Who here is disappointed with the new Cavalier?


Advanced Player's Guide Playtest: Final Playtest

51 to 83 of 83 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

Michael Loving wrote:
What IS a teamwork feat? I the new book doesn't explain what they are, and neither does the core book. Is it in one of the other ones? If it is, that should be stated somewhere. I'm making a Cavalier NPC villian for my group to fight, but I have a mystery feat that isn't explained anywhere I can find to assign him. Somebody help, plz?

Page 47 of the Final Playtest PDF.


/smackface
I guess I could finish reading the PDF before asking next time. *sigh* I think it's worth mentioning, though, that it would be worth adding in to the Tactician description a reference to the Teamwork Feats section in the final printing.
Thanks for the help.


Zurai wrote:
Cartigan wrote:
Then time and effort is being wasted creating a class that will only be used as either an NPC or as a PC in maybe 30% of games.
It is your opinion that it is being "wasted". That is not Paizo's opinion. They've said several times that the APG classes are intended to be more narrowly focused and that they don't necessarily intend them to be as common in games as the core classes.

Exactly. Not every game uses every class, even core, much less added on base classes or prestige classes. It's a niche class. You're fine with that or you don't take it (player) / use it (DM).


Cartigan wrote:
I'm all over the idea of a mounted combat class (though I prefer summoners), I just don't like how extremely narrowly focused it is. The Knight heavily encouraged mounted combat, but it gave enough options that you didn't have to do it.

I don't have my PHB II in front of me, but I don't recall them having a mount that was survivable in combat. They got Mounted Combat as a bonus feat (? first or second level?) but that doesn't really make them a mounted combat class. They were all about melee / defence / taking on the BBEG iirc, certainly more than mounted combat.

RPG Superstar 2010 Top 32

Loopy wrote:
I think a lot of folks are having a hard time seeing the forest for the trees. Overall, this is a great class. It has a lot going on. It's got a very good base-stat foundation. Some powerful abilities, some more flavorful abilities. The class seems like it's going to play very strategically. I think that's true of some of these classes in the APG. They seem to focus on giving advanced players a lot to play with and tweak and many of their abilities are meant to be used strategically in battle.

You didn't say a single word about the cavalier or APG there; I could copy-paste that paragraph about any class made ever.


R_Chance wrote:
Cartigan wrote:
I'm all over the idea of a mounted combat class (though I prefer summoners), I just don't like how extremely narrowly focused it is. The Knight heavily encouraged mounted combat, but it gave enough options that you didn't have to do it.
I don't have my PHB II in front of me, but I don't recall them having a mount that was survivable in combat. They got Mounted Combat as a bonus feat (? first or second level?) but that doesn't really make them a mounted combat class. They were all about melee / defence / taking on the BBEG iirc, certainly more than mounted combat.

They got free Mounted Combat and their free feats had the mounted combat feats in it. Which is my point. It heavily leaned toward mounted combat but you didn't have to do it. Unlike the cavalier which loses too much to play it if you can't be mounted.


A PHB2 Knight had almost as much value on foot as mounted, which allowed them to wander around dungeons and remain somewhat effective. That included use of both feats and class abilities to build something closer to mounted infantry then calvary. Then again if I remember right the Knight worked much more like a big metal plug at the front of the party that nothing could pass.

RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32

I removed some posts. Personal attacks will not be tolerated.


You can build a Cavalier who is still effective unmounted.

Challenge is usable mounted or on foot.

Tactician is usable mounted or on foot.

Banner does not require the character to be mounted. A Samurai style back pole, or even a standard that can be planted into the ground will work just as well.

Order of the Cockatrice, Order of the Dragon, Order of the Lion, Order of the Shield, and Order of the Star grant abilities that all work just as well mounted or not. ONLY the Order of the Sword gears all the abilities towards mounted combat. That's only one out of 6.

The bonus feats do NOT state they must be used on mounted combat feats, merely combat feats.

