriors who focus on the mindset of battle, disciplining a single aspect of their battlefield desires,...
This would be an improvement, basically the class needs to have a more broadly defined theme, but at the same time it needs to be more focused in its abilities.
I realize that the decision to include the class has been made, announced, publicized, and isn't subject to change.
But consider this,
Fighters were designed to allow a player to customize them, so they could specialize in whatever type of combat the player chose. Thats why they get tons of bonus feats. If the game needs a cavalier type role filled, is the problem that we don't have a cavalier class, or that the feats aren't available to the fighter to fill that role?
(Even the description of the fighter in the pathfinder rules includes knight as a role)
Surkin
|
No, thats not it, its just that I can already make a knight. Using fighter or paladin, or even cleric. Being a knight is a roleplay concept. The existing classes already support that concept. I think a 20 level core class, should support many roleplay concepts.
How many different fighter concepts can you think up?
How many wizards?
Even the monk, one of the more tightly focused classes, lends itself to many different character concepts.
One could also make the argument that, with a specific set of old and new feats, you can make a druid or a paladin using a cleric or a ranger or monk using a rogue or a fighter. Howabout we get rid of all the classes except fighter, rogue, wizard and cleric and then make up a bunch of feats that grant rage and animal companions and improved unarmed damage? Ooo! We could just get rid of all the classes and make all the abilities feats and point-buys!..
Okay. I'm being a little facetious, but it's true a druid if just another sort of priest and a ranger is just another sort of warrior. The game would get pretty boring for me if I had to paint everything with such broad strokes that my knight is really just a fighter with a horse or my druid was just a cleric in treebark armor. I welcome the Cavalier class. There have been so many examples of mounted cavalry throughout history that would fit this class with its codes and oaths and orders I don't know what to play first. Samurai were already mentioned, but here are just a few others:
Mamluk - a mounted warrior from a desert land and a member of a fraternal organization of slaves that grew to conquer their masters.
Equite - an aristocrat pressed into service by his nation and placed in command of a company of lesser-born adventurers by virtue of his wealth alone.
Mongol - a raider and expert horseman who rides for the glory and prosperity of his people and the thrill of adventure.
Hussar - a common enlisted man who fights to defend his homeland with sabre, lance, pick and rifle.
Hospitaller - a knight charged with the protection of his deity's people and holy land. Not every devout warrior can be a paladin.
Mamluk - a mounted warrior from a desert land and a member of a fraternal organization of slaves that grew to conquer their masters.
Equite - an aristocrat pressed into service by his nation and placed in command of a company of lesser-born adventurers by virtue of his wealth alone.
Mongol - a raider and expert horseman who rides for the glory and prosperity of his people and the thrill of adventure.
Hussar - a common enlisted man who fights to defend his homeland with sabre, lance, pick and rifle....
All good concepts, but the only thing that prevents a player from playing them as a fighter, is a mount. Or should I say, a mount that scales in power with the fighter. (Its no fun replacing your horse after every battle)
For that matter, why doesn't every other class have access to a good mount?
Surkin
|
Would it help if they came up with oaths that better represented all alignments? Oath of Recklessness?Oath of Brutality? Oath of Destruction? Oath of Excess? It does seem like those don't fit the current Cavalier, but would that make you more satisfied about its role in class concepts? They would then be Warriors who focus on the mindset of battle, disciplining a single aspect of their battlefield desires, instead of all its weapons and tactics?
I think that would help immensely. Having a greater variety of oaths really frees the class up for any alignment without the fear of being restricted to one or two oaths that don't go directly against your alignment.
|
|
All good concepts, but the only thing that prevents a player from playing them as a fighter, is a mount. Or should I say, a mount that scales in power with the fighter. (Its no fun replacing your horse after every battle)
For that matter, why doesn't every other class have access to a good mount?
