|
This is something that I originally wrote up as part of a response to a different thread, but then realized that it probably warranted one of its own. I haven't had time (yet) to come up with any sort of specific mechanics, but I wanted to get the idea out there for discussion. If this has already been discussed, please link me to the thread and let this one die.
I'd really like to see some sort of alternate feature to the mount. Druids and rangers and paladins all have alternatives to having an animal follow them around.
A lot of campaigns simply won't have room for a mount. The current adventure path is the perfect example. Most of the path (thus far) takes place in confined areas where the mount would be nearly useless.
A lot of players will want to play a "Knight in shining armor" type who doesn't have to be mounted to make the most out of his features.
In my opinion, more options are nearly always better, and I think that all of the major class features should have choices. Every other class that has an familiar- or animal companion-type feature has an alternative. Druids can take a domain, Paladins can take a bonded weapon, Rangers can bond with the group, wizards can take a bonded item....
The alternative doesn't have to be the best (see Ranger), it just has to be something. The ranger alternative could be a starting point; allow the mount-less Cavalier to give some bonuses to his allies, via extra actions (roleplayed as tactical commands) or bonuses to their actions (tactical advice).
Any suggestions on how this could work mechanically? I'm going to give it some thought, so I'll post any ideas I have within the next few days.
No, I'm completely with you and a player of mine is discussing that very thing with me at the moment.
Several of the upcoming story arcs are going to be dungeon delves.
Looong ones.
After that is a tower.
After that are some long distance travels by small fishing boat.(too small for a mount)
So basically, his mount is useless.
Much like the other classes that have options, I believe this one needs it as well.
What about a 'combat stance' or some such thing? I don't know mechanics wise, but off the top of my head, it could be neat to give them a stance they can use for a number of rounds per day that boosts their AC or damage or such. Something along the lines of the Rage mechanic or vaguely like the Dwarven Defender's ability. Dunno what people think, but it's my first thought.
I agree that there should be alternative. Pathfinder seems to like alternatives to animal companions whether it be the wizard's familiar or for the ranger. I like choices as a player. I think an alternate to a mount would be beneficial
Ummm whats the point of a caviler with no mount?
Ummm whats the point of a caviler with no mount?
Good question. Cavalier literally means "mounted soldier".
Yeah, Not trying to be smart or anything, but it is a mounted class, as it should be. I am just not sure why you want to kill the whole underlying concept of the class really
|
While being mounted is a staple of fantasy (and historic) knights, etc, as the cavalier's abilities aren't tied intrinsically to being mounted, I agree that there should be an alternate option. Knights/samurai are just as often depicted storming fortresses or dueling with their opponents.
Perhaps instead of having the ranger as a starting point, one could substitute the paladin's bonded item? Either would be acceptable options, in my opinion, and fit with the class concept.
But they are tired to he mount at 1st 3rd 12th and 20th level. It is a mounted class. It can work off the mount but it's as much a part of the class as lay on hands is to a paladin or wildshape a druid
Well yeah just like a LE paladin with totally different powers is possible. It would no longer be a paladin however
You guys are talking total rewrite.
Edit: Nothing wrong with that but thats for houserules, just like reworking a ranger into an urban variant. It can be done, but is not longer the same class
Edit: Nothing wrong with that but thats for houserules, just like reworking a ranger into an urban variant. It can be done, but is not longer the same class
Nitpick: Paizo's ranger works fine out-of-the-box as an Urban Ranger.
A response to a number of your...
First off, I would like to see a non-mounted version. An alternative like Paladin has for it's mount and Druid for its animal companion would be appreciated.
Against the argument that "cavalier means 'mounted soldier'" I would like to point out that "Druid" was a term ascribed to a specific religious group that existed in the real world in a specific era. The game has co-opted the word and made it its own, totally unrelated thing. Almost all the terms have this kind of thing, so an etymological argument seems silly.
And, if needed, we could just rewrite the thing...
I think the cavalier fulfills a need. Specifically, "the non-paladin paladin". It is someone whom could charge off to battle, with his convictions not his god protecting him. I like the non-alignment basis of the cavalier and the essential lack of magic in its design. Mythology and fiction is full of heroes that weren't magical as much as they were driven by a cause.
To that end, and looking to a similar source, how about as an alternative to a mount we use a "Weapon Affinity" (all terms are just suggestions)
They declare a kind of oath, dedicating themselves to a specific sword/spear/weapon, etc. As such, they gain benefits when wielding it.
