Who here is disappointed with the new Cavalier?


Advanced Player's Guide Playtest: Final Playtest

1 to 50 of 83 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

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.


Uh...

Old Cavalier: No Armor Training New Cavalier: *ZERO* ACP to Ride on Mount
Old Cavalier: No Teamwork Feats New Cavalier: Bonus Teamwork Feats you can GRANT to your Team-mates (Marshal-esque in a way)
Old Cavalier: 4th Edition-esque Per Encounter DMG mechanic New Cavalier: Per Day DMG mechanic more in line with game as whole

I like the New Cavalier.

RPG Superstar 2011 Top 4

The cavalier and inquisitor both classes that use teamwork feats also have class abilities that allow allies to benefit from them without actually having to take the feats.

If you had both of them in the same party the two would have amazing synergy.


I actually really like the new Cavalier. I mean, I liked it before, but I thought the new changes were generally pretty good. Challenge was weird to see without a set of dice next to it, but I like that its more static now and reigned in under the "per day" mechanics rather than "per encounter" mechanics, which was sometimes a little vague.

I also second Quandary's points.

To be perfectly honest, I'll admit that I may not have seen the Cavalier long enough to notice any effect of the Oaths, but I also heard that they were fairly unnoticeable.

I also like Teamwork feats, but thats just me.


I have a player in a campaign running a cavalier, and he had a really hard time making any of the oaths come up in a natural way in play. I don't think loosing them is a big problem.

Liberty's Edge

The Weave05 wrote:

I actually really like the new Cavalier. I mean, I liked it before, but I thought the new changes were generally pretty good. Challenge was weird to see without a set of dice next to it, but I like that its more static now and reigned in under the "per day" mechanics rather than "per encounter" mechanics, which was sometimes a little vague.

I also second Quandary's points.

To be perfectly honest, I'll admit that I may not have seen the Cavalier long enough to notice any effect of the Oaths, but I also heard that they were fairly unnoticeable.

I also like Teamwork feats, but thats just me.

I prefer per day as well. Per encounter feels a little too 4E to me ...


Marc Radle 81 wrote:
I prefer per day as well. Per encounter feels a little too 4E to me ...

I'm the opposite way. I dislike 1/day abilities because I find they promote stinginess ("I won't use this ability now, even though we're getting our asses kicked, because we might have to fight someone REALLY tough later...").

I even prefer the "X rounds per day, broken up as you like" model better (and that's saying something, because I don't like that one very much either).


hogarth wrote:
Marc Radle 81 wrote:
I prefer per day as well. Per encounter feels a little too 4E to me ...
I'm the opposite way. I dislike 1/day abilities because I find they promote stinginess ("I won't use this ability now, even though we're getting our asses kicked, because we might have to fight someone REALLY tough later...").

Thats the exact ballancing factor for them. The Paladin doesn't use his smite against mooks because you save it for a BBEG. That means the fighter, who gets more consistent damage, has a greater utility much of the time. Its a ballancing factor. When the Cavalier had per combat abilities, it meant he was outshining the fighter every small combat.


Caineach wrote:


Thats the exact ballancing factor for them. The Paladin doesn't use his smite against mooks because you save it for a BBEG.

The problem is that I've played with players who would rather risk a TPK than use a potion or a 1/day ability, because it's not a BBEG fight -- it's just a normal fight where everyone's dying. Boo.

Or you end up with the other situation: you've saved up your 1/day ability through half a dozen encounters, and then...the BBEG folds like a house of cards in a hurricane and you don't even get a chance to use your iconic ability.

Caineach wrote:
When the Cavalier had per combat abilities, it meant he was outshining the fighter every small combat.

That's debatable, but even if it's true you could have a lesser ability usable every combat instead of one big ability.


I was disapointed for a few seconds at the changes, but the more I thought about it the more I liked the changes. Plus I have a pretty cool GM, so my Dwarf on Bear combo is still a go.

Liberty's Edge

hogarth wrote:
Marc Radle 81 wrote:
I prefer per day as well. Per encounter feels a little too 4E to me ...

