You say rebuilding the chart would be unproductive yet that is exactly what Pathfinder has done to improve animal companions. I agree don't make cavaliers dependent on a mount but at the same time don't give them the freedom a druid has with his companion. Is It possible? I dunno, but ATM the cavalier is simply stepping on the toes of the druid/ranger with nothing really setting them apart.
<snip>
For me the biggest concern for mounts is their use as companions. The idea behind a mount for cavalier is its use as a mount yet from comments people have made on these threads they look at ways of using the mount as an ally, providing flanks or other assistance. That's not the intent of a mount or the intended use of a cavaliers ability, its a side effect that turns the cavalier into an combat orientated armored druid without spells.
'Combat oriented armored druid without spells' could apply to rangers and paladins just as much as cavaliers. Classes always overlap; its no reason to dismiss them.
The thing is, PF made consistent rules for the 'animal helper' that can be applied quite reasonably to every class that gets them. Your argument against mounts is just as sensible when applied to paladins - there is no reason a paladin is obliged to ride their special friend, even though it's called a mount. There's no way you can expect this to change for cavaliers, especially if you don't specifically penalize their class abilities sans mount - which then makes them dependent on the mount, which you already agree is a bad plan.
Affording cavaliers a wide variety of options is harmless and amusing (wild elf cavaliers riding wolves, halflings astride giant toads, dwarves charging into combat bearback). The cost of that- your "Oh no, what if they don't ride them?!"- is one that PF has already demonstrated it's willingness to pay.
A better way to encourage concept appropriate mount use is to design powers that synergize well with riding (for instance, the nimble charge power I posted above). Just don't deliberately hamstring the power, versatility, and fun of a class by unnecessarily restricting its options. You want people to read a class and say "Wow, this looks cool and exciting and I have a great character idea" rather than "Well, it looks strong, but my DM would never run a game where I'd get to play it properly".
I can appreciate your desire for a separate progression for mounts that enables more sophisticated riding, but there just isn't enough there that one couldn't achieve with the regular animal companion progression. You're the one who has grandiose plans for fantastic mounts; you haven't convinced me your ideas are reasonable enough to do the legwork of building an entirely new progression, so it's on you - if you can make the time.
My problem with leadership is two fold - firstly the first time I ever took leadership for a character the DM never gave me the time of day for its use. I wasted a feat but the only thing I got out of it was a cohort I couldn't take on adventures.
Secondly no-one has ever taken the leadership feat in any game I have run simply because they cant be arsed to spend the time book-keeping it. I have a hard enough time getting a back-story from most of my players over the past 20 years of playing (except one player) yet I always produce one for my characters at least 2 pages long which none of the 4-5 DMs over that time have ever really bothered to read, let alone include in their campaigns. Even hirelings have never seen any use since 3.0 came out.
If you talked with your DM in the first instance and didn't get any use of the feat, that's a social failure, not a rules one.
As for the latter... that's not even relevant to our discussion. If your players haven't taken the leadership feat, how can you say it doesn't work? If keeping book for a second character is too much trouble, how do your players manage their mounts and animal companions? Especially in PF, these creatures are essentially secondary characters. Our discussed use of leadership - to allow for more outlandish, supernatural, intelligent mounts - develops those rules such that you're adding levels to an appropriate creature from the monster manual, i.e. running a secondary character. That's no barrier to an ambitious, motivated player.
I will testify that leadership works with a minimum of extra player and DM labor. I don't know what has complicated that so badly in your games, but there's no reason to say that the feat itself is flawed as a gateway for more exotic mounts.
First off, I have to say it: bear cavalry.
And, in all honesty, I'm starting to really dig the idea of a primal tribe of ape-riding halflings... some sort of back-pack style saddle.
EDIT: Well, okay, primal cavaliers would be weird, but mostly I saw the mention of apes and my mind got going. Consider the comment mostly in jest and not intended to set off further discussion necessarily.