To stick with the "non-magic" aspect, you could have these benefits be a quick list of feats gain. For instance, at first level, they gain "Weapon Focus" with only that one specific weapon. Later, they gain "weapon Specialization" and continue on gaining feats, "Critical Focus" "Deafening Critical" "Blinding Critical" etc.
Would be different from a fighter in that they still have the challenge and the oath features (what I think are the highlight of the class).
Sorry this is so long.
I agree with this person I've never met, and certainly wasn't just talking to about this very topic over gmail.
|
|
Ummm whats the point of a caviler with no mount?
Like the above poster, I think this argument is kind of a wash. If you really get into etymology, a sorcerer and a wizard are historically the same. The name of the class is just a generic term describing an archetype.
I think that the cavalier can fill a niche without being dependent on a mount. As it is, the cavalier is really crippled in any campaign where the PCs are in an enclosed area, and no other class has that huge of a chance of missing out on one of their prime features.
I disagree, he is no more crippled then anyone else. He has a mount, if ya do a dungeon crawl it may not fit, ya can 1. make a small pc or 2 leave him outside
Your talking of taking away a major point of the class. He is not 100% based on the mount and works fine the few times ya have to leave one but he has 3 class features that are pointless or near it without the mount.
This is not a minor change out like the druids, ranger or paladins companion. He is a mounted class, with 4 class features built around that concept. If you do not want to play that concept your playing the wrong class as it is the concept it was built to cover
heh, I meant leave the mount, not the caviler. The mount is damned useful but not as much in a crawl, you can do it but does not cripple you if you do not
Nah if the games dungeon based either 1 don't make one or 2 make a small pc. Not every class is good for every game
I dunno. I am afraid this is going to become a 'small only' class in a lot of games (goblin FTW). I know in my game, we have two mounted characters (a paladin and a bard who I let take a mount instead of a cohort for leadership), and they get to take their mounts with them 50% of the adventure at best.
That being said, It's not like the cavalier doesn't have a whole slew of options as is that make it work as a nonmounted character. They have challenge (harry), oaths, and order abilities to bring to the table. I'm just not sure a mountless cavalier is completely appropriate.
Well yeah just like a LE paladin with totally different powers is possible. It would no longer be a paladin however
You guys are talking total rewrite.
You just offer a set of alternative features to the mounted ones...
You just offer a set of alternative features to the mounted ones...Well yeah just like a LE paladin with totally different powers is possible. It would no longer be a paladin however
You guys are talking total rewrite.
I have no ideal what your talking about
I think this is pretty much turned in to a debate about thematics vs. playability.
If all classes should be playable, and since so many other classes with alternatives to some core features have alternatives that are obviously done for playability, then why would you argue against more playability in this class?
If this class is in beta test for just this kind of reason, and it's going to only shine in field combat, then is it really a class that's worth publishing in a book?
Name one other class that would get this nerfed for attending a staple environment of the genre.
These class are more focused the the base for one. But what they want is on pare with "I want a non holy warrior paladin, or I want a non nature based druid option"
Your asking for a rewrite of a basic class concept
Now that said I can see it done for say total reworking for the class like the paladins upcoming templar/anti-paladin but not as a base option as your not talking about one thing but something the class is built around for the full 20 levels
Name one other class that would get this nerfed for attending a staple environment of the genre.
Druid and ranger. They have some ability that do not work in a dungeon. You wanting a rework of them as well to cover the time your not in the wild?
The simple fact is like a paladin the class is not usable in every game type{it is more usable though as even in an evil based dungeon game ya can take a small race}. If your doing a long term dungeon crawl you 1> take a small race or 2. play another class
Druid and ranger. They have some ability that do not work in a dungeon. You wanting a rework of them as well to cover the time your not in the wild?Name one other class that would get this nerfed for attending a staple environment of the genre.
What ranger abilities don't work in dungeons?
My recomendation was a squire. The cavalier would still likely have a mount, but it would be a normal mount the rest of the world had access to. The squire on the other hand would be a kind of cohort. It would be an independant character but loyal to the cavalier. The cavalier would be subject to outfiting him and paying for his needs (as would a normal knight be required to equip his squire).
My thoughts are at level 1 the squire is a level 1 commoner. At each subsequent level (of the cavalier) the squire gains a level of warrior or expert (based on how the cavalier chooses to direct training).
What ranger abilities don't work in dungeons?Druid and ranger. They have some ability that do not work in a dungeon. You wanting a rework of them as well to cover the time your not in the wild?Name one other class that would get this nerfed for attending a staple environment of the genre.