I'm the opposite way. I dislike 1/day abilities because I find they promote stinginess ("I won't use this ability now, even though we're getting our asses kicked, because we might have to fight someone REALLY tough later...").

I even prefer the "X rounds per day, broken up as you like" model better (and that's saying something, because I don't like that one very much either).

I probably should have been more clear ...

I meant I like abilities to have limits like per day, rounds per day etc. They are more specific. I don't like abilities to have a per encounter mechanic. To me, per encounter is too vague and too focused on combat. The per encounter mechanic in general feels too much like 4E to me.

Now, 1/day, 2/day make sense to me. They designate abilities that are intended to be pretty powerful and are designed to be used when the time is right. x/per round is for abilities that are slightly less powerful, but more useful in many different situations.


I think the new cavalier is awesome, he looks really solid. I wish the tactician ability could be used more often per day, though.

The Exchange

I am disappointed with the new challenge mechanic. At first level, 1/day you get +1 damage for an encounter. While this is similar in power to the Paladin Smite, the paladin gets a sizeable bonus to hit and AC while smiting, while the Cavalier grants a small bonus to the party and takes a -2 penalty to AC for his trouble. While I think this ability will be great at mid to high levels, I do not see my upcoming Cav using it before 3rd or 4th level. It just isn't comparable to Smite Evil or Rage. It doesn't need to be to make the class good, but I'd like it to have some utility at low level.

Ryn, who still loves the class, just not the challenge

Sczarni

My main issue is the limitation of times per day for the Teamwork thing, there has to be a feat to increase it at least for those who want to focus on it.

Sovereign Court

Berselius wrote:
Who here is disappointed with the new Cavalier?

You

Me, I like the new cavalier a lot better.

Berselius wrote:
No Oaths,

Yeah Oaths, they were so great that my playtest at 5th and 10th level had me forgetting to even apply them because they were terribly wonky to pull off and insignificant bonuses even if you managed to pull them off.

Berselius wrote:
no Armor Training,

Yeah no armor training, and they don't cast arcane spells, and they don't have bloodlines, or sneak attack, or rage, this new cavalier sucks.

Berselius wrote:
no shield abilities

because every cavalier should not only have to have a horse, but should have to use a shield too, it doesn't matter if your cavalier is an arabian horse lord, or a native american plainsdweller, you have to have a shield no matter your concept.

Berselius wrote:
..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.

um no they aren't, the cavalier grants them to others, and they are free bonuses to the cavalier meaning that he not only gets a boost, but he can grant that boost to others and if your allies actually take the feat then even more bonus. By the way the cavalier provide this bonus to everyone within 30ft, which is 3x the range that a paladins aura extends, do paladins also suck?

You also forgot to mention that your horse gets light armor proficiency as well which is something no other AnCo gets for free. And as others have stated you missed that he suffers no AC penalties to ride checks making him the best mounted warrior in the game. I played the cavalier in playtest and I'm 100% behind the new changes (the only one I miss is extra dice on challange, but I have no problem with the new version)

Shadow Lodge

Here is what bothered me the most.


Dragonborn3 wrote:
Here is what bothered me the most.

Main thing that bothers me: oaths helped make up for the low will save, and Wisdom as least important attribute.

Without Oaths, my lvl 12 cavalier (+6 Will save) will fail just about any will save he's subjected to most of the time, even a DC 20 he'd fail 65% of the time. And as a level 12 character most threats have much higher save DCs.


Don't forget the Order benefit to challenges as well. An Order of the Lion Cavalier will get a dodge bonus to AC vs. the target of the challenge ranging from +1 to +6 depending on level, and other orders can grant a bonus to saves, a bonus to hit, or extra damage.

Plus, if your DM likes the concept of not all things fighting you are evil (mine does) then the Cavalier can use challenge much more often than the Paladin can smite.


I likee new Cavalier.