We think alike, sir! And why not have primal cavaliers? They'd be the tribe's warriors, backing up the shamans (druids) and scouts (rangers).
Okay, the oaths *would* be a bit silly. On the other hand, good classes ought to have some versatility in the concepts they represent.
Crap. Typed a great response by it got eaten by the internet. (lol)
Sufice to say that Oaths are currently described as being sworn to "accomplish a specific task", and I think, no matter whose altertnate rules you look at here, they keep ending up far too esoteric and non-specific.
Perhaps do away with them as a Class Feature (unless there are Order ramifications like with Challenges) and make then CAV only Feats instead.
Then we agree about the oaths being too vague to enforce completion/fail conditions from a rules standpoint, yes?
I mean, short of oaths being purely literal:
Oath of Accuracy (Ex): The cavalier swears to become more precise when attacking his foes. As long as he is in combat, he gains +1 to attack rolls.
there isn't much we can do about it.
That said, I think there's interesting mechanical potential behind oaths, if they can just be designed properly. Here's a possibility, removing the failure conditions:
Once per day, a cavalier may swear an oath, indicating his will to accomplish a specific task. Swearing an oath takes a full minute of speech and concentration, at the end of which the cavalier immediately gains the benefits of the oath. He retains the benefits of an oath until he swears a new oath, which causes the previous one to lapse (a cavalier may only have one oath active at a time).
At first level, the cavalier has access to the oaths of chastity, purity, and valor.
Oath of Chastity: The cavalier gains a +2 morale bonus on saves against enchantment (compulsion) spells and effects. This bonus increases by +1 at 5th level, and every 5 levels thereafter.
Oath of Purity: The cavalier gains a +2 bonus on fortitude saves against poison and disease. This bonus increases by +1 at 5th level, and every 5 levels thereafter.
Oath of Valor: The cavalier gains a +2 morale bonus to will saves against fear spells and effects. This bonus increases by +1 at 5th level, and every 5 levels thereafter.
At 2nd level, the cavalier may swear an Oath of Cruelty. The cavalier gains a +2 bonus to intimidate checks and damage rolls against opponents that are flat-footed or helpless. These bonuses increase by +1 at 5th level and every 5 levels thereafter.
At 4th level, the cavalier may swear an Oath of Mercy. He takes no penalty to attack rolls for dealing nonlethal damage with lethal weapons. Additionally, he deals +2 damage when making attacks that deal nonlethal damage. This bonus increases by +1 at 9th level, and every 5 levels thereafter.
At 6th level, the cavalier may swear an Oath of Destruction. He gains a +2 to his CMB on sunder attempts, and ignores 2 points of hardness when dealing damage to inanimate objects (attended or not). This bonus increases by +1 at level 11, and every 5 levels thereafter.
At 8th level, the cavalier may swear an Oath of Protection targeting a single creature. While the cavalier is adjacent to his ward, the ward gains a +2 bonus to AC, CMD, and reflex saves. This bonus increases by +1 at 13th level and every 5 levels thereafter.
At 10th level, the cavalier may swear an Oath of Pursuit against a single creature. The cavalier gains a +4 bonus on rolls made to locate or track the target with the Diplomacy, Search, or Survival skills. This bonus increases by +2 at 12th level, and every 5 levels thereafter.
At 12th level, the cavalier may swear an Oath of Vengeance against a creature that has caused him or his allies specific harm. He gains a +2 morale bonus to attack rolls against the creature and it's (known) agents. This bonus increases by +1 at 17th level, and every 5 levels thereafter.
At 14th level, the cavalier may swear a Greater Oath of Chastity, making him immune to Enchantment (compulsion) spells and effects.
At 16th level, the cavalier may swear a Greater Oath of Purity, rendering him immune to disease and poison.
At 18th level, the cavalier may swear a Greater Oath of Valor, becoming immune to fear spells and effects.
