Familiars, bonded mounts and eidolons. (Some AP spoilers)

[FallofCamelot]

First off this is NOT a dig at the APG. I generally like the vast majority of the stuff in my shiny new book. Nor is this a thread saying any of the new classes are broken or otherwise. There are plenty of threads elsewhere discussing the various merits (or otherwise) of the new classes.

My point is about a Cavalier's bonded mount, the Witch's familiar and the Summoner's eidolon.

When Pathfinder first came out I noted with interest that the previously obligatory familiars, bonded mounts and animal companions were now optional with an alternative offered. This I thought was a good thing as it gave players more options and allowed GM's to recommend alternatives to players so they could fit into a campaign more successfully.

However three of the new classes introduced (Cavalier/Summoner/Witch) have obligatory mounts, (effective) animal companions and familiars respectively without giving an alternative option. I find this somewhat curious as Paizo seems to have gone out of it's way previously to make these animal companions optional rather than compulsory.

With the Summoner and Witch it's not so bad as an eidlon can be dismissed and a familiar isn't exactly a bulky travelling companion. However the Cavalier's bonded mount gives me pause.

My reasoning is this. The Cavalier's bonded mount is great for wilderness encounter based games (such as Kingmaker) but is distinctly less use in a game that has much less travelling or exploring.

Good examples from Paizo AP's where a bonded mount would be utterly useless:

Legacy of Fire:

Legacy of Fire: the majority of this campaign is spent in cities or dungeons. There are some places where a bonded mount could be of use (notibly Kakishon) but the vast majority of the game (I would say 75-80%) is not spent in an area that is conducive to horseback fighting.

Serpent's Skull:

Serpent's Skull: OK so we have only had one module but I forsee obvious problems for bonded mounts in this one. Plus the first module doesn't exactly start well for a horseman and I could see some hungry shipwrecked passengers seriously considering horse steak for dinner...

Council of Thieves:

Council of Thieves: I will admit that I only have the first two modules for this one but again horsemanship isn't high on the agenda. Concerning the second module, I can say that having worked in theatres IRL I can confirm that it's remarkable how many horses you don't see on stage :)

As the Cavalier is so dependent on his/her mount the character is only really worthwhile playing in a specific type of campaign. I find this a tad disappointing as I believe a non mounted Cavalier should have been an option.

What do other people think?

[DM_aka_Dudemeister]

Halfling cavaliers can take their mounts anywhere. Gives a player a good excuse to try a small warrior character.

[TheLoneCleric]

DM_aka_Dudemeister wrote:

Halfling cavaliers can take their mounts anywhere. Gives a player a good excuse to try a small warrior character.

*laughs* I did not think of that. Bravo good sir, Bravo!

[Thazar]

I am starting a LOF AP and one character is playing a Gnome Cavalier build around this figure. :) Should work well in 90% of the AP. But to your main point, yes a player making a cavalier is choosing to have a mount as a main point of the character.

A good DM and player should be able to make it work out in most cases. And if it is REALLY not a good fit, then the DM and player should talk about that before the campaign. It is no different then many other class options that could conflict with a theme. A Giant hunting Ranger in a city based campaign is not going to go any better then a cleric of Ravogug in Kingmaker IMHO.