|
But like he said... Small Cavaliers can already pick Full Companion Wolves. If the Companion DOESN`T have the Trip ability, Go For The Throat doesn`t work quite as well, right? `War Dogs` being mechanically treated as a Wolf Companion doesn`t seem to far-fetched to me.
I think the point here is that, besides the `name` of Cavalier, the class is really about a Full BAB Fighter type with trappings of nobility who has social skills and ways to inspire / fight tactically with allies. All of which this Alt Class still has, and makes sense in that context. Noble-types have been known to enjoy hunting with dogs, so I see no reason why this doesn`t make sense in that context.
But like I said, Small races don't make optimal martial characters.
That is an issue with Trip and Go For the Throat, though. Wolf statistics might not be game-breaking, but I think it's something to keep an eye on.
All-in-all this is probably my favorite of the 32.
Excellent execution, who doesn't love trip?
For the record, I had a level 70 and a level 80 hunter on WOW. The names in this archetype aren't a concern for me, though (if it were part of a freelance assignment we were going to publish) I would see if anyone else at Paizo thought it should be changed.
There are three issues I have with cavaliers: 1. The name is way to specific. 2. The mount (everyone at the table sighed when the cavalier tried to get his horse up a shear cliff, "he's got ranks in climb, he can make it!"). 3. Tactical feats.
You can't change the name and tactical feats aren't your fault but you did provide an excellent archetype for this class and you made it something that can actually be used in a dungeon. And after someone mentioned seeing this as a lord training his hunting dogs I can totally understand the flavor side of it.
Everything looks balanced as well except for expert handler. That is way too powerful. An animal companion at full druid level is crazy enough as it is but you added a ranger's animal companion as well. That is going to step on a lot of toes. Besides, that is going to slow down combat and take away from the other players if you've got to decide what three characters are going to do. On top of that this replaces expert trainer, which is a much weaker ability.
Other than that this looks great. I get the feeling we will see you in the next round.
This is a theme i really hoped i would see done. More over it seems to have been done really quiet well. There is a good chance this will be admitted to my games house rules as playable.
|
I like that this Archetype can be refluffed to a Master of Hawks template pretty easily as well, which suit a different sort of historical association.
In line with what Trevor says, above, I wonder if it might be more palatable if the Hound Master had an option to have one hound at full druid level, *or* two hounds at druid -3. His 'bond' and the intensity of the training would be weakened by his split focus between the two hounds, and both would be at 'ranger' level instead. (Although how that would work with the Boon Companion feat, or a similar trait, would have to be adjudicated, perhaps allowing the Hound Master to split up any effective bonus levels between the hounds, up to a maximum of his class level for any one hound.)
Adding additional hounds, at ever-decreasing effective druid levels (such as four hounds at druid-7), while fitting the visual of a 'Pack Master' concept or 'Master of the Wild Hunt' theme, would be some combination of pointless (as the weaker companions prove useless in CR appropriate fights) and cumbersome (lots of dice rolls and 'extra actions,' most of them doing nothing but taking up time at the game table).
I like this one and voted for it, though I wonder how wise it will be to have a full BAB character with a druid-level animal companion.
At the least I think it should use Dog stats instead of Wolf stats.
Why are people (judges included) harping on this?
Baseline Cavaliers already get full-strength animal companions. Hell, Small Cavaliers can even pick wolves and dogs!
Reading this actually made me think this is a good argument for this not being a Fighter archetype. The other full BAB classes have a lot going for them such that an AC might be a bit much. The Cavalier, though, stripped of his mounted combat, needs himself a bonus.
I like the idea of noble hounds, and while there may be some mechanical concern I trust that's handled in the many posts before this. Though the Cav has taught me to enjoy mounted combat, I'm glad to see a good non-mounted option for the class to pop up.
Suffice it to say, you've got my vote.
Hi Cody.
You have my vote.
For me this is the standout archetype of this round, hands down. Well done.
Originally, I had a concern with your design: your choice of Cavalier as the base class--the whole knightly order thing doesn't seem to lend itself terribly well to a knight-who-runs-a-pack-of-hunting-dogs. Surely he would end up a second-class citizen amongst most orders? I can see plenty of Cockatrice Hound Masters, fewer in the Order of the Lion, and almost none in the Order of the Star. I just kept seeing the "Master of the Hounds" as some sort of shabby peasant who sleeps with the dogs in the kennels.
Still, that was a minor issue, and to be perfectly honest I couldn't think of a single base class that would be any better. A fighter is too wedded to fighting himself, an inquisitor has too many wacky features, a ranger has that pesky favoured enemy/terrain stuff going on...
And then it occurred to me: there's absolutely nothing stopping this cavalier from riding a horse while he hunts with his dogs. He can take his Mounted Combat feat if he wants. He can ride his horse just fine--he just can't ride it as well as a vanilla cavalier (and consequently doesn't get the bonuses awarded to the original base class).
So many people in this thread so far are focused on the fact that this is an 'unmounted' cavalier. I honestly see it working much better when it is a mounted cavalier--but the horse gets left behind when the party heads into the caves/dungeon/whatever. Once I figured that out, the whole thing fell into place very nicely.
If I could give you two votes, I would. Nice work. Good luck for the remainder of the contest! I hope to see you in Round 3.
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
,
Star Voter Season 6
|
I like this. While Rocky wouldn't make a good Animal Companion, I'm pretty sure he'd give it two paws up.