However, as much as I like the array of Oaths you developed there, don't they sound like Feats?
Better yet, why aren't the Oaths inherent to the Order to which the CAV belongs? Order of the Cockatrice is all about keeping the group togeter, moral boosts and so on. Well then, members of that Order get the Oath of Loyalty. Makes sense, right?
See the problem is that it's still pretty broad, but that's what happens when trying to apply a concrete metric to ethics. Now what is the drawback to not fulfilling such an Oath?
They do indeed sound like feats. Narrow feats that I'd generally hate to have to spend an actual feat slot on, but ones I'd happily trade off during the course of play as was appropriate.
I thought about tying various different oaths to different orders (specifically, in fact, the oath of loyalty for Cockatrice cavaliers). The trouble is, that oath directly overlaps the order's 3rd level ability (or 2nd, in its original formulation), so I removed it entirely.
One way to go would be to give each order a single oathlike power, which depends on their adhering to the ideals of the order. The order objectives are broad enough that violations would seldom come up, so you'd dodge that bullet for the most part. You'd probably have to cut oaths from the standard progression though, as there just aren't enough good effects with plausible failure conditions (assuming we're trying to maintain that dynamic).
Then we open up a bunch of slots in the progression, which makes things more boring. The oaths are for making later levels exciting!
Meh, but if oaths just give you straight bonuses, they're hardly oaths anymore. "I swear to become more resistant to charms!" IMHO, it removes some of the roleplaying capacity and makes less sense flavor-wise. If we're looking at the Knights of the Round as one of the primary inspirations - not the only, but one of the main - oaths were definitely important, and failing an oath was an important part of many of those legends as well.
I know the straight bonuses are kinda boring from roleplay-effects-rules perspective. They're just rules-enforceable, something that I really, really like in a core class. I happen to think that most half-decent roleplayers will probably abide (at least loosely) by the strictures of oaths they have taken anyway, regardless of enforcement. Much like alignment, munchkins and willfully thick players are bound to cross lines they shouldn't, but I'm not sure that's a strong enough reason to burden an otherwise lively class with an excess of vague 'abide or lose privilege' abilities.
Nevermind why that order is called "Cockatrice". What does a lizard-chicken that turns people to stone correspond to an Order about groups of like-minded individuals. (lol)
Yeah I've been wondering about the cockatrice thing as well. Does anyone know if it had a historical use in heraldry or anything that this could be stemming from?
I'm pretty sure cockatrices are in the barrel with all the other exciting heraldic creatures like griffons: adopted widely by medival coat-of-arms designers 'cause all the cool *real* animals had been taken already.
All the thinking about oaths has raised a troubling concern: what is relevantly distinguishing a straight-played cavalier from a paladin? Tim4488's comment about knights of the round table has me worried, because they're *definitely* the inspiration for paladins, too.
I've ginned up 3 oaths that are slightly less paladin-y, but otherwise there's : Full combat ability, special mount, resistance to charm, fear, and disease, built-in alignment restrictions (which is essentially what the oaths do)... All that really stands out as unique is the challenge ability.
Shoot. Something's gotta change. Maybe lose the oaths in favor of better ride-related abilities... except then we're making them a mounted-only class again, which is unacceptable. Ugh.
Can people think of a good alternative non-mounted feat options to put opposite stuff like mounted combat, ride-by attack, and their ilk? I'd like to follow monk and ranger style bonus feat precedent, giving limited lists rather than open choices of feats.
|
Ok assuming you do go with the Leadership route to gain exotic mounts such as griffons, hippogriffs, and dragons; How does that help a cavalier style character?
He has now completely negated his mount ability, while he still has one he now favors his exotic mount which he does not get the application of its improvement progression and he may not even be able to take his old mount with him if the main can fly.
That just doesn't sit right with me and rather than limiting the cavalier to animals of an appropriate size (which is already a standard restriction regardless of class) I feel a fantasy based cavalier should open the doorway to such exotic mounts otherwise the class just doesn't warrant its own "special" class.