True. I could play a barbarian mongol or a cleric hospitaller as well, but I'm saying the cavalier's special abilities are what separate it from a fighter and I don't see a need to make those abilities into something you can just collect like pokemon. I see the cavalier as another way to play a knight like a ranger is another way to play a survivalist. You could easily turn a rogue or a fighter into a wilderness-based warrior but a ranger has a few unique abilities that fighters and rogues can't access without class-dipping. The cavalier works the same way. Using your example of Arthurian knights as an example, I might assemble a trio of some of the better known Knights of the Round Table using three different classes.
Sir Gawain - the Fighter: Gawain is a flawed but noble hero known for his great strength and skill in battle.
Sir Galahad - the Paladin: Galahad was the most pure of all the knights and led Perceval and Bors to the Holy Grail before ascending to Heaven. I can hardly think of a better qualifier for paladinhood.
Sir Lancelot - the Cavalier: Arguably the best there was at being a pure and simple knight in shining armor.
Heck, if I was going to go further, I might even make Sir Palamedes the Saracen a ranger based on his hunts for The Questing Beast and Sir Kay a barbarian based on his temper.
As far as mounts go, it's true alot of players I've gamed with won't buy a horse at higher levels because the animals die so easily. However, aside from Gandalf and Shadowfax, the wizard charging in on his trusty steed isn't nearly as iconic an image as the druid and her wolf or the paladin and his celestial thoroughbred. That and game balance issues, I'm guessing, are why every class doesn't have an animal companion.
|
No, thats not it, its just that I can already make a knight. Using fighter or paladin, or even cleric. Being a knight is a roleplay concept. The existing classes already support that concept.
I think a 20 level core class, should support many roleplay concepts...
...My point is, that this class shouldn't be a class at all.
Surkin
Ah but you miss the point entirely.
The APG classes are NOT Core classes and they were never intended to be. They are niche classes by design. Whereas 1 in 200 people on Golarion (or your world) has a Core PC class, maybe 1 in 50 PC's might be a APG base class.
--School of Vrock
|
|
Could also see the Cavalier in the role of a dragoon.
Basically, mounted heavy infantry. The boosted mount makes sure he gets to the target, where he dismounts and engages in infantry melee with the enemy.
I was going to mention dragoons but decided they were too close to hussars in description. I didn't want to get repetitive. The only real difference is that dragoons started out as infantry who were trained to ride horses whereas hussars have always been cavalrymen.
Suddenly I'm thinking a cavalier based on The Lone Ranger would be awesome. Give him a crossbow and some silver bolts, probably order of the sword, maybe order of the shield. Team him up with a ranger sidekick. Yeah. Forget about the Knights of the Round Table. It's all about the masked man and a cry of, "Hi-Yo Silver! Away!"
No, thats not it, its just that I can already make a knight. Using fighter or paladin, or even cleric. Being a knight is a roleplay concept. The existing classes already support that concept.
I think a 20 level core class, should support many roleplay concepts.
How many different fighter concepts can you think up?
How many wizards?
Even the monk, one of the more tightly focused classes, lends itself to many different character concepts.But the cavalier? Its an arthurian knight ... its not a horrible knight, but you can't make it anything but a knight.
Its too tightly defined to lend itself to other roleplay concepts. You might be able to bang a samurai out of it, but even thats a stretch.
Are we going to have a class specifically tailored to represent a native american hunter in the near future? Or should we keep useing ranger or barbarian to build that concept?
My point is, that this class shouldn't be a class at all.
Surkin
I think the same applies to the concept of barbarians, they are a culturally based fighter that channels anger- kind of like Mr Furious from Mystery men, or Too Much Coffee Man
I much prefer feat chains to class abilities.
The general roleplay niche I see for the cavalier is as a warrior who draws power from his own blustering bravado. The paladin protects others out of duty to faith; the cavalier does it because he's a g&+%$*n knight in shining armor and he needs all the world to know it. The mounted combat theme goes with the class name, but the oaths and (with some tweaks) challenge are where I see the real flavor.
Basically: there are several classes which can be played as righteous jackasses/douchebags, but the cavalier only functions at all because he's a righteous jackass/douchebag.
