|
Ok, first of all I'd like to state a disclaimer, I haven't had time to read through all the play-test threads, so if others have made similar observations, then I apologise, I felt it was better to air my 'findings' in what time I had, rather than checked to see if others noticed it too.
The first concern I have is the basis of comparison between Cavalier and Paladin. The Cavalier, as a class that has NO SPELLS and is FULL BAB should be compared to both the Fighter and the Barbarian first and foremost. Let’s not forget that Smite evil, albeit situational; is considered by many to be far too good.
In comparing the Cavalier to the BBQ, we see the power creep occurring.
1. Firstly, let’s look at damage output. Barbarian rage offers a small increase in to hit and damage, which lasts for a small amount of time, and has consequences for not running the whole ‘combat’. The corresponding damage produced, as well as the ‘orders’ that go along with it, outweighs the Barbarian, a class that is SUPPOSED to sacrifice Armour and utility for sheer damage output. The Cavalier on the other hand, has both AC and Damage potential, which immediately seems to break that underlying concept.
2. Let’s look at the fact that the Barbarian, again, has 4 skill points. Why was this the case in 3.5? Because it was a lightly armed fighter, the game designers felt that extra skill options were an offset, as abilities like jump and climb became more important, to offset the fact it couldn’t just walk into the middle of a fight. The Cavalier on the other hand retains all the ‘good’ proficiencies (face it, the Tower shield remains suboptimal, and as such is not exactly a major loss, particularly with the compulsory nature of power attack)
3. Class skills. The Cavalier gets ALL the Face skills, Bluff, Diplomacy, Sense Motive and Intimidate, and can add Perception by choosing an order that is quite worthwhile. This is FAR too good when combined with 4 skill points a level!
4. Rage is limited in application, the Challenge is not. It should have been a ‘rounds’ per day if it was to be kept in line with Bardsong and Rage, which are similar morale self buffs. The consistency already being thrown out the window is worrying, as is the language that mirrors 4e’s “End of Encounter” ambiguity.
5. The ‘flavour’ of the challenge doesn’t match its game effects. (I notice others have already commented on this, so won’t bring it up)
6. The Mount is too good!!! It should be Ranger equivalency, at BEST not Druid.
7. The Oath’s downsides are arbitrary at best, and unlike the Oracle’s downsides, aren’t actually an impediment. This should be altered; otherwise they are random role-playing penalties (which are often ignored/glossed over) for mechanical benefits. (Tome of Magic Binder BS anyone?)
8. Bonus Feats. This is where we draw a comparison to the fighter, not only does the Cavalier get a Druid companion, greater damage output EVERY COMBAT than a Barbarian, but it also gets almost as many feats as a Fighter! This again is excessive power creep.
In fact, the only thing I think is bad for the Cavalier is ‘opponents always flank him’ – this should be a static -2 penalty to AC, as flank has other connotations that may compound issues as the rules set develops .
Essentially, the Cavalier has me VERY worried. A lot of people here are talking about the comparisons with individual abilities such as smite evil or sneak attack, but few are noticing than the sum of these abilities are greater than what they should be in a base class, compared to the other ‘full BaB’ non-spell casting classes.
I guess that’s what play testing is for though! :)
Also, bonuses to hit are usually worth several times what bonuses to damage are. The level 1 barbarian's +2 to hit and +3 to damage (when was the last time you saw a barbarian using anything but a two-handed weapon?) easily beats the level 1 cavalier's +3.5 to damage.
|
|
It's worth mentioning that a similar thing happens when you compare the barbarian to classes which aren't barbarians.
I don't think so, not since Rage was reduce from an X times per day with 'Extra Rage'. It is no longer a one dip.
EVERY Fighter/Rogue will be taking two levels of Cavalier now - and that isn't something that was supposed to be encouraged. Those two levels net the same feat return, plus al lthe oath stuff, plus 1d6 damage versus one foe every encounter, plus more skills, the list goes on.
Crunching the numbers on Barbarian, we see that is suffers greatly from lost AC and from flexibility. Also Rage can get you killed now:
"If a barbarian falls unconscious, her rage immediately ends, placing her in peril of death."