Right now I could probably reproduce a cavalier style mounted character through the barbarian, fighter, paladin, or ranger classes and only lose out on some minor abilities through oath and orders.
Maybe a defined list of applicable mounts needs to be drawn up (with matching mount stats like the animal companion ones) but you then come into the problem of proofing it in future monster products and applying a set of rules for back processing it for compatibility.
Give me till February when work settings down and I will try and put together some rules but until then I hope someone else will at least try.
I really like Whistle. Something about it add a "cool factor" to the class.
Reminds me of Zorro, actually.
Or Thundarr The Barbarian. LOL!!!
Ok assuming you do go with the Leadership route to gain exotic mounts such as griffons, hippogriffs, and dragons; How does that help a cavalier style character?
He has now completely negated his mount ability, while he still has one he now favors his exotic mount which he does not get the application of its improvement progression and he may not even be able to take his old mount with him if the main can fly.
The leadershipped mount generally replaces a standard one. You'll notice a significant penalty to cohort power if the primary character has an animal companion/mount, so odds are most cavaliers going that route will forego the companion.
You can't have your cake and eat it too. Leadership is supposed to replace the mount, not give you a *second* powerful companion to help clutter up combat (at the cost of a single feat, no less). Sure, you lose the progression your mount would be getting... and instead give your griffin levels of fighter. Or your unicorn gets ranks as a paladin. Or your wyvern buddy starts flipping it barbarian style.
That just doesn't sit right with me and rather than limiting the cavalier to animals of an appropriate size (which is already a standard restriction regardless of class) I feel a fantasy based cavalier should open the doorway to such exotic mounts otherwise the class just doesn't warrant its own "special" class.
Right now I could probably reproduce a cavalier style mounted character through the barbarian, fighter, paladin, or ranger classes and only lose out on some minor abilities through oath and orders.
Qui, the base cavalier already has access to wolves, rocs, and tyrannosauruses. Those feel pretty exotic to me - they just aren't unique to cavaliers. And why should they be? Are rangers and paladins any less a part of the fantasy worlds we're fabricating here?
Of course you could generally reproduce a cavalier using other classes. The point of this whole exercise is to make them unique *enough* to be distinguishable, not to reinvent the wheel. Tons of classes overlap - bards make pretty decent rogues (oops, no sneak attack), rangers make pretty fair fighters (shucks, no weapon training), and sorcerers make okay wizards (darn, no prepared spells). What distinguishes classes are those little class-based abilities that nobody shares, like challenge (original formulation or mine).
The mounted combat rules just aren't deep enough to fully center the class around - 6 feats maximum for the most hardcore of equestrian combatants. Of those, only one cares about the character's actual ability to ride a mount. I could conjure up a few more developed ride-related powers for the class, but - for the tenth time - we *dont* want to make these guys only useful on a mount. Dungeons and cities are too prominent in D&D to justify a class that can't function while in them.
Maybe a defined list of applicable mounts needs to be drawn up (with matching mount stats like the animal companion ones) but you then come into the problem of proofing it in future monster products and applying a set of rules for back processing it for compatibility.
If you'd notice, I wrote out a few new animal companions on my last full rebuild, as an alternative with the Greater Knight's Bond power. No, they aren't nightmares or pegasi. I'm averse to embedding 'servitude of a rational being' in a class progression, but there's certainly room to add some more exciting, higher-power animals to the cavalier's mount list. That's where I'd recommend putting in your creative time, rather than some wacky new mount advancement table.
Regarding exotic mounts, Cavaliers and dungeons... how "off" is the idea of dwarves riding giant spiders in caverns and dungeon settings? Or giant lizards, or another more appropriate underground beast? Surely dwarves on spiders could be considered cavaliers as well.