I have little of value to add except to say that I've been kind of down on the class myself... until reading this. I'm still uncomfortable with a role-play defining a class, but I suppose it's not terribly different from the paladin. They're anti-douche I suppose.
For that matter, why doesn't every other class have access to a good mount?
Surkin
They do. Gold pieces, Animal Handling, Ride Skill and Tricks. Just because things might not be a class feature doesn't make them unavailable. I actually agree on the Cavalier, but have just chosen to leave my game setting knights as Paladins and Fighters over adding it as a playable class. The bottom line is that you bought the book, it's your game, leave out what you don't like, keep what you do.
I would prefer the cavalier be a base class over a prestige class. I feel that prestige class overload was one of the worst aspects of 3rd edition. They reduced base classes to nothing more than segways into prestige classes and could easily be exploited with game breaking results.
Anyhow, There are plenty of other base classes that are just as specialized as the cavalier. Monks, are pretty much always going to be some sort of Asian martial arts master, even if the particular martial art they practice differs (they also have no place in medieval fantasy). Paladins are essentially cavaliers that are limited to a lawful good alignment. Pretty much every base class currently in existence aside from Fighter, Rogue, Cleric, and Wizard has a narrowly defined roll and a skill set that overlaps with at least one other class to some extent.
Someone pointed out that the paladin is kinda the same, and I agree, but Paizo had no choice with the Paladin; backward compatibility required it. There is no such backward compatibility requirement with the cavalier. I honestly don't see the point of a cavalier class. It's a fighter with specialized feats. I think it sets a bad precedent, though I'm sure I'm in the minority.
It also isn't about "disliking options." It's the way those options are presented. I didn't like Base Class bloat in 3.5, I didn't like it in 4, and I don't like it in PFRPG.
Could even break it down further really like in True20:
Warrior - Combat Wombats
Expert - Skill MOnkeys
Adept - Casters (Wisdom = Structured Divine, Intelligence = Structured Arcane, Charisma = Spontaneous Arcane or Divine)Most Classes become multi-classed characters:
Paladin: Warrior-Adept
Ranger: Warrior-Expert
Barbarian: Warrior-Adept (for "Rage powers")
Bard: Expert-Adept
Monk: Warrior-Adept (for "ki powers")-Weylin
Agreed; but laboring the context of backward compatibility, Paizo couldn't strip things down this far. They COULD, however, have stopped base class bloat before it started. The fact that many people will buy and enjoy the APG doesn't obviate the fact that the same goals could have been met via other means (feat chains).
Agreed; but laboring the context of backward compatibility, Paizo couldn't strip things down this far. They COULD, however, have stopped base class bloat before it started. The fact that many people will buy and enjoy the APG doesn't obviate the fact that the same goals could have been met via other means (feat chains).Could even break it down further really like in True20:
Warrior - Combat Wombats
Expert - Skill MOnkeys
Adept - Casters (Wisdom = Structured Divine, Intelligence = Structured Arcane, Charisma = Spontaneous Arcane or Divine)Most Classes become multi-classed characters:
Paladin: Warrior-Adept
Ranger: Warrior-Expert
Barbarian: Warrior-Adept (for "Rage powers")
Bard: Expert-Adept
Monk: Warrior-Adept (for "ki powers")-Weylin
They could be met via feat chains, but 3.5 has never actually done that. Sure there are alternate class features, but not everything should be achieved that way.
I personally dont like the idea of feat chains that can be character classes, you end up with a giant mess of options and no clear direction with a character. The obvious example is Wizards' Star Wars Saga editions. The didnt add base classes, they kept the ones they had originally, and added new "Talent Trees". And 20 books later you have a whole giant mess of character options but no direction on what to do with your character. I for one (and I am not alone) take inspiration from what to do with a character and how to play one directly from the class itself. In a situation where all new features, ideas, and concepts are represent by generic feat chains I get the same feeling i did in college when a proffessor would say "Write an essay on whatever you want". I have so many ideas kicking around in my head, and cant actually decide on one. Where as if I say ok I want to play a certain kind of character, I can look for the class that best fits that view, and I end up with a good starting point for my character right away. I also have just a few things to choose from instead of hundreds of feat chains, that all could possibly work for the character.
|
|
The cavalier as written screams Arthurian Knight.