The charge abilities only work when mounted, and of course, there is the mount. Of course, without the mount, you have a pretty sad mounted combatant, as no enemy with the slightest notion of common sense will attack the 10th level knight, opting instead to take out his 4 hit die horse.

The PHBII Knight worked like a big meteal plug that was hard to pass, unless you forced him to make a fortitude save. Then he fell in like a house of cards due to his poor fort save.


I'm a bit disappointed in the new Challenge mechanics (mainly the straight bonus instead of bonus dice) and the lack of neat mounts.

Being limited to just horses camels and dogs is really a bit disappointing in a fantasy game with everything that entails I really do want to see cavaliers on flying mounts, or dinosaurs. I'm hoping at the minimum they will include a feat that allows access to more types of mounts... as it currently stands the Cavalier just looks to much like all the other Cavaliers out there... they don't differentiate well.

On the challenge my main issue is the change from the dice to a straight bonus... it's just one more class with something else to add in mathmatically without any dice rolled... I really enjoyed having a melee class that got to roll a hand full of dice. It was also nice in that it wasn't as swingy as the straight bonus... one good charge with the spirited charge feat and all that damage is multiplied by 3... so we have another one hit wonder character (much like the paladin or a ranger against his special foe). I would rather see moderate hits with more dice that don't multiple honestly.


Ross Byers wrote:
I removed some posts. Personal attacks will not be tolerated.

Take 2.

A Man In Black wrote:
Loopy wrote:
I think a lot of folks are having a hard time seeing the forest for the trees. Overall, this is a great class. It has a lot going on. It's got a very good base-stat foundation. Some powerful abilities, some more flavorful abilities. The class seems like it's going to play very strategically. I think that's true of some of these classes in the APG. They seem to focus on giving advanced players a lot to play with and tweak and many of their abilities are meant to be used strategically in battle.
You didn't say a single word about the cavalier or APG there; I could copy-paste that paragraph about any class made ever.

No you couldn't.


Abraham spalding wrote:

I'm a bit disappointed in the new Challenge mechanics (mainly the straight bonus instead of bonus dice) and the lack of neat mounts.

Being limited to just horses camels and dogs is really a bit disappointing in a fantasy game with everything that entails I really do want to see cavaliers on flying mounts, or dinosaurs. I'm hoping at the minimum they will include a feat that allows access to more types of mounts... as it currently stands the Cavalier just looks to much like all the other Cavaliers out there... they don't differentiate well.

On the challenge my main issue is the change from the dice to a straight bonus... it's just one more class with something else to add in mathmatically without any dice rolled... I really enjoyed having a melee class that got to roll a hand full of dice. It was also nice in that it wasn't as swingy as the straight bonus... one good charge with the spirited charge feat and all that damage is multiplied by 3... so we have another one hit wonder character (much like the paladin or a ranger against his special foe). I would rather see moderate hits with more dice that don't multiple honestly.

I think the shift was to reduce the overal dice rolling based on the number of swings that a Cavalier would have in each round of combat.

1d6 per two levels verses +1 per level.

1d6 average is 3.5 per die.

Over the 19 levels of die gains that is + 7 x 3.5 per swinng = + 24.5 damage per swing doing it by dice on average.

Over the 20 levels of +1 gains that is +20 damage per swing.

The die system gives +10% more damage on average.

The dice rolling though at level 20 with all attacks hitting requires rolling and adding up an extra 4 x7 = 28 dice. If the person is TWF then that is another possible 3 x7 = 21 dice. A total of 49 extra damage dice that need to be rolled and added up instead of a set bonus per strike.

I think this is why it was done for ease of game play. I mean, this isn't Champions/HERO.


Smerg wrote:
Abraham spalding wrote:

I'm a bit disappointed in the new Challenge mechanics (mainly the straight bonus instead of bonus dice) and the lack of neat mounts.

Being limited to just horses camels and dogs is really a bit disappointing in a fantasy game with everything that entails I really do want to see cavaliers on flying mounts, or dinosaurs. I'm hoping at the minimum they will include a feat that allows access to more types of mounts... as it currently stands the Cavalier just looks to much like all the other Cavaliers out there... they don't differentiate well.