GP
Regarding exotic mounts, Cavaliers and dungeons... how "off" is the idea of dwarves riding giant spiders in caverns and dungeon settings? Or giant lizards, or another more appropriate underground beast? Surely dwarves on spiders could be considered cavaliers as well.
GP
I'm strongly in favor of vermin mounts, but certain templating issues make them difficult with PF as it stands. They haven't been included as regular mounts because mindless vermin = no int score = no tricks = no combat training. Which means it's nearly impossible to get them to behave like a regular mount.
Of course, that's silly and we could totally amend rules to permit such things. Me, I'd go with a feat like 'Friend to Bugs' that allows access to a list of crawlies like spiders, centipedes, and giant wasps.
|
|
The leadershipped mount generally replaces a standard one. You'll notice a significant penalty to cohort power if the primary character has an animal companion/mount, so odds are most cavaliers going that route will forego the companion.
You can't have your cake and eat it too. Leadership is supposed to replace the mount
Why does a druid ranger paladin or cavalier have to lose abilities to make use of the leadership feat? None of the other classes lose anything? that seems unfair.
The cohort doesn't even have to be a mount for some players, he may have his cohort simply be a squire to tend to his mount while he's doing other duties. Are you saying if a cavalier chose a human warrior as a cohort he forgoes his mount? I dont think you are but forcing a cavalier to lose his mount because he chose a better one through leadership is going to leave a bitter taste in most players mouths.
Qui, the base cavalier already has access to wolves, rocs, and tyrannosauruses. Those feel pretty exotic to me - they just aren't unique to cavaliers. And why should they be? Are rangers and paladins any less a part of the fantasy worlds we're fabricating here?
Exotic yes, Fantastic? No. For cavaliers to earn their place as a core class they need to think outside the box. the cavaliers are non-magical but that doesn't mean their mounts have to be non-magical. I would wanna see pegasi, unicorns, owlbears, hippogriffs, griffons, dragons, wyverns, or any of the other magical beasts.
Paladins get to add the celestial template to their mount which separates them as divine beings, rangers and druids are specifically nature based but the cavalier is neither divine or nature orientated so why cant a cavalier brought up in a city like Westcrown where devil worship is common be able to take a fiendish mount or nightmare, I could quite see a halfling cavalier riding on the back of a hell hound or yeth hound in westcrown?
Of course you could generally reproduce a cavalier using other classes. The point of this whole exercise is to make them unique *enough* to be distinguishable, not to reinvent the wheel. Tons of classes overlap - bards make pretty decent rogues (oops, no sneak attack), rangers make pretty fair fighters (shucks, no weapon training), and sorcerers make okay wizards (darn, no prepared spells). What distinguishes classes are those little class-based abilities that nobody shares, like challenge (original formulation or mine).
Many classes do overlap but all shine in one way or another many on numerous levels. The challenge mechanic alone is not enough to warrant a new class and without some serious alteration, the oaths and orders fall short of anything "exciting" the cavalier offers.
The mounted combat rules just aren't deep enough to fully center the class around - 6 feats maximum for the most hardcore of equestrian combatants. Of those, only one cares about the character's actual ability to ride a mount. I could conjure up a few more developed ride-related powers for the class, but - for the tenth time - we *dont* want to make these guys only useful on a mount. Dungeons and cities are too prominent in D&D to justify a class that can't function while in them.
Agreed, so why create a base class called cavalier in the first place? the name means horseman so mounts have to be a part of the class somewhere, just like the paladins mount. The cavalier falls short because a number of his abilities work with the mount in mind yet don't offer anything substantial beyond that.
The reason is simply because if you add ranged combat to a cavalier people would ask why because it doesn't fit the name. Cavalier is simply too narrow to expand into a core class and a lot of people feel this way.