Scarab Sages

I'm quite sad Oaths are gone, I would definitely bring them back in somehow. I hear everyone that, mechanically, they were sub-optimal and clunky. However, flavor-wise, I loved them. I just wanted the mechanics tuned up and made more specific.

Oh well... other than that, it's good. Teamwork feats are a nice mechanic, although I don't like most of the existing examples of them. I'll figure out more when I playtest my cavalier in PFS in a few weeks, although I guess by that point my feedback won't matter -- it'll just more guide how I house-rule the current version for my home campaign.


Commenting on the Cavalier, I think it would need a rewrite to make it a viable class. *Note: I have not playtested this class*

The Cavalier is a, well, 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 and even assuming everywhere has nice stairs and everything, all but 2 player races are Medium size, thus needing a Large sized mount. Very impractical.

How many people want to player a class heavily focused on mounted combat where few campaigns can use mounted combat even half the time? The class should be split like the Ranger or most of the other Pathfinder classes - you pick one path or another then the class goes down different paths to support it. There should be a mounted Cavalier and an unmounted Cavalier. Of course then, Cavalier isn't a great name though I don't know why it wasn't called Knight.


Surprisingly enough I like this class. A great alternative to the paladin(that is if you want a knightly class without the restrictions of Lawful Good Alignment)and the straight up Fighter class as well. When the Cavalier came out I have to admit I was put off by the oaths and abilities that lacked clarification. However I see the team really sat down and trimmed the things that didnt work and added things that fit perfectly and gave better details on the abilities. I think this class is good to go


I liked the Cavalier when it was the weaker and more convoluted Knight from PHBII, but it wasn't as mount focused.


Yeah, there does seem to be a lot of b@~+$ing about the mount thing. Meh. Looking at the class, I'd say its abilities are well-balanced for an average adventure. Sometimes you'll have the mount. Sometimes you won't. I do see a major advantage in favor of small-sized Cavaliers, however. /shrug. My Halfling Cavalier is going to be a right badass on his riding dog so I don't really care.

Sovereign Court

Pathfinder Card Game, Maps, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Loopy, You don't play a Goblin riding a Goblin Dog?


Marc Radle 81 wrote:
The Weave05 wrote:

I actually really like the new Cavalier. I mean, I liked it before, but I thought the new changes were generally pretty good. Challenge was weird to see without a set of dice next to it, but I like that its more static now and reigned in under the "per day" mechanics rather than "per encounter" mechanics, which was sometimes a little vague.

I also second Quandary's points.

To be perfectly honest, I'll admit that I may not have seen the Cavalier long enough to notice any effect of the Oaths, but I also heard that they were fairly unnoticeable.

I also like Teamwork feats, but thats just me.

I prefer per day as well. Per encounter feels a little too 4E to me ...

And if 4E didn't exist, you wouldn't complain. 1/day to 7/day at 19th level is extremely limited. Your special ability just went from 1-MANY times a day (if you are dungeon diving) to 1-7/day. That is a hardcore nerf. I would say it should be 3+ Cha times a day, or 3 + 1/2 Cavalier level a day. Especially given that Challenge is one of the major Cavalier abilities.


I admit I was a little disappointed to see the flanked condition get replaced by a flat -2 AC penalty. Now, when a challenging Cavalier does get flanked, he takes a hefty -4 total penalty, which doesn't seem in keeping with the power of the ability, especially at lower levels.


It depends on how many encounters you see per day, Cartigan. At low levels might feel it, except that the damage boost is so low it won't truly be missed.

If you tend to have only a couple of encounters per day, then the change is a boost.

If you typically run through 10 or so, then yes, hardcore nerf.


It has nothing to do with 4e or balance for me. I just don't like (Ex) abilities with a per-day or even per encounter limit. In 90% of cases, it just makes no logical sense whatsoever that they cannot keep performing the action over and over again. In my opinion, rules should make sense first and worry about balance second. I know this isn't always practical in an RPG that boatloads of people play. In the cases where balance must take precedent, house rules or simply capitulation are really the only answer (for my game).

