While I gotta say I enjoy reaping the benefits of riding a strong steed and having a banner fluttering in the breeze empowering my allies, I also gotta say it's kinda hard to bring a warhorse into a dungeon. Maybe some focus should be taken off mounted combat and more towards shielding/protecting the Cavalier and his allies or augmenting them in some way (like the Paladin's auras or something similar). Perhaps even making movement, attacks, or even spellcasting difficult for nearby enemies? Does this make sense to anyone?
The traditional focus of the cavalier is mounted combat. And I don't just mean that in game terms, either. Historically, a cavalier was someone trained in horsemanship and armed combat, or a mounted soldier.
About half the combat in my games have taken place inside, so out of the last four campaigns, there have been lot's of opportunities for mounted combat.
|
The traditional focus of the cavalier is mounted combat. And I don't just mean that in game terms, either. Historically, a cavalier was someone trained in horsemanship and armed combat, or a mounted soldier.
About half the combat in my games have taken place inside, so out of the last four campaigns, there have been lot's of opportunities for mounted combat.
Same here, please keep the mounted combat options.
Same here, please keep the mounted combat options.The traditional focus of the cavalier is mounted combat. And I don't just mean that in game terms, either. Historically, a cavalier was someone trained in horsemanship and armed combat, or a mounted soldier.
About half the combat in my games have taken place inside, so out of the last four campaigns, there have been lot's of opportunities for mounted combat.
I wouldnt want to see the mounted options gone, but a replacement feature would be nice. If there isnt one in the final version i'll probably houserule one. Otherwise the world will be full of halfling and gnome cavaliers and few others. I have almost never had a game session that didnt include at least one encounter somewhere a large mount could not follow.
I think a little more versatility with the mounts would solve a lot of peoples concerns. I think cavaliers will do fine while dismounted (although a dismounted charge bonus certainly wouldn't hurt), but I think one of the major issues is what to do with the mount once you go down into the dungeon. Most of the campaigns I play have a mixture of indoor and out door combat, which isn't really an issue if you go in, fight and come back out the way you came. The issue arises when you have to travel through a dungeon to get where you are going, what happens to your mount at this point?
The Knight class from the Players Handbook II had some interesting features in it that made the Knight just as deadly in non-mounted combat as he was in mounted combat. Maybe some of those features can be copied or improved upon?
|
The classic image of the cavalier is the chivalrous noble knight.
Equally at home in courty intrigue or adventure, their mounted escapades were also equally matched by their foot bound melee. Most "jousts" result in being hoisted off the horse, only to be followed by a vicious melee.
I would like to see the core cavalier class maintain oaths and other aspects of courtly virtue as a basic necessity. As for mounted combat, I would like to see a two path system (ala the ranger) where the character can focus on either mounted combat or the knightly classic sword and shield style.
This way, those who anticipate a campaign in which mounted abilities will largely go to waste can still play a "classic" cavalier.
If you don't want either mounted abilities or a focus on sword and shield style fighting, you probably are not playing the right class...
The classic image of the cavalier is the chivalrous noble knight.
Equally at home in courty intrigue or adventure, their mounted escapades were also equally matched by their foot bound melee. Most "jousts" result in being hoisted off the horse, only to be followed by a vicious melee.
I would like to see the core cavalier class maintain oaths and other aspects of courtly virtue as a basic necessity. As for mounted combat, I would like to see a two path system (ala the ranger) where the character can focus on either mounted combat or the knightly classic sword and shield style.
This way, those who anticipate a campaign in which mounted abilities will largely go to waste can still play a "classic" cavalier.
If you don't want either mounted abilities or a focus on sword and shield style fighting, you probably are not playing the right class...
Even thought, I'd really like the idea, I don't think it will work as the current build of the cavalier suggest a DPS fighter and the shield wielder is mostly the opposite. Having the two within the same class will need to much different abilities. I think it should be better as two different class than merged into one. As for myself I might use an updated version of PHB2 knight and the cavalier both in my campaign.
|
On the other hand it's very easy to bring a medium sized creature into a dungeon (like a riding dog). The cavalier gives a small sized melee combatant a real edge. In my playtest games halfling or gnome cavaliers with spirited charge would often deal ridiculous amounts of damage, and when they critical would tend to one-shot anything of up to +2 beyond their CR (challenge damage was just icing on the cake).