On the challenge my main issue is the change from the dice to a straight bonus... it's just one more class with something else to add in mathmatically without any dice rolled... I really enjoyed having a melee class that got to roll a hand full of dice. It was also nice in that it wasn't as swingy as the straight bonus... one good charge with the spirited charge feat and all that damage is multiplied by 3... so we have another one hit wonder character (much like the paladin or a ranger against his special foe). I would rather see moderate hits with more dice that don't multiple honestly.

I think the shift was to reduce the overal dice rolling based on the number of swings that a Cavalier would have in each round of combat.

1d6 per two levels verses +1 per level.

1d6 average is 3.5 per die.

Over the 19 levels of die gains that is + 7 x 3.5 per swinng = + 24.5 damage per swing doing it by dice on average.

Over the 20 levels of +1 gains that is +20 damage per swing.

The die system gives +10% more damage on average.

The dice rolling though at level 20 with all attacks hitting requires rolling and adding up an extra 4 x7 = 28 dice. If the person is TWF then that is another possible 3 x7 = 21 dice. A total of 49 extra damage dice that need to be rolled and added up instead of a set bonus per strike.

I think this is why it was done for ease of game play. I mean, this isn't Champions/HERO.

But rolling dice is FUN.


This!

I like having a front liner class that gets to roll a bunch of dice. It's part of the charm. In many aspects playing the fighter has become an exercise in accounting, this bonus here, plus that bonus there, plus one here...

The cavalier was very different. You got to do something that usually only rogues and blasters got to do -- roll a lot of dice.

Which brings on another point... even with all those rolls the Cavalier wasn't any worse off than say a two weapon fighting rogue, or a blast happy wizard.

Plus this doesn't address the swinginess of this on a spirited charging (and they will be!) cavalier, or critical hits, or the super bonus charge (at level 20) that the cavalier can do. With the spirited charge the damage will be tripled, and if you somehow get to level twenty the damage is instead quintupled before you critical.

Over all it's a disappointment to me. Before it was an exciting way to finally be able to drop a lot of dice for a front line character instead of just totaling up the bonuses.

Now it's just another paladin smite. Boring.

*****

I STILL want my exotic mounts back. Just a horse, camel, pony, or dog? Really? Come on! Martial classes desire some exotic loving too! Let them have their Roc or Tiger at higher level -- paladins and druids shouldn't be the only ones out there with a special mount that's actually awesome.


Cartigan wrote:
They got free Mounted Combat and their free feats had the mounted combat feats in it. Which is my point. It heavily leaned toward mounted combat but you didn't have to do it. Unlike the cavalier which loses too much to play it if you can't be mounted.

Yeah, mounted combat feats and a mount that was going to keel over and die in one round. The mounted combat feats don't matter if the mount doesn't survive for you to use them. Some people have complained that the Cavalier mount is vulnerable (I'm not one btw) but the Knight's mount was dead meat on the hoof.


R_Chance wrote:
Cartigan wrote:
They got free Mounted Combat and their free feats had the mounted combat feats in it. Which is my point. It heavily leaned toward mounted combat but you didn't have to do it. Unlike the cavalier which loses too much to play it if you can't be mounted.
Yeah, mounted combat feats and a mount that was going to keel over and die in one round. The mounted combat feats don't matter if the mount doesn't survive for you to use them. Some people have complained that the Cavalier mount is vulnerable (I'm not one btw) but the Knight's mount was dead meat on the hoof.

+1

Without an animal companion, mounted combat focus past level 8 is an exercise in futility. Best bring a heard and hope they don't aim at the mount or use AoE spells


Dorje Sylas wrote:
A PHB2 Knight had almost as much value on foot as mounted, which allowed them to wander around dungeons and remain somewhat effective. That included use of both feats and class abilities to build something closer to mounted infantry then calvary. Then again if I remember right the Knight worked much more like a big metal plug at the front of the party that nothing could pass.