Unfortunately, that's about the only concept that it fits. It just seems to be too specialized from a roleplay perspective.
Added to that, there really isn't any new mechanic that warrants the creation of a new class.
Challenge = repackaged sneak attack
Banners = bardic music variantsOaths are new, but hardly enough to base a class on.
Its been stated that this class was intended to fill the role of the battlefield leader, and the class as written can do that. But so can the fighter, paladin, cleric, or bard.
I think a better implementation would have been to add feats that make it easier for those classes to fill that role.
A feat to allow a player to pick up a mount. (Similar to whats been proposed for the Cavalier)
Feats to allow a character to focus on battlefield leadership. A rally feat to counter an ally's failed fear save for example.
Even the knightly orders would be better represented as feat chains. (Does the Order of the Shield not admit fighters or paladins?)
I'm probably rambling, but the cavalier just seems to be a too focused concept to be its own class.
Surkin
The only thing that any character that uses them will share is a mount, you can actually create several concepts with this class. For example I'm planning on finding a game and creating an arabian horse lord type character, he'll be lightly armored focused on constantly moving around the field, both he and his horse will have the dodge/mobility tree, and he'll two weapon fight with a saber/short sword. with this one he'll actually be better off never pegging down a single foe, but charging from foe to foe only using his challange when pinned down, or to give his allies the boost while he runs around mopping up mooks. This character never gets off his horse except to eat and rest or in town. He'll focus on oaths of loyalty and vengence, and be order of the cockatrice since he'll be fiercely loyal to his allies and because it provides bonuses to people even as he rides around willy nilly.
Then there's the medieval knight, who is all about taking on a single foe at a time, who wades in heavily armored with sword and shield, targeting a single foe as comfortable off his horse in one on one melee as on. a true knight in the arthurian mold This one has your more classic knight oaths of purity and protection and is an order of the lion knight.
Then there's rogue/cavalier, who may or may not be multiclassed. his schtick is fighting dirty, charging in on his mount and then jumping clear so that the horse makes a big distraction and provides a flank of it's own while he stacks his sneak attack and flanking. he'll probably wind up in mithral medium armor, and stick to a single weapon with vital strike so that he can tumble clear from any sticky situations and move quickly on foot so that he doesn't get surrounded, for him it's obviously oaths of greed and vengence, and of coarse order of the dragon.
You're telling me those three characters sound similar in theme and playstyle?
Agreed. And having a few more base classes is a Godsend to DMs -- tinkering around with 8 million options is fine if you're a player who has a lot of spare time, but what if you're a DM who's thinking, "I've got a session tonight, and 4 hours to get ready -- and I need an encounter with three knightly types, one of whom is kind of sneaky, two nature priests, and a combined archer-sneaky guy type."
Oh god, I dont even want to think about how much work it is to come up with new and interesting enemies in my star wars campaign. Thankfully some heavenly soul is maintaining a pdf that has the page numbers and a brief description of all the feats and talents, but its still an monumental task to put together new bad guys because things are so spread out in different talent trees. It feels more like homework then working on a campaign sometimes.
Agreed. And having a few more base classes is a Godsend to DMs -- tinkering around with 8 million options is fine if you're a player who has a lot of spare time, but what if you're a DM who's thinking, "I've got a session tonight, and 4 hours to get ready -- and I need an encounter with three knightly types, one of whom is kind of sneaky, two nature priests, and a combined archer-sneaky guy type."So, is it is easier prepare this group as --
Level 11 Cavalier
Level 10 Cavalier
Level 7 Cavalier/Level 3 Rogue
Level 10 Druid
Level 9 Druid
Level 6 Ranger/Level 4 Rogue-- or try to build those six characters from scratch using nothing but a huge list of feats and abilities?
The first way, you could probably do it. The second way, I wouldn't even try.