Additionally, so much of the class's abilities are contingent on raging, that it is situational, whereas fighter etc are not.
Lets not forget that the Barbarian at level one can only rage on average, for 6 ROUNDS A DAY. Increasing that through feats makes power attack, etc difficult to get.
How is that even remotely equal to the corresponding amount of damage in every fight?
And lets not forget, that the Challenge damage goes up MUCH more than rage, and with the massive power attack nerf, those extra bonuses to hit aren't worth as much as they used to be!!!
|
|
Also, bonuses to hit are usually worth several times what bonuses to damage are. The level 1 barbarian's +2 to hit and +3 to damage (when was the last time you saw a barbarian using anything but a two-handed weapon?) easily beats the level 1 cavalier's +3.5 to damage.
This is the problem, comparing level one to level one, not the whole class, or totalling up abilities over a whole day, or even factoring in multi classing. (Cavalier is the new 'dip' class, like Barbarian used to be in 3.5)
This is the problem, comparing level one to level one, not the whole class, or totalling up abilities over a whole day, or even factoring in multi classing. (Cavalier is the new 'dip' class, like Barbarian used to be in 3.5)
I'm sorry, Cavalier really is no good as a dip class. You get +1d6 precision damage, a useless (past level 4 or so) animal companion, a bunch of oaths that give you almost no benefit for the hassle, and whichever challenge ability your Order gives you. I'd rather just take Fighter for the bonus feat and spend it on Weapon Focus; it'll be more average damage in almost every case.
|
Crunching the numbers on Barbarian, we see that is suffers greatly from lost AC and from flexibility. Also Rage can get you killed now:
"If a barbarian falls unconscious, her rage immediately ends, placing her in peril of death."
Rage could always get you killed. Even in 3.5 it was stated that the +CON HP were lost first when the rage ended. At least now barbarians can last until -CON (and what barbarian doesn't have a pretty hefty CON?).
I'm sorry, Cavalier really is no good as a dip class. You get +1d6 precision damage, a useless (past level 4 or so) animal companion, a bunch of oaths that give you almost no benefit for the hassle, and whichever challenge ability your Order gives you. I'd rather just take Fighter for the bonus feat and spend it on Weapon Focus; it'll be more average damage in almost every case.
I'm going to have to agree with this. You keep talking of Challenge as if it's the equivalent of the rogue sneak attack. I think most anybody who wants an additional +1d6 damage (which is barely a nick the higher in level you go) would agree that the automatic flanking is a pretty horrific disadvantage for barely any real advantage as levels go on. The oath is also likewise weak with just a dip into the class as most results provide a +1 bonus to a specific saving throw (yes I know there were exceptions).
This isn't to say that there still isn't some kind of imbalance in some cases, but that's what the beta test is for. I can think of very specific reasons I'd rather have a barbarian in the party (rage powers, fast movement, DR, improved uncanny dodge) over the cavalier's abilities which in a lot of campaigns won't see much playtime (I'm thinking most of the mounted abilities).
The thing that i think makes the most difference is that the challenge ability only works against one enemy, so once that guy is gone no more extra damage. where as with sneak attack and rage can be done against every thing as long as the circumstances are met.
that's just my 2 cents, but i don't really worry too much about balance a good DM really could take the most powerful character and put them in situations that would level the playing field.
Thanks to Metz for putting up this thread. I've seen things like this in other threads, but I feel that this needs its own area. I’ve seen people say that the Cavalier is a dip with chocolate sauce on top. I’ve seen play test threads where the Cavalier outperformed the Paladin.
I see a lot of talk about the “you are flanked” part of the Challenge and how bad it is. It is either one of two things: it is a -2 penalty to AC against everyone (except the foe you are challenging), if you are not fighting rogues (this is actually better than the Barbarian -2 penalty to AC). If you are fighting rogues, then they get their sneak attack in, but if you fight rogues then they are likely to get their sneak attack anyway. Does the Barbarian’s -2 penalty to AC discourage the Barbarian from raging?
Saying that the Cavalier is a class “heavily focused around their mount”, doesn’t take into account that none of the class abilities for the first two levels actually require you to be mounted (unless you want to be Order of the Dragon).