Actually I think I covered this above, their mounted combat feats were wasted due to a non-survivable mount. Mounted infantry is right, because they were on foot about a round into combat. Personally, I don't see a Knight or Cavalier as mounted infantry. Knights did have that "though shall not pass" thing going for them I admit. Just not enough "mounted" in that combat :)


Actually, I'm seeing the Cavalier as being bloody good- especialy in a larger/melee heavy party.

Actually he's a fighter with paladin/bard mixed in.

He gets 4 bonus combat feats
He gets 3 more feats that he can grant his allies as well eg Outflank, paired Oppurtunists, swap places) this improves allies effectiveness.
Banner helps group charges (go barbarian! go)

So all up he gets 3 less feats than a fighter, plus a tough mount plus-

He can change his style significantly by order
eg Order of the dragon re(the captain)- 1.makes allies fight better (your rogue loves you) 2.Better protects allies 3. Grants extra move actions.

Order of the cockatrice (re solo killer)
Order of the Lion (defender specialist)
Order of the Shield (lockdown)
Order of the star (short of a aura ability with rolibar's gambit type power mixed in)
Order of the Sword (mounted master)

AND gets 4 skill points per level. This is maybe the 'Officer' version of the fighter. The fighter is better at straight killing. But the Cavalier is a far better leader, diplomat and situationally can be better at damage.

I'd say the class is at least balanced (maybe a fraction overpowered).
The Biggest thing I like about the class is you won't have to spend nearly EVERY feat on +1's and Iron Will....

In fact, I'd say Paizo were looking at the Alternate fighter feature threads and listened but rather than change fighters, gave some of our ideas to the cavalier....

Cheers.


Ardenup wrote:

Actually, I'm seeing the Cavalier as being bloody good- especialy in a larger/melee heavy party...

/snip

...In fact, I'd say Paizo were looking at the Alternate fighter feature threads and listened but rather than change fighters, gave some of our ideas to the cavalier....

Thank you for putting more eloquently what I was failing at explaining.

I am a bit sad about the Will save as well, but I agree with your assessment on balance. The Cavalier is borderline right now and I'm worried that another good save might push it over the edge. I don't think I'd want to see the class lose anything right now in favor of that save either. I mean, every ability is either too central to the class itself or too weak to trade out for a good will save.

However, a good Will save might quiet some of the b@$@+ing about the class getting a mounted combat special ability. I don't think, at that point, there would be any chance of a valid "class balance wasted on Cavalier's Charge" argument. It would still be there, of course, but it would be severely offset by the fact that if you took away that ability the class would still stand strong in a munchy perspective.


Yeah, It's pretty good, for some reason I keep looking at fighter's, cavalier's and paladin (due to DPR bonuses) and see thier class abilities begging for TWF.

Fighters do it very well, Paladins chew every feat to do it or suck, but the cavalier has just enough feats to do it AND Mounted. (taking things like improved flanking team feats help)

They are valid WITHOUT the mount. EG. +5 (order dragon) to all allies to hit is too good to be ignored as well as free group charges.

Cheers.


@ Abraham spalding,

However the base calculation doesn't take into account the Cavalier's primary combat tactic, Ride-by charges. With persision damge dice that damge cannot multiplied, meaning that you get the most out of it by holding still for Two-weapon fighting. With the new setup and the supporting mounted feats (and weapon) the Cav is easly tripleing that damge for single attack. The should be getting almost as much out of a charge as a full attack, on top of all the extra effects.

In general the Cav still does nothing to change the idea that Small mounted characters remain the best at that job in a general game.

I still want a Gnome on a Giant Gecko!


Dorje Sylas wrote:
I still want a Gnome on a Giant Gecko!

that sounds fun!


Berselius wrote:
Who here is disappointed with the new Cavalier? No Oaths, no Armor Training, no shield abilities...and a new mechanic...Teamwork feats...so now party members are going to be pressured to take similar feats and stay adjacent to one other.

I don't like that he now has a more marshalish feel to him.