I would prefer the mounted combat thing be an option as well along with one or more options.
The Ranger has 2 weapon fighting or archery, perhaps there should be a mounted cavalier and something else
While I gotta say I enjoy reaping the benefits of riding a strong steed and having a banner fluttering in the breeze empowering my allies, I also gotta say it's kinda hard to bring a warhorse into a dungeon. Maybe some focus should be taken off mounted combat and more towards shielding/protecting the Cavalier and his allies or augmenting them in some way (like the Paladin's auras or something similar). Perhaps even making movement, attacks, or even spellcasting difficult for nearby enemies? Does this make sense to anyone?
A game that centers on one specific environment often makes specific classes less useful. A game set largely in a huge city would make the Druid less useful for example. A dungeon centered game would certainly cramp the Cavaliers style. That should be OK. Other campaigns may suit them very well indeed and others may be a mixed bag for them. A non-core base class can be more specialized than a core class and still be usable. Just not everywhere / in every game.
The challenge, social leadership, and mounted combat are, imo, the central aspects of the class. Buff or re-work the mounted combat / leadership / challenge -- that's fine (as long as you don't over do it), but I don't think the Cavalier needs any other focus. That's for another class, again imo.
I would like to see the core cavalier class maintain oaths and other aspects of courtly virtue as a basic necessity.Heck, I'd just like the Cavalier to HAVE courtly virtues. As it is now, they oughta at least have Knowledge (Nobility) as a Class skill.
I would be inclined to agree.
Heck, I'd just like the Cavalier to HAVE courtly virtues. As it is now, they oughta at least have Knowledge (Nobility) as a Class skill.
Absoultely, they should have that skill just based on the description of the class
The classic image of the cavalier is the chivalrous noble knight.
Equally at home in courty intrigue or adventure, their mounted escapades were also equally matched by their foot bound melee. Most "jousts" result in being hoisted off the horse, only to be followed by a vicious melee.
I would like to see the core cavalier class maintain oaths and other aspects of courtly virtue as a basic necessity. As for mounted combat, I would like to see a two path system (ala the ranger) where the character can focus on either mounted combat or the knightly classic sword and shield style.
This way, those who anticipate a campaign in which mounted abilities will largely go to waste can still play a "classic" cavalier.
If you don't want either mounted abilities or a focus on sword and shield style fighting, you probably are not playing the right class...
The answer is simple. Let Cavaliers choose either Mounted combat or Shield Defense like the ranger can choose two weapon or archery. And yes the cavalier should have courtly skills .
The answer is simple. Let Cavaliers choose either Mounted combat or Shield Defense like the ranger can choose two weapon or archery. And yes the cavalier should have courtly skills .
most excellent. I agree 1000%
The answer is simple. Let Cavaliers choose either Mounted combat or Shield Defense like the ranger can choose two weapon or archery. And yes the cavalier should have courtly skills .
Jumping in this thread to completely agree with you on this one...
I fail to see a point to the caviler with no mount focus. You want to play a shield fighter, play a fighter, take the feats. You really can not pull off a mounted fighters with out an animal compaion.
The whole point of the class was to pull off the mounted warrior, but not make him useless off the mount. You take the mounted focus away you take away the whole point of making the class to start with
not at all. Challenge was added to give him something to do when not mounted. Besides nothing says you can not use the challenge while mounted
eh but the challenge is a swift action to activate not use. It says on till the combat is over. So there is no conflict
No, there isn't, except that using the Mounted Combat feat cancels the capability to use the Challenge, and vice versa, because the former is an Immediate Action and the latter is a Once per Combat Swift Action. You can't do an Immediate and Swift int he same round, so they can't be used together.
Now, if they fix that, I may change my mind. But right now, it says to me that Cavs are either Challengers, or Riders, further meaning that there is already an inate choice between the to abilities. Just make it official.
As Seeker indicated, you issue the challenge and then charge... pretty much the traditional knightly thing. I agree about the mounted combat focus as well -- if you want a non mounted focus then use a fighter or develop another base class. The Cavalier is about being mounted. The name says it all.
sigh, but it is a charge, like normal with an extra xd6. I am failing to see how you can not do both? And besides challange as I pointed out was added so you could have something not mount related, even if you can use it on a mount
mount takes a -2 AC, after 3rd you take none and get a +4 to hit, I have no clue what you mean about no precision damage as it never says you do not get it.
