If you don't want my opinion, then please do not ask

Website Feedback

I do not know how long this will stay up here, but I feel that as someone who buys, and plays your products, you should give me a moment here. The purpose of this thread is stated as

"This board is for posting feedback, observations, and playtest reports on the Cavalier and Oracle base classes set to appear in the Advanced Player's Guide"

I stated my opinion -ie feedback-. Just because it's not what you did not want to hear does not make it unvaled. I understand that no matter what is said on this board you will go ahead and publish what you want to, and that's your right. But please do not ask for my opinion and then shoot me down when I give it.

-an offended Customer

I'm confused. What on Earth are you ranting on about?

Paizo Employee Chief Creative Officer, Publisher

I'm confused too. I spent some time looking at the threads you've posted to, and I don't see anyone shutting you down. Specifically, I don't see any Paizo staff members being rude to you. Could you be a little more clear about your specific concern?

Dark Archive

Erik, I thuink he is refering to this thread.

Sorry it's been a long day. I'm refering to the thread "cavalier as a class is redundant".

Paizo Employee Chief Creative Officer, Publisher

Wait, I think I figured it out. Are you referring to your opinion that cavalier should not be a base class?

At this point, the ship has sailed. We've ordered expensive art, announced the class as part of the book, and spent significant time developing it.

Furthermore, since the beginning of the Open Playtest for the APG, we've continued to get valuable feedback that will help us improve the class.

"I don't think it should be a class," while it is feedback, is not valuable feedback at this time, because the decision to make it a full class was made a long time ago, and it is not going to change. I appreciate your opinion on the matter (though I do not share it), and I'm sure there are other gamers who agree with you. But the die is cast, and having a whole thread about how it shouldn't be a class is not a productive use of the playtest's focus at this point. We're making a cavalier class. If you don't think it should exist as such, I direct you to the five additional new classes in this book, or the 11 in the Core Rulebook.

If you are invited to a test screening of a movie, and the producers ask for your opinion, they want to know what they can do to make their movie more attractive to you as a movie.

Saying something like "I think it should be a painting" isn't tremendously helpful.

Jason locked the thread because they cannot remove one of the base classes or change them to prestige classes at this point. The design cycle is too far along. Removing the class would mean they suddenly have to fill in with another class, and there are tons and tons of changes that would have to be made to make the class into a PrC, too many changes for the time they have.

The class is set, That's not gonna change, a thread saying it should be cut is kinda useless and just spawns unless arguments and talks.

This happens in a playtest, pointless threads are shut down to redirect the focuse.It was nothing personal, just cutting something off that added nothing and spawned no usable feedback

Silver Crusade

Would it be fair to say that part of it is just what forum it was on? I don't think the good folks at Paizo are suggesting their work is beyond criticism. That type of criticism might be fair game on the Pathfinder general forum, or someplace similar, but not on the playtest forum specifically because it does not generate useable playtest feedback. I could be wrong, but that's my sense of things anyway.

Paizo Employee Senior Software Developer

[moved thread to website feedback forum]

Honestly, I had the same thing happen to me during the prestige class playtest. It wasn't malicious or an attempt to shut me down (I'm personally very critical of mechanics that I don't think are sound, and my threads never get locked). Jason very calmly explained that it was too far into the process to make any changes to the roster. He wasn't trying to be a jerk by locking your thread, it's just that these forums are here to discuss the actual class writeups, not the validity of those classes' existence.

Liberty's Edge

I am actually kind of curious what ratio of people who do not like the cavalier base class were players of 1st edition using Unearthed Arcana. Conversely, how many supporters played 1st supplemented with UA?

It doesn't "prove" anything and really serves no practical purpose. All it really does is satisfy an interesting thought I had run through my mind. I am just curious if having "old school" experience with the class makes one more open to its inclusion in Pathfinder. I know I was overjoyed when I saw the class was to be developed for the APG. Most of that had to do with nostalgia and a deep love for early edition D&D. In some ways I think this is a further showcase for Paizo's respect of grognards like me.

I wonder how many 1st edition players felt the cavalier was unnecessary then and think it is now or how many liked the cavalier then but feel it is useless now? And how many players who haven't played 1st edition like or dislike the concept? Did these same people dislike the 3.5 knight?

There are so many questions that I can't cover them all. But you catch my drift. Just an interesting sociological exercise and nothing more.