In truth, I hadn't thought of that. I'd rather see that problem tackled by having a separate, simplier NPC generation system, but I do see your point.
I remain of the opinion that base classes should be generalized and flexible, with customization carried out by feat, or prestige class, because I think proliferation of base classes leads to too many similiar classes down the line. I don't want to have a "spearman" class, an "archer" class, a "great weapon" class, etc. I'm just no fan of classes for classes sake, which is what the cavalier strikes me as (just as it did when it showed up in 1E's UA). YMMV. :)
The cavalier as written screams Arthurian Knight.
Unfortunately, that's about the only concept that it fits. It just seems to be too specialized from a roleplay perspective.
Added to that, there really isn't any new mechanic that warrants the creation of a new class.
Challenge = repackaged sneak attack
Banners = bardic music variantsOaths are new, but hardly enough to base a class on.
Its been stated that this class was intended to fill the role of the battlefield leader, and the class as written can do that. But so can the fighter, paladin, cleric, or bard.
I think a better implementation would have been to add feats that make it easier for those classes to fill that role.
A feat to allow a player to pick up a mount. (Similar to whats been proposed for the Cavalier)
Feats to allow a character to focus on battlefield leadership. A rally feat to counter an ally's failed fear save for example.
Even the knightly orders would be better represented as feat chains. (Does the Order of the Shield not admit fighters or paladins?)
I'm probably rambling, but the cavalier just seems to be a too focused concept to be its own class.
Surkin
You're spot on. I posted somewhere else that it would make a perfect Prestige Class and not a core class and was shot down. Just to let you know Your opinon does not matter as I was told point blank that The basics WILL NOT change. In fact my thread was closed down because it was meaningless. I'm surpised yours has not been too.
You're spot on. I posted somewhere else that it would make a perfect Prestige Class and not a core class and was shot down. Just to let you know Your opinon does not matter as I was told point blank that The basics WILL NOT change. In fact my thread was closed down because it was meaningless. I'm surpised yours has not been too.
Your thread was closed because it is impossible to make the class a prestige class at this point. Your entire point was that it didn't work as a base class, and that is just not useful feedback when there is no choice but to make it a base class.
This thread has nothing to do with that. This thread is about things that CAN be changed (flavor, abilities). Thus, this thread has no need to be shut down.
Can you please stop playing the martyr? It's not doing anybody any good.
I can see your point. Yes this does seem like a very specialized class, and by how things are built, unless your planing on going epic, there is still a huge incentive to go PrC to get a capestone at 15-17 up to 5 levels before you would with a core class. Also this lets you get a capstone before the game ends at about that same level, as most modules don't go further than 15 in many situations.
However, personally I don't like the idea of PrCs in many situations. Things like Samaria and Ninja tend to be something you are raised up as and always been. It seems like a cop out to say that the other classes just represent them till they start taking levels. Yeah their specialized, but the flavor of the roll says specialized base class.
It's been said above (by Vrock I believe among others), but the Cavalier is not a "core" class, it's a base class. If it fits a particular niche, that's fine. It doesn't have to be as "generalized" as a core class. It's not really something a prestige class addresses all that well... the culturally iconic mounted warrior, raised from birth to be just that. If you don't like the Cavalier / knight... don't use it. It's not a core class. There is no "thou must use all these classes" rule. Use it if it fits your campaign, don't if it doesn't. It's a good fit for my game, and personally I like the way it is shaping up. Some rough spots, but that's what a beta is for.
You're spot on. I posted somewhere else that it would make a perfect Prestige Class and not a core class and was shot down. Just to let you know Your opinon does not matter as I was told point blank that The basics WILL NOT change. In fact my thread was closed down because it was meaningless. I'm surpised yours has not been too.Your thread was closed because it is impossible to make the class a prestige class at this point. Your entire point was that it didn't work as a base class, and that is just not useful feedback when there is no choice but to make it a base class.
This thread has nothing to do with that. This thread is about things that CAN be changed (flavor, abilities). Thus, this thread has no need to be shut down.
Can you please stop playing the martyr? It's not doing anybody any good.
