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
I dont think i said anything about the change being small, i am simply saying it is not a total rewrite. There is i believe some room between those two things.
You could probably clear up most of the balancer and playability issues by simply doing the following...
Cavalier Charge (Ex):
A cavalier learns to make more accurate charge attacks either on foot or on his mount. The cavalier receives a +4 bonus on melee attack rolls on a charge while on foot or mounted (instead of the normal +2). In addition, the cavalier does not suffer any penalty to his
AC after making a charge attack while mounted.
I dont think i said anything about the change being small, i am simply saying it is not a total rewrite. There is i believe some room between those two things.
Sorry my mistake then. I keep hearing in this thread it's on pare with the druid,paladin and ranger options. When it is not. It is on pare with the Alt paladin builds as you really are changing the entire flavor and core concept of the class
You could probably clear up most of the balancer and playability issues by simply doing the following...
Cavalier Charge (Ex):
A cavalier learns to make more accurate charge attacks either on foot or on his mount. The cavalier receives a +4 bonus on melee attack rolls on a charge while on foot or mounted (instead of the normal +2). In addition, the cavalier does not suffer any penalty to his
AC after making a charge attack while mounted.
I almost posted this exact thing, but decided against it. Good idea though, it could work with all the mounted abilities....
Sorry my mistake then. I keep hearing in this thread it's on pare with the druid,paladin and ranger options. When it is not. It is on pare with the Alt paladin builds as you really are changing the entire flavor and core concept of the classI dont think i said anything about the change being small, i am simply saying it is not a total rewrite. There is i believe some room between those two things.
I was saying that it is neccessary for the same reasons the alternative is available with the paladin/ranger/druid. The animal companion isnt always campaign friendly. I didnt mean to say it will be as simple a switch. I do believe the flavor can be sustained. After all, mideval knights rode to war on horse back, but much of their lives was spent on foot, in court, and even in battle on foot depending on the conditions. I know the name cavalier implies mounted warrior, but that doesnt mean they have to have a 'special' mount.
I just don't want to see the class that severely limited in a mountless situation.
It's a pretty big class feature.
It also makes sense thematically in that many a knight has charged among his companions on foot on the field of battle.
An "on foot" appending to the charge would be a great move in this direction.
It would not be an "alt" to the mounted, just, in addition to...
]
I was saying that it is neccessary for the same reasons the alternative is available with the paladin/ranger/druid. The animal companion isnt always campaign friendly.
See thats what some folks are missing however. The classes in this book are roles you really can not pull off with the core classes. The cavilers role is mounted warrior. They added stuff for non mounted combat as building it 100% around that is useless but it was made to fill the mounted combat role
You can not do this role with the current rules. Sure you can make a mounted fighter but without a companion mount he will never be very effective you'll need to have 10 backups with you
Your asking to change something that is the whole of the reason the class was made. He is made to BE the mounted knight, He is made to Fill that role, that is the whole of the point of making the class was to have a effective mounted classes
I agree with Kolokotroni, and disagree with you SeekerofShadowLight.
Paizo in their rewrites of many of the classes for Pathfinder (Cleric & Sorcerer, for example) offer a kind of option with many variations -- so there could be a precedent for a drastic alteration of a "core" that may or may not be a total rewrite. I would guess that what Pathfinder/Paizo wants more than anything is a class that is most playable... In fact, within the design of the class now a many varied option already exists with the "Orders". Some orders could be dedicated to having something like a type of mount, others to having an empowered cohort (squire idea of Kolokotroni's), or a single weapon that he gains mastery over (my idea above, using the gaining of access to feats with the one bonded weapon, non-magical). Use the three or class features you are talking about as "Order Power" slots and up their magnitude.
Perhaps the better question would be not "Is the cavalier good?", it may be "Is there a need for the cavalier?" Mounted combat and mounted games (games where mounts would be most useful by design) has a decent and fair method of existing as is with Druids or Rangers taking the right animal companion, a paladin's mount or the "mounted combat feat" choices open to all classes (familiar as mount may be do-able as well).
That being said, the concept of a honorable soldier or rather a warrior that is empowered not by a god (Paladins) or pure skill (Fighter) but conviction and oath swearing I think doesn't exist. Perhaps a renaming is in order, drop or recreate the cavalier. Instead have one that allows for Samurai, Noble Warrior, Knight, etc. to exist.
I REALLY like what I consider to be the true "core" of the cavalier -- the Challenge, Oaths, Banner and Order abilities --- but am non-plussed by the mount specific area. I don't think it is as needed, then again, I rarely DM or play in campaigns with lots of emphasis on mounted combat (because it is kind of limited).