Lets look at the first two levels of Cavalier:
1: All Weapons, All Armor, 4 skill points, Challenge (+1d6), Order (more class skills, extra bonus to challenge), Oath (usually a random +1 bonus to saving throws), Mount.
2: Bonus Feat, Order Ability (usually something that takes an action to do)
This compares far too well against either Fighter or Barbarian. Against Fighter, you lose a feat but gain everything else. Against Barbarian, you gain a similar damage output, get one extra feat, lose slightly on the attack bonus when challenging (vs. raging), but can use Challenge in every encounter of the day, lose fast movement, but gain Heavy Armor Proficiency.
Arguing that "a good DM" should be able to modify the situation/playing field, is putting the problem back in the hands of the DM rather than making the Cavalier slightly more balanced in the first place.
I'm not sure what exactly is needed to balance the class, but it looks a little "too good" at the moment.
Let's dissect what you get for a two level dip vs a two level dip in Barbarian, then:
Cavalier:
+2 BAB
+2d10 HD (11 average hp)
+3 Fort save
10 class skills
8 skill points
Proficiency in all armors and simple and martial weapons
Challenge +1d6 (3.5 average damage)
Mount
Oaths (generally +1 to a specific sub-save, ie charm effects)
Order (2 class skills, skill-related bonus, challenge ability)
Bonus combat feat
Order ability
Barbarian:
+2 BAB
+2d12 HD (13 average hp)
+3 Fort save
10 class skills
8 skill points
Proficiency in light and medium armors and simple and martial weapons
Rage (+4 strength and con, +2 will save, -2 AC for 6+Con rounds/day; +2 to hit and +3 to damage effectively)
+10' movement
Rage power
Uncanny dodge (never flat-footed)
----
So, comparatively, the Cavalier has +2 class skills, heavy armor proficiency, a mount, and a bonus feat that the Barbarian doesn't have any equivalent to. The Barbarian has +2 hit points, +10' movement, and uncanny dodge that the Cavalier doesn't have any equivalent to.
Rage and Challenge (including the Order challenge improvement) are roughly equivalent at this level. Rage isn't usable in every encounter at this point, but it's better than challenge so that makes sense.
The rage power is roughly equivalent to the cavalier's order ability.
The Will and Fort save bonus for raging is roughly equivalent to the Oath bonuses.
----
So, we're really comparing 2 class skills, heavy armor, mount, and a bonus feat against 2 hit points, 10' movement, and uncanny dodge.
Heavy armor isn't that big a deal. Full plate is only +1 maximum AC over a breastplate.
The mount is nothing but a liability. With a 2 level dip in Cavalier, it has all of 13.5+3*Con hit points and no Evasion, which means it's a sitting duck.
----
So, now we're comparing 2 class skills and a bonus combat feat vs 2 hit points, 10' movement, and uncanny dodge.
I think that's a pretty even comparison.
Let's dissect what you get for a two level dip vs a two level dip in Barbarian
Nice summary:
Heavy Armor proficiency, while cheap (because most melee classes get it for free) is still something worthwhile because as a Strength based fighter you don't have the Dex to fill the Max Dex of a lot of armors, and because buying a +4 Dex booster costs more than making your armor mithril if you want to have +2 or +3 bonus to Dex. Also with a few fighter dips, you increase the Dex bonus of armor anyway.
I still think that Challenge is better at higher level for a dip. Say Fighter 8/Cav 2 rather than Fighter 8/Barbarian 2, because you virtually have to invest a feat (Extra Rage) to be able to use Rage enough during a day, but the Challenge keeps going all day.
At high levels 2 hp is nothing, 10' move is still good (won't work in heavy armor), and uncanny dodge is ok, but I would still prefer a feat.
I agree it is close, but if Barbarian is close to a good dip for most melee fighters and Cavalier doesn't have the only real limitation on Rage that Barbarian has, then (in my opinion), it has to be a great class to dip.
It's worth mentioning that a similar thing happens when you compare the barbarian to classes which aren't barbarians.
Okay, this thread is kind of a necro but I have to say that I just had to endure a mix of vodka and root beer in my sinuses goddammit.