I know this goes rather off topic and likely shouldn't be spawned into a thread at all. Just sort expressing the thoughts that swam around in my head while reading this thread and the two in the playtest forum that touch on the subject.

I never played 1e came in at 2e so have no history with the class, but am loving the new class myself

Grand Lodge

I started playing in 2004/5 with 3.5 and I can't say I find the cavalier interesting at all.

I played 2nd edition, but did not learn the rules too well. I played 3.5, of course, and while I like the idea I dont care for the mechanics. If I had more free time I would look more into it to give a better explanation. The best I can say for now is it doesn't really jump out at me.

I started playing in 1st Edition and UA; therefore the class was always there (for me). Personally, I appreciate that the class has been included by Paizo.

Let's playtest, and see where it goes!

I started with 3.0 being a youngin, but before I got started my Dad gave me all of his 1st edition and Ad&d books so I got a feel for them then got very confused when I was introduced at the beginning of the school year to 3.0 by the school GEEK club. Still I am enjoying this class being someone who has designed over a dozen classes for his own campaign worlds and gaming groups I can appreciate and also have a lot of fun with play tests. Also my players are used to these kind of things being randomly added to the campaign.

I don't understand where the Cavalier fits in. When I think of all of the core classes, very distinct ideas of what they can do springs to mind. They all have strong core concepts that make them good at particular things.

The cavalier on the other hand... Nothing comes to mind. I've read the rules and it just seems to be a hodge podge of bonuses from oaths, orders, and issuing challenges. They get bonuses to mounted combat as well, further confusing things. This is where the Cavalier really needs improvement. There's nothing really iconic about the class like the paladin's holy sword and smite evil or the rogue's sneak attack and mass of skills.

The oracle has a slightly similar problem, where the focii and curses seem to confuse matters. But they at least have the spontaneous divine caster part going for them.

Mylon wrote:

I don't understand where the Cavalier fits in. When I think of all of the core classes, very distinct ideas of what they can do springs to mind. They all have strong core concepts that make them good at particular things.

See he is ment to be the mounted knight, a class you can not really effectually pull off in core without going paladin. And even the paladin is limited to LG and a warrior of a god. The caviler is broader, more varied. To be a mount focused class it really must be a companion , your 2HD horse will not last long in a CR12 fight

That really is the role, mounted warrior, with heavy knight overtones, hince oaths and challenges

Unfortunately the 2 HD horse in a CR 12 fight is a bit of a limitation of the system and how it handles higher power encounters. The paladin mount makes sense in being magical creature.

I thought I saw something in the Pathfinder rules to upgrade a mount's HD by a fixed amount (+2 or +4) to better compensate for this.

Alternately, a fighter (or any player) could acquire a sturdy mount with the leadership feat.

Knight is much about fluff and flavor than game mechanics. That's what this class feels like, trying to substitute flavor and gameplay with more game mechanics.

That really does not help, 2 or 4 HD is nothing but a liability at 12th level, and the leadership feats really does not help without houserules

Sure a fighter can do it, but the system is not set up for your 2 HD mount to take on a dragon or any other CR critter of your level with you, it really needs to be an animal companion to work

I think the caviler fills an archtype that really can't be done effectively with the current classes but YMMV

Liberty's Edge

I started playing AD&D pre-UA. MY group wasn't particularly enamored with the Cavalier (or the barbarian, frankly) and ignored the classes in that book (paladins stayed a fighter subclass). All we ever used out of UA were the new weapons, spells and magic items, but most of them were already in modules at that point, so it was more like a consolidation for us.

As far as the impact on my like/dislike of this Cavalier, it has none. Different system, different paradigm, different, well, everything. Any opinion I have of the Pathfinder Cavalier will be on the its own merits.

I know the cavalier from the UA days, I played a drow cavalier mounted on a nightmare in an evil group way back then - yeah, it was silly and over the top, but a lot of fun nevertheless. The mechanics of the class back then were kind of wierd, but hey, in AD&D 1, a lot of weird mechanics could be found. (surprise rolls, psionics, bards, to name just a few)
I see the iconic value of a mounted knight beyond what the paladin can be, and I have a knight (PHB2 class) in my (momentarily paused) campaign, so I´m all for the inclusion of this class, not only due to nostalgia.


Community / Forums / Paizo / Website Feedback / If you don't want my opinion, then please do not ask All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.
Recent threads in Website Feedback