If nothing else, I hope Paizo considers adapting the Challenge and Oath system TO a samurai/honorable warrior (I don't like honorable because it doesn't allow for the "Oath of Vengeance/Greed", etc. angle, which I love that they added.)
This class also helps for those that are interested in playing or running a magic-lite world where not everyone is running around with +5 swords and wands of butt-kickery.
I almost posted this exact thing, but decided against it. Good idea though, it could work with all the mounted abilities....You could probably clear up most of the balancer and playability issues by simply doing the following...
Cavalier Charge (Ex):
A cavalier learns to make more accurate charge attacks either on foot or on his mount. The cavalier receives a +4 bonus on melee attack rolls on a charge while on foot or mounted (instead of the normal +2). In addition, the cavalier does not suffer any penalty to his
AC after making a charge attack while mounted.
thats not a bad change at all, I would not add it to the other ones as it does not fit but it does fit that one well and would make it more useful
heh "I challenge the big orc..then Charge!!"
Was that really Pathfinder's intention, to create a mount-specific class? Where do the designers say that?
I just don't want to see the class that severely limited in a mountless situation.
It's a pretty big class feature.
It also makes sense thematically in that many a knight has charged among his companions on foot on the field of battle.An "on foot" appending to the charge would be a great move in this direction.
It would not be an "alt" to the mounted, just, in addition to...
I think this is a good compromise, keep everything the same, just make his abilities not specifically tied to the mount by appending the charging abilities. His mount is still worthwhile this way, and the features still work on foot. (although I don't know if increased threat range on charges makes a lot of sense on foot...)
I almost posted this exact thing, but decided against it. Good idea though, it could work with all the mounted abilities....You could probably clear up most of the balancer and playability issues by simply doing the following...
Cavalier Charge (Ex):
A cavalier learns to make more accurate charge attacks either on foot or on his mount. The cavalier receives a +4 bonus on melee attack rolls on a charge while on foot or mounted (instead of the normal +2). In addition, the cavalier does not suffer any penalty to his
AC after making a charge attack while mounted.thats not a bad change at all, I would not add it to the other ones as it does not fit but it does fit that one well and would make it more useful
heh "I challenge the big orc..then Charge!!"
Regardless of all other aspects of this discussion, that addition would be appreciated. One problem I saw in playing with this was that teh challenge mechanic is useful but it would be nice to be able to cross the gap or battle with a bit more power backing you, instead of just the standard "charge" rules.
I think this is a good compromise, keep everything the same, just make his abilities not specifically tied to the mount by appending the charging abilities. His mount is still worthwhile this way, and the features still work on foot. (although I don't know if increased threat range on charges makes a lot of sense on foot...)I just don't want to see the class that severely limited in a mountless situation.
It's a pretty big class feature.
It also makes sense thematically in that many a knight has charged among his companions on foot on the field of battle.An "on foot" appending to the charge would be a great move in this direction.
It would not be an "alt" to the mounted, just, in addition to...
Someone who specializes in a combat style (be that charging on foot or on horse) could still learn to be better at applying that combat style -- so i would say the increased threat range would be appropriate. It wouldn't break the mechanics I don't think.
Was that really Pathfinder's intention, to create a mount-specific class? Where do the designers say that?
It was said a few times, in chat for one long ago when the name first came up was another
I don't mind folks disagreeing, be boreing if we all hummed long liek happy little drones
I do think it is not gonna happen in the first book, it's to be a change for a base option. However as I have said before when a OA book comes out I think the caviler reworked into a Samurai would be cool as of all the classes we have seen so far that best matches it with some reworking just like Rogue is a ninja with new talents
One thing to consider, if you were going to do some kind of "tactical advice" change, then you'd want to keep in mind, since this is not just a "mount as animal companion" but also has 3 or 4 other dedicated abilities, it is fairly strong (i.e. stronger than just Ranger's switch).
I would suggest you first look to the Bard's "Inspire X" ability... Courage and Heroics for instance...
Also, you could consider him giving additional bonuses to the various actions they take. For instance, in a 30' radius and able to hear the Cavalier, all allies gain +1 competence bonus in addition to normal bonuses when they are flanking an enemy or taking a defensive stance. This would account for the Cav giving them specific advice. Perhaps make this cost a move action or a at least a swift action. If you are going to have it require an action though, could be better still.