To be clear, what the original poster stated that in order to play a knight/cavalier you need NO type of class. He goes even further than my idea of it being a prestige class. This thread might have become something else as most do when others get off topic,but in the beginning it was something else.So following the same thought that the class will be in the book no matter what and they have stated in the past that they do not want threads like this, I stated that I was surprised that it was not locked as my was. Also, could you please stop playing monitor. If you have a problem go and complain to someone that is.
There is two sides to the issue of feat chains.
1) They eliminate class bloat
2) They create feat bloat (which is often many times worse then class bloat)
Sorry, many people have said the same thing, didn't read the whole thing. Well as it goes extra classes should be an option for people who like to make their character creation a little easier.
|
|
I think a 20 level core class, should support many roleplay concepts.Surkin
Strange, I think the cavalier can support pretty much anything you want that is mounted. I'm currently playing a "Highwayman" (Dragon Cavalier w/ Oath of Greed armed using a Musket as his primary weapon) in a playtest group of all evil characters...
I don't think "Aurthurian Knight" is a limitation here at all.
|
|
I think a 20 level core class, should support many roleplay concepts.Surkin
Strange, I think the cavalier can support pretty much anything you want that is mounted. I'm currently playing a "Highwayman" (Dragon Cavalier w/ Oath of Greed armed using a Musket as his primary weapon) in a playtest group of all evil characters...
I don't think "Aurthurian Knight" is a limitation here at all.
Agreed, if I find a game to be a player in I'm gonna have a hard time choosing between my halfling cavalier/rogue, or the arabian camel rider who wields a saber. Neither of which fit the concept of arthurian knight at all. Heck someone else pointed out a native american horse warrior. None of these fit the concept the OP mentioned, I really think it's just a lack of trying that they can't think of other concepts.
Agreed, if I find a game to be a player in I'm gonna have a hard time choosing between my halfling cavalier/rogue, or the arabian camel rider who wields a saber. Neither of which fit the concept of arthurian knight at all. Heck someone else pointed out a native american horse warrior. None of these fit the concept the OP mentioned, I really think it's just a lack of trying that they can't think of other concepts.
Honestly, I think your missing my point. You can already make any of those concepts using the existing classes in the game. The arabian camel rider who wields a saber, is a fighter. A fighter that specializes in mounted combat.
What was missing from the game, that mandated the development of the cavalier?
The answer is pretty obvious, there is no mechanic for a character to get a decent mount that will survive in mid and higher level play.
Imagine if there was a variant leadership feat, that was designed specifically to provide a character a balanced mount throughout an adventuring career. How many concepts would that support?
Would you still need the cavalier class to make any of your mounted concepts?
Surkin
|
The cavalier´s niche is that of a ideal based fighter, whatevert that ideal might be is irrelevant.
Looking at the cavalier´s mechanics as they are so far all of them reflect power coming from some kind of code (orders and oaths) and pride in combat (challenge). Granted, those can be applied to any character through sheer RP, however having a class that reflecs mechanically those aspects of a warrior fills a niche for many people (just like the barbarian fills the one of the rage fueled berserk).
EDIT. The mout is just a nice bonus.
|
|
Agreed, if I find a game to be a player in I'm gonna have a hard time choosing between my halfling cavalier/rogue, or the arabian camel rider who wields a saber. Neither of which fit the concept of arthurian knight at all. Heck someone else pointed out a native american horse warrior. None of these fit the concept the OP mentioned, I really think it's just a lack of trying that they can't think of other concepts.
Honestly, I think your missing my point. You can already make any of those concepts using the existing classes in the game. The arabian camel rider who wields a saber, is a fighter. A fighter that specializes in mounted combat.
What was missing from the game, that mandated the development of the cavalier?
The answer is pretty obvious, there is no mechanic for a character to get a decent mount that will survive in mid and higher level play.
Imagine if there was a variant leadership feat, that was designed specifically to provide a character a balanced mount throughout an adventuring career. How many concepts would that support?
Would you still need the cavalier class to make any of your mounted concepts?