I would like him to have oaths again, though they needed some work/buffing mechanics wise.

An ability that punishes cowardy foes would be nice.
It would also help with invisible or flying opponents that use ranged attacks.

All that said I wouldn't claim I am very disappointed with the cavalier. He still seems fun to play.

Grand Lodge

I think the biggest reason for the change in challenge from precision dice to a fixed amount was because of all the min-max builds that portrayed the cavalier as a duel wielding fighter.

under edition 1 a duel wielding cavalier could add xd6 damage to his attacks regardless of whether it was one main hand attack or 4 main hand attacks and 2 offhand attacks. it ignored the type of weapon and the crit chance resulting in a favoratism towards light duel wielding weapons to maximise attacks per round.

under version 2 the damage is now fixed per level meaning that duel weilding is still preferable but not hugely overpowering - a cavalier of 7th level would see a +7 added to his DW shortswords (1d6) but would probably still find more damage per round wielding a greatsword (2d6).

However challenge doesn't specify how the new damage is added and should be cleared up before going to print. Someone could argue you add the damage to the attack before multiplying for a critical. I personally would argue that since it is being added to the attack and not the weapons damage then it doesn't multiply. It's also worth noting that the damage is now to melee attacks and not weapon damage so does this mean it will work for touch spells that deal damage?

My only criticism is the lack of attention to non-animal mount options but I have argued this point elsewhere and wont repeat it here.


Dorje Sylas wrote:

@ Abraham spalding,

However the base calculation doesn't take into account the Cavalier's primary combat tactic, Ride-by charges. With persision damge dice that damge cannot multiplied, meaning that you get the most out of it by holding still for Two-weapon fighting. With the new setup and the supporting mounted feats (and weapon) the Cav is easly tripleing that damge for single attack. The should be getting almost as much out of a charge as a full attack, on top of all the extra effects.

In general the Cav still does nothing to change the idea that Small mounted characters remain the best at that job in a general game.

I still want a Gnome on a Giant Gecko!

Actually this is still part of my problem... when all that damage is multiplied on a spirited charge it will generally drop things in a single hit. Now this lessens some as more levels are gained, however I'm still regularly seeing a paladin using spirited charge drop just about everything in LoF... without smiting... 7th level now and he one hit an ettin... dropped a sandworm by half in a single hit too.

Now the dice didn't get multipled... but with everything else that still is the cavalier really doesn't need much more on the spirited charge (not to point out that at 20th level that spirited charge is doing x5 on a hit), and at the end of the day the dice were simply more fun.

That's the point it comes down to for me. Currently the Cavalier looks like a freelance (pun intended) paladin with as cool of a mount.

In the end the Cavalier didn't get as many extra dice as the Rogue does, and not as much flat bonus damage as the fighter did (or the extra bonuses to hit either)... so it's not like he was out damaging the fighter, so I don't think those builds that were all duel wielding were quite all that. Also there are foes that simply don't take precision damage, which was something else I liked about the dice -- you could occasionally have foes that challenging just didn't work against (oozes, elementals, incorporeals)... now not so much.

Grand Lodge

Cartigan wrote:
Cavalier - a mounted Knight. It is heavily focused on his mount and mounted combat. Well that's just great, except for the fact most D&D is dungeon diving

What percentage is *most* for you? My group hasn't done a dungeon crawl for over ten years.

I'm not saying there aren't groups that spend all their time underground, I'm just saying it's a stretch to convince me that such falls under the "most of the time" category.


Maybe an alternate ability for the mount is in order, but it can't be more powerful or useful than the mount itself.

Sovereign Court

I too am disapointed in the lack of oaths. Not that I thought they were nailing it in how they were used, but they did add a lot of flavor to the character. Oaths are a great way of converging between mundane effects and magical effects on a fluff level, with heroic actions emerging because of the weight of what the character was saying.

What I really dislike is the very limited mount list. The first draft was expansive and allowed a lot of interesting character concepts to be created, but now it's be narrowed down to the standard tropes.