Woodland stride, really near useless there but cutting that could effect the class far less then the mount for a class built around it
My recomendation was a squire. The cavalier would still likely have a mount, but it would be a normal mount the rest of the world had access to.
and you just made 3 other class ablitys near useless.
You just offer a set of alternative features to the mounted ones...Well yeah just like a LE paladin with totally different powers is possible. It would no longer be a paladin however
You guys are talking total rewrite.
I'm saying that it doesn't require a total rewrite of the class to offer an alternative to the mount features. If you choose to not go with the mount, then the features you would get (like spirited charge, etc) would be replaced with things that relate to the other option...Kind of like the rangers TWF/Ranged paths(except not feat oriented), or like the Paladins mount/weapon features...Maybe even keep the mount in basic form, but can choose an alternate path of features(not forced to focus on mount)
(As writing this, and looking further at the mounted features, I notice that there is indeed a fair amount of mount related abilities, so maybe it would take a little more of a rewrite than I thought...)
(As writing this, and looking further at the mounted features, I notice that there is indeed a fair amount of mount related abilities, so maybe it would take a little more of a rewrite than I thought...)
Yeah, its a bit much for an alt feature, but an alt build like the alt paladins would work.
Myself I so see the caviler as a samurai with some reworking
My recomendation was a squire. The cavalier would still likely have a mount, but it would be a normal mount the rest of the world had access to.and you just made 3 other class ablitys near useless.
He can still be a mounted combatant, his horse would just be mundane.
He can still be a mounted combatant, his horse would just be mundane.My recomendation was a squire. The cavalier would still likely have a mount, but it would be a normal mount the rest of the world had access to.and you just made 3 other class ablitys near useless.
and die well before he ever got to use any of the 3 listed ablitys
Caviler: I charge at the enemy!
GM: oh 2 arrows hit your mount you went down 100 feet from target
Caviler: damn, freaking ablitys are useless
What ranger abilities don't work in dungeons?Woodland stride
Fungi.
He can still be a mounted combatant, his horse would just be mundane.My recomendation was a squire. The cavalier would still likely have a mount, but it would be a normal mount the rest of the world had access to.and you just made 3 other class ablitys near useless.and die well before he ever got to use any of the 3 listed ablitys
Caviler: I charge at the enemy!
GM: oh 2 arrows hit your mount you went down 100 feet from target
Caviler: damn, freaking ablitys are useless
Then perhaps he should have actually taken mounted combat and put some magical barding on his mount.
Then perhaps he should have actually taken mounted combat and put some magical barding on his mount.
Wont help much a CR 20 encounter is death for a 2 HD mount every time but so is a CR 12 or CR 10 maybe even a CR6 encounter
Then perhaps he should have actually taken mounted combat and put some magical barding on his mount.He can still be a mounted combatant, his horse would just be mundane.My recomendation was a squire. The cavalier would still likely have a mount, but it would be a normal mount the rest of the world had access to.and you just made 3 other class ablitys near useless.and die well before he ever got to use any of the 3 listed ablitys
Caviler: I charge at the enemy!
GM: oh 2 arrows hit your mount you went down 100 feet from target
Caviler: damn, freaking ablitys are useless
Fine, replace "2 arrows" with "1 fireball". A non-companion mount is 100% useless. Horses have 15 hit points and 11 AC. If they don't have the benefit of all the extras being a companion gives them, they die just by being looked at wrong.
Putting magical barding on a basic horse is an exercise in futility.
Wont help much a CR 20 encounter is death for a 2 HD mount every time but so is a CR 12 or CR 10 maybe even a CR6 encounterThen perhaps he should have actually taken mounted combat and put some magical barding on his mount.
CR6? no, CR 10 or 12 maybe, depends on how you approach it not every encounter has loads of archers firing as you approach, but we are talking about a way to replace the mount here. Saying the mount is irreplacable doesnt help that discussion.
As I was saying, no other class get's this many of their abilities disabled for stepping in to a bread and butter environment like this class does. This is about level of playability in the most fundamental environments in the genre. I would no more support a class that would have to leave two of it's core abilities in the dungeon than what we are discussing here.
Yes, some classes lose an ability or two (minor abilities at best).
But these are, as has been mentioned several times by supporters and protractors alike, essential to the class and significant boosts to their effectiveness.
I don't believe that it would take a total rewrite of the class to fix this issue. I think it would simply take writing alternative abilities to reflect a ground fighting Cavalier's abilities.