So as it stands if you challenge and charge say at 11 you get[x2 threat] +4d6] so with lance thats a +4 attack over norm at 2d8[19-20x3]+4d6+ a free bull rush, disarm, sunder, or trip
sure, your better off challenging on foot, but you could challenge, charge the man, free trip then dismount or comeback around and nail him again
Sorry still failing to see the issue with just why ya can't challenge on a mount
Argh! Lost part of post (?)... deleted the rest. Or maybe I'm too tired to post coherantly... I'll probably re-post later when I'm too tired to notice that I can't post coherantly :D
You can challenge on a mount, but (A) can't also use Mounted Combat feat that round to negate hits on the mount, (B) you only get one attack while mounted if the mount move more than 5' that round, and (C) you can no longer use the lance after that anyway because it's reach. It's a one shot gamble that isn't ultimately as productive as staying on foot.
Not sure where some of your points are coming from (unless some rules have changed on me...), but you're forgetting the main point of being mounted. Movement. Being mounted and in particular, charging, is about covering distance as well as attacking. The mounted charge with it's movement doubled and an attack at the end is really good for closing with the enemy and avoiding all kinds of missile / arcane nastiness. Of course, you could do what the French knights did at Agincourt and dismount and walk towards those longbowmen... but I don't recommend it. Don't forget that the mount gets attacks as well as the rider when you do arrive. What they probably need to help this class out is some improved abilities for the warhorse / mount. Those animals were killing machines historically speaking.
I guess that's my point - that the precision damage is far more useful on foot, so it doesn't seem to be instantly connected to Mounted Combat or charging in my mind as much as for everyone else it seems. It's so much more effective on foot that I personally would never go mounted under the current Cavlier write-up.
The precision damage for the challenge is frosting on the cake for the mounted charge. Sure, you may get more precision damage from a full attack option in melee, but the double damage / lance helps make up for it and a bull rush from a warhorse should get the job done. Not to speak, as I have above, of the advantage of actually getting to your opponent without waiting forever...
However, admittedly, I'm considering the ability on its own, and not with the Order add-ons. Ultimately, I just probably disliek the feel that the precision damage gives to what is essentially supposed to be a "noble contest" (at least in my mind that's what a knightly style challenge is) and should be something that is also more effective with the Cavalier abilities accross the board.
Sure it's a noble contest. Knightly combat is about skill, courage and fury. There's nothing "prissy" about it. It's not a ritualized intellectualized duel with rapiers. It's the shock of mounted combat, the ring of steel on steel and the gods defend the right.
My 2cp. And most of what I started to post before. Hopefully.
|
|
most excellent. I agree 1000%
The answer is simple. Let Cavaliers choose either Mounted combat or Shield Defense like the ranger can choose two weapon or archery. And yes the cavalier should have courtly skills .
+1
+ the ability to take the other entry level feature later instead of specializing into one+ give them the BEST mount in the game (better than druids and paladins)
|
|
So why not give them an ability similar to the Divine Bond, which the paladin gets? Instead of a weapon, make the choice either a mount or the ability to increase their shield. They could claim that this is done either through boons given to them by grateful patronage, or as "protection" money given to them by fearful patronage, and that's how they can afford the increase, despite how many gp's they have on their char sheet.
And yes, I agree on the courtly skills... Bluff, Diplomacy, Sense Motive, Knowledge (Nobility). After all, how else are they going to recognize another Cavalier's banner?
Furthermore, just because they don't have a special mount, that doesn't mean that they can't have a mount at all, so they could still be an effective "cavalier". It's just not their priority focus.
Furthermore, just because they don't have a special mount, that doesn't mean that they can't have a mount at all, so they could still be an effective "cavalier". It's just not their priority focus.