Changes I'd like:
-Challenge improved every five levels instead of every four, up to a maximum of 5d6 at level 20.
-Remove Bluff from the skill list, it doesn't seem to be much in tone with the flavor of the class.
-Mount acquired at a later level, ideally at level 4 or 5, and given an effective animal companion level of -3 or -4. I know that a cavalier might not really live up to his name without a steed but you could just think of him as an up an coming squire or something instead until he does get the horse.
-Fewer, if any, bonus feats. I feel this is treading on the Fighter's toes a bit too much.
I really do love the idea behind the cavalier and it's the class I've been waiting for for a really long time. I don't think there's anything inherently wrong with any of the abilities except for their power. With a bit of tweaking he'd be perfect.
I guess that’s what play testing is for though!
Yes.
Also, the sky is falling.
I guess that’s what play testing is for though!Yes.
Also, the sky is falling.
Your perspective is wrong. What you call sky I call far wall. And the walls are getting closer.
Your perspective is wrong. What you call sky I call far wall. And the walls are getting closer.
Also, the sky is falling.
I knew my Frames Per Second were getting better and here I thought it was the new video card drivers.
Why does a Cavalier need a special mount in the first place?
Do you want to use it past level 5? 2HD mount is not much, try seeing how long it lives with a CR12 encounter. Why attack you when the mount is easier to hit and kill hands down, one fireball and you charge is done
To make a mounted class in pathfinder it really must have a companion or once ya gain level killing the mount is the best and easiest way to take you down. Even without meta gaming it dies damned easy past level 5 or 6
However if it is a companion it's useful and allows you to use your mounted class ability, without the mount dieing before your halfway there
Perhaps let the Cavalier always take damage from an attack in place of his mount?They can already do better: They can simply negate any hit to thier mount by taking the Mounted Combat Feat at 1dt lvl.
Nobody is looking at the already existing Mounted Feats.
A Human Fighter at 1st lvl can get Mounted Combat (1st lvl Feat), Rid-By Attack (bonus Human Feat) and Spirited Charge (Fighter lvl1 bonus Feat) with a Ride skill of at least 1. That allows a 1st lvl Human Fighter to use a Lance for trip[le damage on the charge.
Something afforded a CAV under the current article at 20th lvl.
The write up doesn't make sense. The more I read it I find flaws, and they are basic. Currently, a Druid's companion is an autonomous functionary, meaning it can roam around the battle field and fight however an animal of it's type woul dnormally fight subject to prompts from the Druid. Cavalier (in theory) are meant to RIDE thier compainions as mounts (since they are called "mounts") into combat, meaning they should follow the rules for Combat Wile Mounted (pg201). Neither Druid Companions nor Cavalier Mounts currently come with skills, which is necessary for mounts to have if they are to be trained for Combat without the Rider needing to take a DC20 check any time he wants to move his mount through a combat. That should be basic, and negated in the CAV write up, but is not. That plus the fact that the other Mounted Combat rules and other mounted Feats are ignored tells me that this is not completely thought through. It's a jumble of good ideas, but it hasn't been looked at in context with other PF rules.
This Class needs a pretty significan't overhaul from what I see.
Read Mounted Combat, Ride-by Attack, Sprited Charge, Trample, Improved Overrun and Unseat (and to a lesser degree, Mounted Archery).
I tend to agree with this assessment. It's not clear how the new mounted combat and animal handling rules jive with the cavalier.
Also, I think realistically there's a huge loophole with the mounts being "full druid" companions - you will get people taking stuff from wolves to dinos as mounts and using them as independent fighters, not as true mounts, which is too much of a power boost for this class. "Mount not killed under me all the time" - OK. "I'm like the best parts of a fighter, barbarian, and druid all together" - not so much.
|
Only once per round though. Hehe, have had lots of arguments about this one, and how if that is followed the feat officially sucks.They can already do better: They can simply negate any hit to thier mount by taking the Mounted Combat Feat at 1dt lvl.
and it requires an immediate action now as well which means that it shuts down your using of your challenge mechanic. Which means that they are aware of the current mounted combat feat rules.