Surkin
I wouldn't make any fighter class around mounted combat because your camel or horse is going to die. At best you could make it with ranger where you get an AnCo, but then you're stuck with a casting class, and as of yet there aren't variants. And I'm not a fan of making feats that provide class features so I don't want to see a feat that allows classes that don't have AnCos to get them. So no, you do need a class to create a non-spellcasting mounted warrior.
Honestly, I think your missing my point. You can already make any of those concepts using the existing classes in the game. The arabian camel rider who wields a saber, is a fighter. A fighter that specializes in mounted combat.
Sure, and by this logic you could eliminate most of the core classes too. Most of the class features of these classes could be done with feats, you could pare it all down to the original iconic three classes along with a pile of feats. Or, hey, one class and a toolset of feats / skills. There you go. And, imo, this would be far worse than any possible class bloat.
Classes provide an easier route to a character archtype. Most players don't want to spend their entire lives optimizing (although it can be fun). You could use something like the 2E kit idea to set up pre built class variations, but then you might as well have classes. And classes are more "controllable". If you think "dipping" / multi- classing is a problem, provide munchkin power gamers with dozens of new feats and see what happens. Any number of unforseen interactions and unbalanced combinations I would imagine.
What was missing from the game, that mandated the development of the cavalier?The answer is pretty obvious, there is no mechanic for a character to get a decent mount that will survive in mid and higher level play.
Imagine if there was a variant leadership feat, that was designed specifically to provide a character a balanced mount throughout an adventuring career. How many concepts would that support?
Would you still need the cavalier class to make any of your mounted concepts?
Surkin
The answer is an iconic character from western myth / history: the mounted knight. As a bonus the Cavalier is flexible enough to encompass numerous other mounted warrior concepts, as others have pointed out. And yes, you could do this with just a fighter and feats, but I think a specialized class works better. Of course, given that it is not a core class but a base class, no one is being forced to use it. Actually, I don't have all the core classes in my campaign. The Cavalier does provide a viable option for many settings.
Btw, why use a leadership feat for a mount (or was it intended to encompass more than just the mount aspect)?
I agree with your basic premise Surkin, but sadly I think the witch starts to fall into this category too, and perhaps the alchemist as well. These classes just seem so concentrated on the one thing it is that they do.
This isn't to say that there are no choices within these classes, it's just from a role playing aspect I can see the cavalier as a good/bad knight and that's it. The same goes for the witch though, and possibly the alchemist.
New oaths or abilities are not the problem, it's the limited scope of the class in terms of roleplaying, IE a cavalier is always a knight, any type of knight but still a knight. It's good to fill thee niches, but I'd rather have a class that can fill more than one niche, and is a little more versatile.
Fortunately, this isn't the problem with Witch. A Witch can act as a nature-wizard, a (fake) Druid (the religion, not the class), a Wiccan, a Wicked Witch Of The West, an herbalist, a hedge wizard...It is SKEWED towards the Wicked Witch of the West, but Wizard is skewed towards hat-robe-and-staff, so.
Witch is probably the most flexible, theme-wise, of all the classes presented. Subsequently, it is easily my favorite.
Cavalier, however, doesn't suffer it to the extent you posit. Yes, it is a primarily Arthurian knight. A cavalier can also be a samurai, whose oaths to his lord grant him his special abilities, his brave steed, and his naginata. A cavalier can also be the Lone Ranger, riding for justice and wielding a lasso and a spear for the protection of all.
A cavalier may be a Knight. But it is not just a Knight. It is a mounted warrior. Is the Lone Ranger a knight? Is a samurai? Maybe.
I don't think so.
EDIT:
As far as needing it, what warranted Inquisitor? Rangers are better monster-hunters.
Cavaliers are at least a distinctly different class with interesting mechanics. They are not Paladins, nor are they Fighters. They are Champions. They represent a cause and have powers to support this. Can you make a Champion as a Paladin or a Fighter? Yes. Does Cavalier do it better? Probably.
In fact, Champion might be a better name for them.