Cavalier's Mount


Advanced Player's Guide Playtest: Final Playtest

Liberty's Edge

Any chance that the Cavalier's Mount ability might offer an alternative, in the same way that a Paladin's sacred bond ability or a Ranger's Animal Companion? Or the Wizard's Arcane bond?


Heh, didn't we cover this a few times? The mount is the point of the class. Take out the mount and ya might as well not have the class. They are not a core class, they are a focused class, the mount being the base of the class.Everything else is extra, taking the mount out is like taking holy from a paladin or casting from a wizard.


Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
seekerofshadowlight wrote:
Heh, didn't we cover this a few times? The mount is the point of the class. Take out the mount and ya might as well not have the class. They are not a core class, they are a focused class, the mount being the base of the class.Everything else is extra, taking the mount out is like taking holy from a paladin or casting from a wizard.

This.

It doesn't hurt for something to be focused every now and then. If you don't like it, then take fighter or paladin.


seekerofshadowlight wrote:
Heh, didn't we cover this a few times? The mount is the point of the class. Take out the mount and ya might as well not have the class. They are not a core class, they are a focused class, the mount being the base of the class.Everything else is extra, taking the mount out is like taking holy from a paladin or casting from a wizard.

If people keep bringing this up and talking on it then that should show something to pay attention to and work upon.

When doing product testing and quality testing, the aim is to identify the three or four things people keep telling you. You get a much higher return on your investment of time (which means money) by addressing these issues.

Look at the history of Dragon Magazine and think of how many articles were written on the Ranger with suggestions to make it more usable in dungeons and urban enviroments. The same was with the Druid.

When people keep telling you something then there is a demand that is not being met or a problem that is not being addressed.

Let's be truthful, a name means very little in the mechanics of the game.

Just because you name something a 'cavalier' doesn't force them to be attached to their mount. I mean, at one point in history, a Samurai was required to shoot a bow while mounted and hit three targets. It was the bow mounted skill that defined a warrior as a Samurai in the army. Yet, in the game history, Samurai are often defined by their usage of a sword with almost no attention paid to their usage of a bow while mounted.

In the dictionary, Cavalier can refer to a type of mounted soldier but it can also refer to an attitude (both postive in gallant or negative in domineering). It can be used as a noun, adjective, or verb.

A one word name should not define all the abilities of a class and if that name is a problem then change the name.

The key feedback is that people want more flexability on the choice of mount or ability to have something other than the mount if they are in their home game.


And again the class you want to play is not the cavalier. You don't go playing a paladin and go "Can I strip out lay on hands? healing is not my thing. True the lay on hands is 7 ability to the mounted stuff's 6 but thats the point. Mounted is a core part of the class ripping it out is not like having a alt option of the ranger or paladin as that have 1 ablity your are replacing.

And yes Samurai would make good cavaliers as they were mounted as well. The mount is a part of the class, you work fine when you can't be mounted but stripping that out changes the class as a whole.

The mount of changes is not the same as what the paladin and ranger have, it's that simple. The mount is a key part of the class, without it there really is no point to even printing this class.


Smerg wrote:

If people keep bringing this up and talking on it then that should show something to pay attention to and work upon.

When doing product testing and quality testing, the aim is to identify the three or four things people keep telling you. You get a much higher return on your investment of time (which means money) by addressing these issues.

No. If they are "telling you things" about a different product than you are making it's mostly a waste of time. If you're making a first person shooter (video game) and play testers keep talking about the need for resource management and tech levels (as in an RTS) it's not doing you any good. The testers need to understand what they are testing and stick to it, or not test it. The designers determine the type of game (or in this case class), the testers are supposed to see how / if it works, not redesign it. The designers at Paizo have been great in listening to (or looking at) a wide range of play testing, ideas and discussion but the basic ideas about the classes are pretty much a done deal at this point (imo anyway, Paizo may differ with me). And the focus of the cavalier seesm to be a mounted combat class.

Of course, redesigns may contain good ideas for another product, but compromising a products focus, trying to cover many bases with one product, is not generally successful.

*sigh* And I don't mean their is no value to this type of discussion, especially early on in design, but at this stage it's a little late to rip apart your basic design. Another class, foot based, with some of the same ideas built in might be a good class.


1> None of the feedback has said anything of 'ripping' apart or 'redesign' of the current class. All the discussion that I have seen on the mount has suggested the 'extra' option.

Nothing is suggested as being removed from the options for people that like the Cavalier as it currently is and works for people.

We are dealing with a fantasy enviroment where a character 'class' has to cover the behaviour and fighting styles of a large variety of types of people.

Would you say that a 'Fighter' should not be able to choose 'Archer' feats (missile feats) as bonus 'Fighter Feats' because they are called 'Fighter Feats' and not 'Archer Feats'?

If a 'Fighter' wants to be a specialized missile user that is a perfectly good choice. The mechanics still work for the 'class' even though it doesn't say 'Archer'.

People like the Challenge mechanics and the Orders but would like to be able to bring that easier into their fantasy enviroments.

I would compare this to offering cup holders on a car. Sure, for some people cup holders are an awful intrusion into the interior of the car. Yet, for others, it can make the differance between choosing that car or another because of their lifestyle. It doesn't hurt the designer or manufacturer to include cup holders as the differance in overall price is practically the same. If adding cup holders makes a sale then it is worthwhile to include cup holders.

The other intersting thing of cup holders is that people that don't like cup holders usually don't base their purchase decisions on the cup holders being there. They may not like them or look for them but they generally don't stop buying a car because they see them. There purchase choices are usually made on other items.