The Exchange

Loopy wrote:
In my opinion, rules should make sense first and worry about balance second. I know this isn't always practical in an RPG that boatloads of people play. In the cases where balance must take precedent, house rules or simply capitulation are really the only answer (for my game).

Agree, agree, agree 100%. I find that I (and my players) are always very disappointed if a mechanic has no logical basis. When the cavalier's Challenge was 1/combat, it made sense because he focused on that person above all others. But 1,2,3/day? What, does he have a quota? Why can't he challenge more people? Is it against his religion? Honestly, I think that the challenge ability should be an at-will type of ability, but he should be forced to keep his challenge on one enemy until that enemy is defeated (ie. slain, surrenders). It isn't Smite Evil, and it shouldn't behave like Smite Evil. It isn't granted by the gods, it is fueled by his determination and focus. Maybe if the enemy gets the better of him (ie. he gets dropped unconscious or the enemy escapes) then he can't make any more challenges that day because of the blow to his confidence.


Cartigan wrote:
I liked the Cavalier when it was the weaker and more convoluted Knight from PHBII, but it wasn't as mount focused.

It's not a core class. It's mount focused because they wanted a mount focused class, not a ranger / fighter / paladin type who operated primarily on foot. That limits their utility in a dungeon delve, but improves it outdoors. It's a trade off. Different classes have always had advantages in different adventuring environments. Personally I like the class. It fulfills it's function / fills it's niche nicely.


Hunterofthedusk wrote:
Agree, agree, agree 100%. I find that I (and my players) are always very disappointed if a mechanic has no logical basis. When the cavalier's Challenge was 1/combat, it made sense because he focused on that person above all others. But 1,2,3/day? What, does he have a quota? Why can't he challenge more people? Is it against his religion? Honestly, I think that the challenge ability should be an at-will type of ability, but he should be forced to keep his challenge on one enemy until that enemy is defeated (ie. slain, surrenders). It isn't Smite Evil, and it shouldn't behave like Smite Evil. It isn't granted by the gods, it is fueled by his determination and focus. Maybe if the enemy gets the better of him (ie. he gets dropped unconscious or the enemy escapes) then he can't make any more challenges that day because of the blow to his confidence.

Maybe that kind of focus / concentration on one opponent is difficult and they can't manage it more than once / day (at 1st level). The other way certainly had flavor, but this way is no less "logical". It just requires a different explanation...

RPG Superstar 2010 Top 32

It's significantly improved. It still has issues.

Violating your order's edicts keeps you from using abilities which are completely mundane and inherent. It'd make sense if orders were magical or based on reputation, but being selfless once makes you worse at bragging?

Being tied to horses/camels not only benches cavaliers in dungeons, it benches cavaliers against flying foes. If a foe flies, cavaliers are completely impotent. They can't even benefit the party other than granting save bonuses.

There are still no rules for handling banner poles. Can you hand it to a squire? Mount it on the mount? Plant it in the ground? Hold it in a shield hand? Fly the banner on the same turn as making a lance attack?

Order abilities pretty much suck. Nearly all of the level 15 abilities are of the form "Make one or two extra attacks 1/day" or "Add cha to stuff for a round 1/day".

And that's just a cursory glance without digging into the orders too deeply.

The Exchange

R_Chance wrote:
Maybe that kind of focus / concentration on one opponent is difficult and they can't manage it more than once / day (at 1st level). The other way certainly had flavor, but this way is no less "logical". It just requires a different explanation...

Concentrating on one opponent is something you can only do a certain number of times per day? Does the cavalier suffer voluntary head trauma after his quota is filled for the day? It isn't a supernatural power (like smite evil), and the action isn't particularly taxing (like raging). The ranger's favored enemy would be the closest (in flavor), but rather than studying a foe before hand, he studies his foe on the spot.