Example:
As a full round action, the Cavalier can give advice to allies within earshot. Anyone that takes his tactical advice gains a +1 dodge bonus to AC and +1 morale bonus to attacks. This ability lasts for a number of rounds equal to the cavalier's Chr modifier +3.
Was that really Pathfinder's intention, to create a mount-specific class? Where do the designers say that?
It was said a few times, in chat for one long ago when the name first came up was another
I don't mind folks disagreeing, be boreing if we all hummed long liek happy little drones
I do think it is not gonna happen in the first book, it's to be a change for a base option. However as I have said before when a OA book comes out I think the caviler reworked into a Samurai would be cool as of all the classes we have seen so far that best matches it with some reworking just like Rogue is a ninja with new talents
Samurai, real samurai, quite often were mounted troops, so realistically "samurai" isn't even a modification from "cavalier" just a name switch.
As for their comments that it is meant to fill the mounted gap, the description in the book is:
CAVALIER
While many warriors strive to perfect their art, spending
all of their time honing their skill at martial arms, others
spend as much effort dedicating themselves to a cause.
These warriors, known as cavaliers, swear themselves to
a purpose, serving it above all else. Cavaliers are skilled
at fighting from horseback, and are often found charging
across a battlefield, with the symbol of their order trailing
on a long, fluttering banner. The cavalier’s true power
comes from the conviction of his ideals, the oaths that he
swears, and the challenges he makes.
<emphasis added>
Role: Cavaliers tend to marshal forces on the battlefield,
using their mounted talents and challenges to control
the flow of the fight. Outside of battle, cavaliers can be
found advancing their cause through diplomacy and, if
needed, subterfuge. The cavalier is no stranger to courtly
intrigue and can hold his own in even the most delicate
of social situations.
italics comments are about mounts specifically, the dedication to a cause is bold.... dedication seems to be the stated purpose, not so much mounted?
Just a thought: Cavalier, in the origin of the word means exactly the same as horseman. I believe the class really should be inclined to mounted combat, and its power already is not very diminished when without a mount.
stuff
I would say you are bolding what you want to be most important and tossing the other part out. It places as much importance on Mounted skill in that as it does anything else
And they picked a name that means mounted soldier. You can not take the mount out of the class and still have the same class, no more then you can take "Holy, LG or the code" out of a paladin and still be a paladin
stuffI would say you are bolding what you want to be most important and tossing the other part out. It places as much importance on Mounted skill in that as it does anything else
How about a breakdown by class level:
8 times -- Challenge Ability -- 7 levels +1d6, +1 level for Demanding Challenge
5 times -- Oath Ability -- 5 levels
5 times -- Mount & Charge -- 1st level + 4 specifics
5 times -- Bonus (Combat) Feats -- 5 feats
4 times -- Order Ability -- 1st level + 3 Specifics
4 times -- Banner Ability -- Gained at one level, but increases every 5
The emphasis is first and foremost on the Challenge ability. Then, equally weighted would be Oaths, Bonus Feats and Mount specific abilities. Then Order and Banner abilities.
Just a thought: Cavalier, in the origin of the word means exactly the same as horseman. I believe the class really should be inclined to mounted combat, and its power already is not very diminished when without a mount.
etymology argument isn't necessarily the greatest as the source of some classes abuses the term.
For instance, Paladin
from http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?search=paladin&searchmode=none
1592, "one of the 12 knights in attendance on Charlemagne," from M.Fr. paladin "a warrior," from It. paladino, from L. palatinus "palace official;" noun use of palatinus "of the palace" (see palace). The O.Fr. form of the word was palaisin (which gave M.E. palasin, c.1400); the It. form prevailed because, though the matter was French, the poets who wrote the romances were mostly Italians.
Or look to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paladin
Regardless, "paladins" were soldiers of Charlemagne, whom was a religious king but it would not HAVE to include "holy, LG or the code" in the way Pathfinder uses those terms...
Other class names like "Barbarian" essentially translate or etymologically mean "foreigner" or "not Greek". Nothing in there about "rage" -- "Beserker" would be a better term for the barbarian
1822, introduced by Sir Walter Scott, from O.N. berserkr (n.) "raging warrior of superhuman strength," probably from *ber- "bear" + serkr "shirt," thus lit. "a warrior clothed in bearskin." The -r was O.N. masc. singular ending, mistaken for agent noun suffix. The adj. is 1867, from such phrases as go berserk.
from: http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?search=berserk&searchmode=none
The reason they used that name was the class is about mounted combat. It was said they would add other stuff for when you needed to be off the mount so it would not be useless for the times you could not take the mount (I say this is the challenge and oaths) but the class has always been about mounted combat
That is what the class is made for and they way the system is it's just not effective to build one without an animal companion. That's just the way it is. So the class was always meant to fill that role which can not be done with the current classes (other then a paladin with a crapload of baggage)
They even picked a name with D&D mounted combat baggage to use. Getting ride of the mount is counter the the very core of the class is all I am saying
Or ridden his squire who has more hitpoints !!!