If you'd notice, I wrote out a few new animal companions on my last full rebuild, as an alternative with the Greater Knight's Bond power. No, they aren't nightmares or pegasi. I'm averse to embedding 'servitude of a rational being' in a class progression, but there's certainly room to add some more exciting, higher-power animals to the cavalier's mount list. That's where I'd recommend putting in your creative time, rather than some wacky new mount advancement table.
servitude is a strong word. I prefer the term bonded, ally or companion. The creature is with the cavalier because he chooses to be. Okay this does lean towards a mystical bond rather than a mutual master/pet relationship akin to dogs that the cavalier class portrays but either way the creature should be weaker than the cavalier and gains some mutual benefit from allying himself with the cavalier.
but perhaps your right and all the cavalier needs is more animal companion style starting statistics for more fantastic creatures like the pegasus or griffon (saving the more powerful ones like dragons for cavalier themed prestige classes)
|
|
You know I was looking over the summoner class and posting comments on the boards when it suddenly dawned on me that the summoners eidolon might actually hold the key to making a cavaliers mount more versatile than a simple animal?
Restrict the cavaliers mount to an eidolon quadruped;
Create a base quadruped for both small (medium mount) and medium (large mount) cavaliers.
Dissallow additional limbs.
Add a reduced number of evolutions to the cavaliers mount per level compared to the summoner. (or reduced effective level (cavalier = summoner -3) so he cant chance its base form until 4th)
Thoughts?
So I've read through this thread, and it's interesting stuff... but I feel like I need to ask the following question:
Has there been any indication of any kind from people at Paizo that they're interested in a rebuild of the cavalier class? Is there any precedent, from the PFRPG playtest for example, of Paizo using somebody's rebuild instead of just tweaking their own work?
I ask, because Jason seemed pretty clear that what he wanted out of this forum was feedback based on playtests using the published cavalier and oracle classes. It seems like that's been about 1% of what has been posted in the forum so far.
No offense intended, just wondering if there's any reason to hope that this interesting rebuild will even be looked at by the powers that be.
My understanding is that he looks at the boards with a pretty open mind with respect to the classes. I obviously don't mean to presume they *ought* to make any or all changes I suggest, but I'd like to think that if they're interesting and balanced enough, they might see the light of day in some form or another.
I mean, our goal is the same: make fun rules for the game. The point of the playtest is to find out what rules aren't fun or don't work, and see what people would like to have instead. It can't hurt to offer up ideas.
Plus I just get a kick out of designing this stuff. Slowed up on cavalier 'cause I'm busy in the stage 2 forum arguing about eidolon power level, but I mean to come back to this here.
On that note:
You know I was looking over the summoner class and posting comments on the boards when it suddenly dawned on me that the summoners eidolon might actually hold the key to making a cavaliers mount more versatile than a simple animal?
Restrict the cavaliers mount to an eidolon quadruped;
Create a base quadruped for both small (medium mount) and medium (large mount) cavaliers.
Dissallow additional limbs.
Add a reduced number of evolutions to the cavaliers mount per level compared to the summoner. (or reduced effective level (cavalier = summoner -3) so he cant chance its base form until 4th)Thoughts?
Oh man, don't even go there... the only reason the eidolon rules haven't broken the playtest completely in half is 'cause summoners themselves are so wimpy. No way are you giving a full BAB armored melee class a pet like that, even at a -3 level deduction. Bump it to -9 and maybe the power level wouldn't get out of hand before you hit 20.
Of course, you're once again off the reservation for cavalier flavor. I know you desperately want them to be able to lego together a silly mount, but at this juncture, I think it makes much more sense to build a summoner with mounted combat feats. Just let the cavalier be the mundane knight he's supposed to be, will you?
|
|
I can't believe you what the cavalier to remain mundane!
Core classes are supposed to be interesting so players say "hey I got a cool idea for this" not "I want to play a mundane fighter who uses a mount" Core classes NEED options. Even a fighter has more options than the cavalier at the moment, and the summoner has that in droves which is why its receiving a lot of feedback already. So far the summoner is the only class of the 4 that any of my players have shown an interest in playing.