R_Chance wrote:
Cartigan wrote:
I liked the Cavalier when it was the weaker and more convoluted Knight from PHBII, but it wasn't as mount focused.
It's not a core class. It's mount focused because they wanted a mount focused class, not a ranger / fighter / paladin type who operated primarily on foot. That limits their utility in a dungeon delve, but improves it outdoors. It's a trade off. Different classes have always had advantages in different adventuring environments. Personally I like the class. It fulfills it's function / fills it's niche nicely.

The trouble is that it forces a GM to provide an variant like the Urban Ranger. This 'steed' problem was why the Ranger, Paladin, and Wizard were provided with a non-animal alternative.

I don't think a non-animal alternative needs to be offered but I also think that the companion should 'have' to be such a narrow selection of mounts or mounts at all.

The riding of a mount provides access to a series of great feats that can allow a character to do great amounts of damage on charges. Most players after reading the feats rules can see the advantage and a cavalier gets benefits from wearing armour and being mounted.

That should be enough of an incentive for players to make cavaliers with ridable mounts. I have made several fighter and ranger mounted characters for this reason.

I think the Cavalier that chooses the animal companion route should be a viable alternative too. If it is not in the rules released then you can expect that it will become a variant very quickly to handle dungeon/city/interior campaigns.

My view on character design is that if a GM is going to quickly end up creating the variant or 'fix' to handle player concerns then the variant should have been part of the character class options in the first place.

This is why I would give the Cavalier the bonus of +4 on charges and forget the requirement to be mounted. Better still would be to change this into a 'feat' called 'Improved Charge' and a later feat called 'Greater Charge' that the Cavalier automatically gains at the appropriate levels. This gives the double advantage of avoiding a later feat stacking on top of the Cavalier bonus and provides a new feat option for all players wanting to improve their charging skill.


R_Chance wrote:
Cartigan wrote:
I liked the Cavalier when it was the weaker and more convoluted Knight from PHBII, but it wasn't as mount focused.
It's not a core class. It's mount focused because they wanted a mount focused class, not a ranger / fighter / paladin type who operated primarily on foot. That limits their utility in a dungeon delve, but improves it outdoors. It's a trade off. Different classes have always had advantages in different adventuring environments. Personally I like the class. It fulfills it's function / fills it's niche nicely.

Which is why I said it should be split in two. One focus on Mount and one focus on being an unmounted Knight. The Cavalier has a number of unique abilities, but really, look at it. If you arn't going into a campaign where you are going to be able to mounted 80+% of the time, what are you going to take, Cavalier or Inquisitor? I know which I would go for.

The mount focus is FAR too much for a game that these guys know bloody well is very, very rarely set up for a medium-size mounted combatant as a PC. Who cares if it isn't a core class? They still spent the time making it and balancing it. Why waste the time for a class that will get very little use practically?


A Man In Black wrote:

Order abilities pretty much suck. Nearly all of the level 15 abilities are of the form "Make one or two extra attacks 1/day" or "Add cha to stuff for a round 1/day".

And that's just a cursory glance without digging into the orders too deeply.

Yeah, you need to read them.


The order abilities vary greatly in power. The Order of the Sword, for example, is barely usable as it deals with oaths and old challenge mechanics. I really like the Order of the Shield's abilities as they seem really good for tanking. The Order of the Stick's ability to run away will probably come in handy, too.

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Ellington wrote:

The order abilities vary greatly in power. The Order of the Sword, for example, is barely usable as it deals with oaths and old challenge mechanics. I really like the Order of the Shield's abilities as they seem really good for tanking. The Order of the Stick's ability to run away will probably come in handy, too.

We totally need Order of Stick as the official name.


Gorbacz wrote:
Ellington wrote:

The order abilities vary greatly in power. The Order of the Sword, for example, is barely usable as it deals with oaths and old challenge mechanics. I really like the Order of the Shield's abilities as they seem really good for tanking. The Order of the Stick's ability to run away will probably come in handy, too.

We totally need Order of Stick as the official name.

Nice. The level 2 ability:

Break the 4th Wall: The Cavalier and his allies are allowed to speak directly to the players at any time and can each make one pop culture reference per session.