I'll just riff for a second...
Cavalier Charge (And it's upgrades). Simple fix. Give the ground fighting Cavalier the option to do a special ground charge.
Mount. Give the Cavalier a regular mount. Duh.
Expert Trainer. Drop it, replace it with a bonus feat. Etc.
Once again, playability over thematics please.
And Seeker, you look like you are just arguing, I'm not playing with you anymore.
I just fail to see the point of rewriting a whole class based on not liking the concept of said class. If you do not like it then do not play it
A small cavilar can run a dungeon just fine
A druid,ranger or paladin all have the same issues in a dungeon with large mounts
Unlike them 3 however your not talking one thing, your talking about a core concept of the class. Your asking for 2 versions of the same class , which is not the same thing as an alt feature like the other 3. they change 1 think your asking for 4 changes and a change of the class concept
I don't mind it as a total rewrite(which it is) but asking for it as a base is asking for 2 classes not 1 as they other 3 you guys point to change 1 class feature not 4(one being the classes capstone)
Edit: Stickman I don't care if ya play or not, but you have yet to show a single class in core that does what your asking
I just fail to see the point of rewriting a whole class based on not liking the concept of said class. If you do not like it then do not play it
A small cavilar can run a dungeon just fine
A druid,ranger or paladin all have the same issues in a dungeon with large mountsUnlike them 3 however your not talking one thing, your talking about a core concept of the class. Your asking for 2 versions of the same class , which is not the same thing as an alt feature like the other 3. they change 1 think your asking for 4 changes and a change of the class concept
I don't mind it as a total rewrite(which it is) but asking for it as a base is asking for 2 classes not 1 as they other 3 you guys point to change 1 class feature not 4(one being the classes capstone)
And like the OP said, the druid ranger and paladin all have OTHER OPTIONS besides the animal companion.
And really a small cavalier can run a dungeon just fine? You ever try getting something without hands over or out of a pit? It causes all sorts of complications in dungeons both published and homebrew.
The core concept doesnt have to change, as only a few abilities would be less useful. Its even possible to change those as well but not nessary, just like the ranger isnt as good if theres nothing to track or your not facing his favored enemy, or the paladin is less effective in a campain with few evil enemies. But a class whose major class feature cannot participate in a clasic dungeon adventure and cannot be changed is not good design.
The druid, ranger and paladin have 1 option changed not 4
The caviler is a mounted knight, that is the core concept. You change that and it's no longer the same class and yes that is a rewrite
and the mount pit is no more an issue then anything other companion .
I just fail to see the point of rewriting a whole class based on not liking the concept of said class. If you do not like it then do not play it
A small cavilar can run a dungeon just fine
A druid,ranger or paladin all have the same issues in a dungeon with large mountsUnlike them 3 however your not talking one thing, your talking about a core concept of the class. Your asking for 2 versions of the same class , which is not the same thing as an alt feature like the other 3. they change 1 think your asking for 4 changes and a change of the class concept
I don't mind it as a total rewrite(which it is) but asking for it as a base is asking for 2 classes not 1 as they other 3 you guys point to change 1 class feature not 4(one being the classes capstone)
If you think about it, you would only have to change the three mounted abilities and maybe the expert trainer one, the rest still make enough sense, so that's only half of them...Of course, the capstone is one of the three to change. The animal companion could possibly stay as is without causing an issue...just the choice to avoid focusing on the mount in someway would be nice.
If you think about it, you would only have to change the three mounted abilities and maybe the expert trainer one, the rest still make enough sense, so that's only half of them...Of course, the capstone is one of the three to change.
yep which is a total rewrite. Not a small change
yep which is a total rewrite. Not a small change
If you think about it, you would only have to change the three mounted abilities and maybe the expert trainer one, the rest still make enough sense, so that's only half of them...Of course, the capstone is one of the three to change.
Really? Does that mean each bloodline of the sorceror is a rewrite? Yes it might involve replacing or adjusting abilities, but its not a total rewrite. Half of the 'options' in the game define more abilities then that.
Really? Does that mean each bloodline of the sorceror is a rewrite? Yes it might involve replacing or adjusting abilities, but its not a total rewrite. Half of the 'options' in the game define more abilities then that.
So which is it? bloodlines or the "simple" change you want like a druid,ranger or paladin?
Bloodlines became a core concept and driving force behind that class. You have been claiming to want a small change( really a big change) and when faced with it really is a big change you go to bloodlines??
Sorry man you so lost me with this "small" change