Your right that the huge BAB of the eidolon is not in flavor of a mount and I think with its own eidolon style progression table for the mount a better balance can be accomplished while still retaining the options to add wings, increase its size or allow it to swim. I still would retain the basic evolutions and set the cavaliers level equal to summoners -3 so it will be level 8 before his mount can fly, level 9 before he can add +4 one stat, and level 14 before it can become huge, gain frightful presence or fast healing!
To sum it up to you - right now it would be much easier to simply update the cavalier prestige class in Complete Warrior to work with Pathfinder, modify the special mount to include animal companions as well as paladin mounts or grant a benefit for any class, drop deadly charge for an ability similar to challenge and you have a character with more options than the cavalier from the Advanced players guide.
Quijenoth has some very good points.
I think the cav's mount should be absolutely the best mount all around too, and this class should also have access to flying mounts, unless the actual paladin.
|
|
I can't believe you what the cavalier to remain mundane!The Barbarian, Fighter and Rogue are all mundane. I don't see why this is a huge problem.
They are non-magical (well except a rogue with a magic talent) but they are not mundane. Rage is unique to barbarians, rogues have unique skills and sneak attack, and fighters excel at armor and weapons.
Of the 3 the fighter could be considered the most mundane but what they lack in abilities they make up in the flexibility of 20 feats adding unparalled customizability.
I like that there's more clashing over the little tacked-on power to make mounts more useful than there is over the completely overhauled core abilities. Personally, I think it's also farfetched for a mount to hear a whistle from a mile off, in most scenarios. We could get really finicky and calculate maximum move speeds, listen checks, and restrictions for barriers... or we could assume our pets are *extraordinarily* clever, and have a nice simple, flavorful ability. I like your 1d4 round delay idea, TheJew.
On the subject of mounts, what do people think about spicing them up for the cavalier? It's a martial class, so we can't really go for magical beasts and their ilk, but plain 'ole mounts are kind of dull when the class is supposed to be all about riding. Wouldn't it be great to ride a giant chicken, spider, or rat? Maybe I've just played too much final fantasy and am having trouble taking the cavalier seriously.
My goal with the Advanced Mount rules is to make available animal companions who normally hit a maximum of small or medium size - and are thus never large enough to support the average PC (boar, giant toad, owl, bear, badger, shark, velociraptor, etc.). That said, its a very stopgap sort of support; it would be far better to actually lay out full stats for new mounts that become available to cavaliers at level 11.
Since I'm talking about special mount options, do people think it would be appropriate to tie particular mounts to particular orders? Suppose each order has an 'official mount' that's definitively better than the average animal companion. Order of the Cockatrice might get the Giant Chicken (picture a chocobo):
Starting Statistics:
Size: Large
Speed: 70 ft, fly 20 ft (clumsy)
AC: +8 natural armor
Attack: Peck (2d6)
Ability Scores: Str 20, Dex 16, Con 17, Int 4, Wis 15, Cha 14.
Special Qualities: Low-light vision, Big Silly Bird.At level 11, you'd have the option to take your order's official mount, or apply either the Advanced or Giant simple template to a standard...
I really like this idea, I started a thread a while back to see what types of mounts people are interested in. I also like the idea of iconic mounts for the different orders, or even multiple mounts based on rank. Anyway what I'm trying to say is . . . I want a varactyl!! :)
|
I think that they need the dragon mount Feat or similar. You get a special mount just that type of mount and no followers.
Also AlQahir is right. I am Playing a mounted druid and I have a horse because that is what you can start with a ride.
So i think that there needs to be more mount Companions. Or a different list for cavaliers and paladins. That there trading is riding and they are large.
I would like to See something like a Mastodon or T-rex for large Pali and Cavs.
I think that your order will give some mount unlocks. And there should be more mount, and mount combat styles that you do not get for free but you have to be your order.
But i would like to see Order prestige classes that let other classes join your order.