Gorbacz wrote:
Ellington wrote:

The order abilities vary greatly in power. The Order of the Sword, for example, is barely usable as it deals with oaths and old challenge mechanics. I really like the Order of the Shield's abilities as they seem really good for tanking. The Order of the Stick's ability to run away will probably come in handy, too.

We totally need Order of Stick as the official name.

Seconded.

RPG Superstar 2010 Top 32

Loopy wrote:
Yeah, you need to read them.

I did actually read them. None of the high level order effects are worth going into the barren wasteland of post-level-10 cavalier. I didn't carefully read the orders for theme or logic or balance beyond that.

It still has the barbarian/3.5 ranger issue of being locked into the class, not to get new and interesting abilities, but simply to keep your old abilities from going stale, and that's a major issue.


Cartigan wrote:
R_Chance wrote:

Which is why I said it should be split in two. One focus on Mount and one focus on being an unmounted Knight. The Cavalier has a number of unique abilities, but really, look at it. If you arn't going into a campaign where you are going to be able to mounted 80+% of the time, what are you going to take, Cavalier or Inquisitor? I know which I would go for.

The mount focus is FAR too much for a game that these guys know bloody well is very, very rarely set up for a medium-size mounted combatant as a PC. Who cares if it isn't a core class? They still spent the time making it and balancing it. Why waste the time for a class that will get very little use practically?

It isn't a core class, it doesn't nhave to be universally usable. It doesn't need to be split. If you want a core class that is on foot and has the challenge mechanic (among others) make one. Call it a "duellist" say. Leave the Cavalier with it's mounted focus. Maybe I'm different, but after low levels an increasing amount of my game is outdoors.


Smerg wrote:

The trouble is that it forces a GM to provide an variant like the Urban Ranger. This 'steed' problem was why the Ranger, Paladin, and Wizard were provided with a non-animal alternative.

No, it doesn't. The mount is central to the Cavalier, rip it out and you have another class. I mentioned a "duesllist" class in another post. Give it a challenge mechanic, go all "Three Musketeers" with it and provide them with a "servant" / companion of the 2 legged variety.

Dungeon / city crawl to your hearts delite. No mount to worry about.


Hunterofthedusk wrote:
Concentrating on one opponent is something you can only do a certain number of times per day? Does the cavalier suffer voluntary head trauma after his quota is filled for the day? It isn't a supernatural power (like smite evil), and the action isn't particularly taxing (like raging). The ranger's favored enemy would be the closest (in flavor), but rather than studying a foe before hand, he studies his foe on the spot.

Obsessively, solely, completely, maybe yes. The classic for this class is the Arthurian knight. Obsessing was the norm whether enemies or women. No head injury needed, just a different mind set from the 21st century.


R_Chance wrote:
Cartigan wrote:
R_Chance wrote:

Which is why I said it should be split in two. One focus on Mount and one focus on being an unmounted Knight. The Cavalier has a number of unique abilities, but really, look at it. If you arn't going into a campaign where you are going to be able to mounted 80+% of the time, what are you going to take, Cavalier or Inquisitor? I know which I would go for.

The mount focus is FAR too much for a game that these guys know bloody well is very, very rarely set up for a medium-size mounted combatant as a PC. Who cares if it isn't a core class? They still spent the time making it and balancing it. Why waste the time for a class that will get very little use practically?
It isn't a core class, it doesn't nhave to be universally usable. It doesn't need to be split. If you want a core class that is on foot and has the challenge mechanic (among others) make one. Call it a "duellist" say. Leave the Cavalier with it's mounted focus. Maybe I'm different, but after low levels an increasing amount of my game is outdoors.

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.


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.


Loopy wrote:
I think a lot of folks are having a hard time seeing the forest for the trees. This is a great class. I am very impressed with it. My next PC, whenever I get the opportunity to play one, is definitely going to be a Cavalier.

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.


Note: sorry, something got messed up in my original post.

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.

I am very impressed with the Cavalier. My next PC, whenever I get the opportunity to play one, is definitely going to be a Cavalier.


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?

1 to 50 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