Neither Druid Companions nor Cavalier Mounts currently come with skills, which is necessary for mounts to have if they are to be trained for Combat without the Rider needing to take a DC20 check any time he wants to move his mount through a combat.
Sir, I suggest you re-read the entry on druid animal companions. There are two separate sections devoted to the animal companion's skills, not to mention the column in the table labeled Skills. They are definitely there.
|
|
No, it's another problem with the way Challenge is written, though. Mounted Combat is the initial feat for mouted fighting, and if useing it negates the Cavalier Challenges ability because an Immediate Action (using Mouted Combat to negat a successful attack against one's mount) nullifies the use of other Immediate or Swift Actions (Challenges, in the latter case). That's an oversight, not taking into acount that a predominantly mounted Class willhave both that Feat and want to Challenge.
As I said before, the more I dig through the Class, inconsistancies continually pop up. It's a great idea, but without enough focus.
I disagree, that's the reason it has AnCo to give it enough HP that you can choose between mounted combat ad challenge one round in the combat, as opposed to a fighter who literally has to use mounted combat every single round, managing resources including actions is a part of the DnD game. And having mounted combat without an AnCo feature probably won't matter anyways because the enemy will just make a second attack and past level 5 very few monsters can't kill a standard horse with one blow. I know of two seperate characters in my past who were mounted but weren't ranger or druid and had to deal with half their feats being made useless after one round of combat.
I knew my Frames Per Second were getting better and here I thought it was the new video card drivers.Your perspective is wrong. What you call sky I call far wall. And the walls are getting closer.
Also, the sky is falling.
Not like that. Despite what some people say.
The advantage is that now we can increase the detail levels. More shades of grey. We need as many of those as we can get!
Oh. I suppose mechanics are the only real consideration for the Cavalier.
In Pathfinder, you can have your cake and eat it, too. And it's the non-lie cake, too.
But all that is lost if you run around with one eye closed.
Ruins depth perception, too.
|
|
@ lastknightleft:I don't know what the abbreviation "AnCo" stands for, but you make my point for me: I'm suggesting that the Cav mount SHOULDN'T be like any "standard horse". The Oaths could be dropped in favor of adding better rules for making Mounts much better for Cavs, so that by the time the Cav and his mount ARE fighting dragons, Silver can't go down in one blow. I think the Companion rules are just a start.
inmal mpanion
I use AnCo instead of AC because when scanning through thread titles I often don't know without reading through the thread if their talking about Armor Class or Animal Companions, and since in general I don't like seeing the same acronym mean different things I never use AC to mean Animal Companions, I always use AnCo.
Anyways, I was disagreeing with you saying that caveliers challange puts it at odds with its mounted combat abilities. I disagreed saying that the AnCo feature of mounts means that the horse has enough HP that you can choose between using mounted combat and using challenge. In the same way a spellcaster has to choose between casting a spell, and using its school abilities, just because both require an action doesn't mean they are at odds. If challange took a swift action every round then yes they are at odds, but it doesn't you activate it one round and go back to using mounted combat, the AnCo HP makes it possible to do so without your horse dying the one round you ignore it.
Also the animal companion starts knowing one trick, but by the end of level one can have learned all of the tricks it's capable of learning if you use handle animal to train it. then every time you get an additional bonus trick. I think the mount feature is already an increadibly unique animal. Especially since you can give it a single point of int and it will become self-aware. I don't think there is a problem at all with the mount as it is right now.
What's this got to do with air conditioning?
|
|
(ignores Randal - lol)
Actually, I think that the Mounted Combat immediate action thing causing it to be at odds with Challenges is one of two things: (a) and oversight, or (b) something that is intended to be rectified with a Cav exclusive Feat. Remember, we're only privy to the class write-ups at the moment.
In either case, it's a shame. If the conflict was overlooked, it needs to be adjusted for so the Class can use mounted combat with the challenge. If the conflict was known, and th intent is to clear up the conflict witha Feat later, then how is the Cavalier mount special other than it's basically an "AnCo" for a fighter?
So just out of curiosity is it a conflict that a wizard can't cast a spell and use his schools granted ability at the same time?