BAD IMAGE!!! BAD IMAGE!!!
Current set up allows for quite a few ways to make useful mounts.
Paladins, Rangers and Druids all have the "animal companion" option, the basis of the cavalier's mount. Clerics of the Animal Domain can gain an animal companion.
Then there are two creative routes to getting around your 2HD horse concern.
First off, the only thing stopping a wizard from taking a mountable familiar is your DM. A level adjustment for the familiar's abilities might be appropriate (think of how D&D 3.5 had options). But a sorcerer could easily have a pony as his hyper intelligent familiar mount.
Then also, why would a level 20 fighter be riding on a 1st level horse? Why a horse at all? Why not something a bit more meaty? Allow them to take Leadership and use a mountable animal as their cohort? Or just allow them to try to mount a bigger, badder animal. The bestiary is full of nasty monsters that one could ride with enough skill in ride and handle animal.
The big benefits of being a cavalier are about getting a regular horse to be stronger and then charge attacks. Its not even about getting a better mount then -- like be a dark knight riding a nightmare into battle.
Other options and work arounds exist as well.
Current set up allows for quite a few ways to make useful mounts.
Paladins, Rangers and Druids all have the "animal companion" option, the basis of the cavalier's mount. Clerics of the Animal Domain can gain an animal companion.
Paladin will work in a fashion with all the baggage that comes with it. A ranger can take the mount but does not have the class ablitys to make use of it nor the feats to make a good build. A druid just does not work at all to make the classic mounted knight
Then there are two creative routes to getting around your 2HD horse concern.First off, the only thing stopping a wizard from taking a mountable familiar is your DM. A level adjustment for the familiar's abilities might be appropriate (think of how D&D 3.5 had options). But a sorcerer could easily have a pony as his hyper intelligent familiar mount.
Houerules are not a good argument as to why you can not do something by the rules.
Then also, why would a level 20 fighter be riding on a 1st level horse? Why a horse at all? Why not something a bit more meaty? Allow them to take Leadership and use a mountable animal as their cohort? Or just allow them to try to mount a bigger, badder animal. The bestiary is full of nasty monsters that one could ride with enough skill in ride and handle animal.
This really does not help much. The list you may take is very small and as a beast they do not level up without class level unless you houserule it.
The big benefits of being a cavalier are about getting a regular horse to be stronger and then charge attacks. Its not even about getting a better mount then -- like be a dark knight riding a nightmare into battle.Other options and work arounds exist as well.
Again not really and none of them pull it off as well. To make a really effective mounted class it must have a companion the leadership is a workaround but even that is not as good as the companion
Lets look to be sure. I'll use a none flying mount as for now there is no flying mount companion for any class.
Unicorn you must be level 8 to have it
Defense
Init:+3
AC 15, touch 12, flat-footed 12; (+3 Dex, +3 natural, –1 size; +2 deflection vs. evil)
hp 34 (4d10+12)
Fort +7, Ref +7, Will +6; +2 resistance vs. evil
Immune charm, compulsion, poison
Statistics
Str 18, Dex 17, Con 16, Int 11, Wis 21, Cha 24
So your feat has got you a mount with 34 hp and AC of 15 and some magic ablitys
Horse animal companion
Defense
Init:+3
AC 20, (+3 Dex, +8 natural, –1 size; )
hp 60 (8d8+24)
Fort +8, Ref +2, Will +3;
Statistics
Str 20, Dex 15, Con 16, Int 2, Wis 12, Cha 6
and has evasion
So yeah your level 8 feat mount has some spells but is no where as tough as the horse
|
The point with rangers paladins and druids was to give them an alternate so that you had differentiation in builds, the cavalier already has that in his orders and his oaths. throw in an alternate to the mount and your looking at too many abilities with too many possible combinations that would take longer to playtest than we currently have time. While I do understand that a mount isn't useful in every situation it is a core element of the class. It would be like a spell-less cleric.
And while you can get a book later on that can offer alternates (just like a spell-less cleric) the first book he is released in is a little early to be asking for it.