2> I don't think it is 'too' late in the design process to change the phrase "must be one that he is capable of riding and is a suitable mount" to "most choose one that is capable of riding and is a suitable mount".

The rules that say the mount functions like a Druid's animal companion and the cavalier level functions as the Druid level remain the same. The change helps those people that have troubles trying to get a large mount into a dungeon/interior without access to magic to 'shrink' their mount.

The people that like the cavalier with the mount still have the mount and the people with the option have the option. Neither group is hurt or hindered by the change and the mechanics of the class remain the same.

3> This is why, I suggest further that the 'Cavalier Charge' ability be turned into a bonus feat called 'Improved Charge' and 'Greater Charge'. There currently is not such a feat that gives a +4 or a +6 on a charge. Turning this into a feat adds a new option or 'Feat tree' to the other classes (like Fighter or Barbarian to use). It also adds the advantage of bringing it under the existing 'Feat' rules which keeps the bonus constrained (controlls stacking).

Again, just because 'Fighter' and 'Barbarian' don't have the word 'Cavalry' or 'Horse' in their name, I don't think you would suggest these classes could not pick a feat (or as a Fighter a Fighter Bonus Feat) to help them be better in the saddle.


Smerg wrote:
1> None of the feedback has said anything of 'ripping' apart or 'redesign' of the current class. All the discussion that I have seen on the mount has suggested the 'extra' option.

Sorry if I sounded like a b*tt in the previous post, but it's meant to point out two things: One, this playtest is almost done and major changes are unlikely. Two, as others have pointed out the classes in the APG nare more narrowly focused niche classes -- thye don't have to be everything to everyone.

Smerg wrote:


Nothing is suggested as being removed from the options for people that like the Cavalier as it currently is and works for people.

We are dealing with a fantasy enviroment where a character 'class' has to cover the behaviour and fighting styles of a large variety of types of people.

Would you say that a 'Fighter' should not be able to choose 'Archer' feats (missile feats) as bonus 'Fighter Feats' because they are called 'Fighter Feats' and not 'Archer Feats'?

Diluting and changing the focus of the class is the issue. Ballancing various abilities against each other and making the other abilities function in more than one way is a pain. The Fighter *is* the catch all, everyones utility combat class. It has to be flexible, the Cavalier does not need that degree of flexibility. It will do nicely for western medieval knights, mounted bushi of the samurai caste and other elite mounted warriors. It doesn't need to be more flexible than that.

Smerg wrote:


If a 'Fighter' wants to be a specialized missile user that is a perfectly good choice. The mechanics still work for the 'class' even though it doesn't say 'Archer'.

People like the Challenge mechanics and the Orders but would like to be able to bring that easier into their fantasy enviroments.

Build a new class. Base them on duelling and challenges. Nice idea for a Erol Flynn / Three Musketeers type class. Call the orders "regiments", have the King's / Queens Guards and the Cardinal's. No problem.

Smerg wrote:


I would compare this to offering cup holders on a car. Sure, for some people cup holders are an awful intrusion into the interior of the car. Yet, for others, it can make the differance between choosing that car or another because of their lifestyle. It doesn't hurt the designer or manufacturer to include cup holders as the differance in overall price is practically the same. If adding cup holders makes a sale then it is worthwhile to include cup holders.

The other intersting thing of cup holders is that people that don't like cup holders usually don't base their purchase decisions on the cup holders being there. They may not like them or look for them but they generally don't stop buying a car because they see them. There purchase choices are usually made on other items.

More like deciding that yor sportscar also has to be able to carry the soccer team.

Smerg wrote:


2> I don't think it is 'too' late in the design process to change the phrase "must be one that he is capable of riding and is a suitable mount" to "most choose one that is capable of riding and is a suitable mount".

The rules that say the mount functions like a Druid's animal companion and the cavalier level functions as the Druid level remain the same. The change helps those people that have troubles trying to get a large mount into a dungeon/interior without access to magic to 'shrink' their mount.

The people that like the cavalier with the mount still have the mount and the people with the option have the option. Neither group is hurt or hindered by the change and the mechanics of the class remain the same.

3> This is why, I suggest further that the 'Cavalier Charge' ability be turned into a bonus feat called 'Improved Charge' and 'Greater Charge'. There currently is not such a feat that gives a +4 or a +6 on a charge. Turning this into a feat adds a new option or 'Feat tree' to the other classes (like Fighter or Barbarian to use). It also adds the advantage of bringing it under the existing 'Feat' rules which keeps the bonus constrained (controlls stacking).

Again, just because 'Fighter' and 'Barbarian' don't have the word 'Cavalry' or 'Horse' in their name, I don't think you would suggest these classes could not pick a feat (or as a Fighter a Fighter Bonus Feat) to help them be better in the saddle.

Getting a large mount into a dungeon? Leave it elsewhere. If it's a dungeon crawl leave the horse in the stable. Nothing stops the Cavalier from stumping around on foot. He doesn't have access to his mount, but a number of classes have advantages or disadvantages in certain environments.

If you are going to give the Cavaliers main abilities up to everyone, you might as well go with a "Bonded Mount" feat that gives everyone their mount and can the class. Other classes have access to mounted combat feats, but a mounted class should have access to better stuff, whether you call it a feat or an ability. So, yes, I would argue that the Cavalier, as a specialist, should have better mounted combat abilities than the Fighter. Or just skip the class and have mounted combat feats (with the option of a special mount) instead.

Community / Forums / Archive / Pathfinder / Playtests & Prerelease Discussions / Advanced Player's Guide Playtest / Advanced Player's Guide Playtest: Final Playtest / Cavalier's Mount All Messageboards
Recent threads in Advanced Player's Guide Playtest: Final Playtest