Not true, the way mounted combat works in pathfinder still has the very same flaws as 3.5 YOur 2 HD mount is down before you ever get to do anything. Ask any fighter who built a mounted fighter, he'll tell you. If you do not have a companion you need a freaking herd, because your loosing 1 mount per round after level 5 or 6
Again the cavilers Whole reason to be a base class is to pull off an effective mounted class that's it., everything else is cake to make him usable while not mounted but the mount is the whole point
|
I like the mounted combat options. I find them a refreshing and oft forgotten niche that is filled nicely by this class. What I would like to see is options like the other classes get:
Wizards: Familiar or item
Paladins: Mount or spirit weapon
Druid: animal companion or cleric domain
Ranger: Archery or two weapon fighting and hunters bond
I would just like to see an ether/or option for these guys as far as mounted combat is concerned. As in, letting them choose between mounted specialization and another feature.
love,
malkav
|
I will reiterate what i said earloier, the cavalier si a good chance to revive 2 most maligned archetypical niches that mechanics haven´t supported properly in a while, mounted combat and sword/board.
Hence giving the choice between mounted combat or sword and shield oriented combat is just perfect for the cavalier.
I was thinking about this myself. I'd like to see the Cavalier take a page from the Ranger. Give him a mount or foot progression (like the ranger's sword or arrow choice.)
As has been stated a couple of times, the whole point of a cavalier is to have a mounted warrior. If it doesn't work for you, the fighter is a fine choice.
|
As has been stated a couple of times, the whole point of a cavalier is to have a mounted warrior. If it doesn't work for you, the fighter is a fine choice.
I hope we can change that. I find a lot of mechanical and flavor aspects of the cavalier interesting, but mounted combat is just kind of 'meh' to me in my games (and as a PC). Interesting, but pretty niche. I'd like to be the gallant knight who is OK at mounted combat, but if that is the only thing I'm great at, that's too limiting of a class concept.
Other classes have a wide variety of progressions and choices. You can play a rogue, barbarian, wizard, etc many different ways. Cavaliers need some amount of customization too, and I'd prefer that I have a way to use the oaths, challenges, and banner mechanics without the mounted combat focus. Having at least one set of choices -- like ranger combat style does -- makes great sense to me.
If the main focus of this class is mounted combat and not knighthood than I dont want it. We can argue till we're blue in the gills about
settings, but the fact is that a class who's main feature is on a horse is next to useless.MANY adventures WILL be dungeon crawls. Plain and simple.I'm not saying get rid of the mount, but if that is the main componant than it should be a prestige class and not a full class.
If the main focus of this class is mounted combat and not knighthood than I dont want it. We can argue till we're blue in the gills about
settings, but the fact is that a class who's main feature is on a horse is next to useless.MANY adventures WILL be dungeon crawls. Plain and simple.I'm not saying get rid of the mount, but if that is the main componant than it should be a prestige class and not a full class.
Then do not play it. This class is there for the folks who want that. This class was made for folks that want to mounted combat class, that want the knight. As have been said not all class are suited for all campaigns. You do not play a paladin in an all evil game.
The class is far from useless unmounted. And that was the point to make him useful while not mounted, but he is far from useless. Must like a druid who can not take his large animal companion into every space. Does that make him useless? What about your paladin with his mount? Or your ranger with his companion?
Really your asking for a class to be changed from it's whole reason to be made in the first place. If you want a shield fighter play the fighter.
If you do not want to play a mounted class, then do not play the caviler, it's ok not everyone likes every class. And not every class fits every game
|
Then do not play it.
Sadly that's exactly what's going to happen.
Since 3e's release I can count the number of times I've done mount combat on 1 hand. Knowing how often I won't be on a mount means I know that I won't be using the character full potential most of the character's play life. Which to me means never playing the cavalier.
Then do not play it.Sadly that's exactly what's going to happen.
Since 3e's release I can count the number of times I've done mount combat on 1 hand. Knowing how often I won't be on a mount means I know that I won't be using the character full potential most of the character's play life. Which to me means never playing the cavalier.
Ditto. I dont think having him do horsey things is bad, but it should not be the main focus of it. At least give the class the option of being a horseman/defender type.
Ditto. I dont think having him do horsey things is bad, but it should not be the main focus of it. At least give the class the option of being a horseman/defender type.Then do not play it.Sadly that's exactly what's going to happen.
Since 3e's release I can count the number of times I've done mount combat on 1 hand. Knowing how often I won't be on a mount means I know that I won't be using the character full potential most of the character's play life. Which to me means never playing the cavalier.
There is a class to be a warrior with no mount,It's called a fighter
The caviler was made to be the mounted guy. Taking the mount out you might as well take spellcasting out of a wizard. Then give it rogue like ability but still call it a wizard.