I'd made a halfling cavalier Pathfinder Society, and taking a tarzan like approach to the character. He rode an elephant and it was a great time. It was roleplay gold to have a wild half naked halfling atop an elephant, making steely eyed threats with oaths. I was able to play up the elephant, with his bellows and other elephantness, etc. Good stuff.

Unfortunately now that isn't usable. PFS, the GM, says no now. That's what really is annoying, having it be a GMs decision as it's one of those random elements of taste that the player has to negotiate with, meanwhile the standard rules funnel everyone into a very narrow vision of how to use the class.

I could go and play a Druid and it would be fine having an elephant companion, but the druid isn't about mounted combat and doesn't even have full BAB. Sure you can be your own nightmare fighter type as a druid, but it isn't emphasizing being mounted the whole time.

Rather than just focusing on the cavalier being a "knight" make it so that we can play around with the class and a first step is allow exotic creatures to be used.


Mok wrote:

I too am disapointed in the lack of oaths. Not that I thought they were nailing it in how they were used, but they did add a lot of flavor to the character. Oaths are a great way of converging between mundane effects and magical effects on a fluff level, with heroic actions emerging because of the weight of what the character was saying.

What I really dislike is the very limited mount list. The first draft was expansive and allowed a lot of interesting character concepts to be created, but now it's be narrowed down to the standard tropes.

I'd made a halfling cavalier Pathfinder Society, and taking a tarzan like approach to the character. He rode an elephant and it was a great time. It was roleplay gold to have a wild half naked halfling atop an elephant, making steely eyed threats with oaths. I was able to play up the elephant, with his bellows and other elephantness, etc. Good stuff.

Unfortunately now that isn't usable. PFS, the GM, says no now. That's what really is annoying, having it be a GMs decision as it's one of those random elements of taste that the player has to negotiate with, meanwhile the standard rules funnel everyone into a very narrow vision of how to use the class.

I could go and play a Druid and it would be fine having an elephant companion, but the druid isn't about mounted combat and doesn't even have full BAB. Sure you can be your own nightmare fighter type as a druid, but it isn't emphasizing being mounted the whole time.

Rather than just focusing on the cavalier being a "knight" make it so that we can play around with the class and a first step is allow exotic creatures to be used.

APG Playtest wrote:

The GM

might approve other animals as suitable mounts.

Unless there's some kind of terrible Pathfinder Society rule about GM approval, then your DM is being kind of a (EXPLETIVE DELETED).

Sovereign Court

Loopy wrote:
Unless there's some kind of terrible Pathfinder Society rule about GM approval, then your DM is being kind of a (EXPLETIVE DELETED).

Well, I can understand with Pathfinder Society, it's organizer wants to stick to the material as written as much as possible in general principle, so it doesn't surprise me that they are sticking to just the basic options.

But yeah, the problem of having GM approval is that you're left to whatever whim or mood GMs are in at the time.

Presumably the extended list of animal companions are all balanced for play, so it shouldn't be an issue that mechanically having it be an expanded list is somehow going to screw up the math of the game.

Having experienced RPGs for 30 years now, there are plenty of GMs who are going to exclude things for completely irrational reasons, "what you're riding a dinosaur, that's broken!" even though it isn't in terms of the mechanics.

Instead the flavor is getting locked down to a narrow and dull range of options. It stifles creativity and since the mount is supposed to be a big deal for the Cavalier it constrains possibilities.

The GM already has plenty of power in the game, they can say "There are no elves in my world" for whatever reason they want, so allowing for an expanded list of mounts isn't going to screw anything up. Give the players the power they deserve to be able to make interesting characters. If the GM wants to squash dinosaurs or whatever then put the onus on the GM to do that, rather than baking into the RAW limited options.

51 to 83 of 83 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Archive / Pathfinder / Playtests & Prerelease Discussions / Advanced Player's Guide Playtest / Advanced Player's Guide Playtest: Final Playtest / Who here is disappointed with the new Cavalier? All Messageboards
Recent threads in Advanced Player's Guide Playtest: Final Playtest