I can see where people are saying "Shouldn't this be X class?" Archtypes blur the lines. Shouldn't the arcane duelist be a sorcerer varient (battle sorcerer?) we could go all day on this. That it is a Cavalier varient does one important job, makes the Cavalier playable.
As to 'Go for the throat' Um, that's what wolves do. Now I'd be more worried if the animal had a 'Go for the eyes, boy!' That's skirting really close to a unique term to me.
Defiantely Recommend (and suggest Paizo put it in Ultimate combat)
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
,
Champion Voter Season 6, Champion Voter Season 7, Champion Voter Season 8, Champion Voter Season 9
|
And then it occurred to me: there's absolutely nothing stopping this cavalier from riding a horse while he hunts with his dogs. He can take his Mounted Combat feat if he wants. He can ride his horse just fine--he just can't ride it as well as a vanilla cavalier (and consequently doesn't get the bonuses awarded to the original base class).
So many people in this thread so far are focused on the fact that this is an 'unmounted' cavalier. I honestly see it working much better when it is a mounted cavalier--but the horse gets left behind when the party heads into the caves/dungeon/whatever. Once I figured that out, the whole thing fell into place very nicely.
That was my thought as well. I almost always take a mount and one or two feats no matter the class I play.
I have no issue with the wolf. Most of your bigger dogs are more likely to have the wolf stats over the dog stats. My issue rests with the second hound. I think the expert handler could easily be changed to give a wild empathy style bonus to training his hound. And if he has other non-companion hounds they could also gain the benefit of pack tactics, go for the throat and kill command.
I really think this archetype fits in with the cavalier really well. Many nobles through history kept trained animals for battle or hunting. Falcons, big cats, etc.
This archetype strikes me as leaps and bounds ahead of the other entries for this round. I especially like this concept because it is a good variation on a class that relies somewhat on a mount to do its day to day business.
I was kinda hoping that the Hound Master may have had some access to other dog like animal companions, but given the constraints of the contest, this is something that could be tweaked at a later stage.
Overall, this is the type of character I can see myself playing. You have my vote. Well done and I hope to see you progress to round 3 and beyond.
Andrew Gale
SAGAWORK STUDIOS
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 32
|
This is one of my favorites this round.
The cavalier really needs something that allows you to ditch that horse. I had a master of hounds on my short-list of potential ideas, so I'm really glad to see this archetype.
You did a really excellent job with this one -- any issues I see seem pretty minor and subjective.
Great job. You earned a vote.
I think this is a pretty well thought out archetype. Its abilities fit its theme, and it's a really interesting alternate take on the cavalier.
The whole WoW side-conversation just strikes me as, I'm sorry, so ridiculous. Is there someone who honestly believes Blizzard invented the concept of training a dog to kill? Or that an animal that will go for the throat would, you know, go for the throat? If we're going to decide to avoid everything that Blizzard has, not even invented but just named something similar to at some point we're going to get a lot of unhelpfully named abilities for no good reason. I tend to assume the author doesn't even play WoW.
This is my personal favorite, indeed my dream class. I always wanted to play a hound master type character and this archetype delivers nicely things that can not be done with ranger or druid without being op'ed. Add in that it is well presented and posesses an elegant simplicity and I am all sold!
I'm torn because the entire time I was reading this Archetype, I kept thinking that it doesn't fit the Cavalier at all, as I understand the class.
On the other hand, this is the first time that playing a Cavalier appeals to me at all, so maybe that's good?
Regardless, great concept all around. I think you've earned my vote.
|
This needed to be a Fighter archetype. Cavaliers are a way of adding "Knights" to the game without requiring them to be Paladins. Archetypes are supposed to be variations on a theme and this isn't a variation on a Knight. It's a variation on a Fighter.
I would have to partially disagree on this point. There is some history to knights riding to hunt, and even using dogs in combat. So I think it works on that level; I can certainly see certain knights being more attached to dogs than horses.
I'm voting for this one, certainly. Excellent job, I may very well play a cavalier soon.
Love basics outline of this, making the cavalier have something to bring anywhere inside that's not just a weaker fighter is great. Not sure how I feel about the second Hound, but realistically speaking at -3 to level you'd have to be very careful with where you use it for quiet a few levels.
Cheers!
I don't see this as stepping on the rangers toes. This isn't a wilderness hunter but someone who takes his dogs to war. I guess hunting men not animals.
I would likewise register my concern about the secondary animal companion. I know it's a pack thing however it takes a player away from actually buying dogs(war) and training them. What would have gotten my interest was if that ability was dedicated to buffing normal dogs he trains. He can already grant Teamwork feats to his "pack" so the can force multiply.
Maybe it's because I've been reading A Game of Thrones, I can't help but think of the Starks of Winterfell and their direwolves. Especially Rob Stark. Rob Stark (Hound Master), Jon Snow (Ranger two-handed style). This is partly why I dont have a problem with this dancing around the toes of other "pet" classes.
As to 'Go for the throat' Um, that's what wolves do. Now I'd be more worried if the animal had a 'Go for the eyes, boy!' That's skirting really close to a unique term to me.
So a Hamster Master archetype would have been a bad idea, then?
This archetype is awesome. And like I said, I really like how this archetype takes a major weakness of the class and changes it into a strength. Not only did you do that, you did it awesomely. Good work.
|
|
Maybe instead of more dog companions Expert Handler could give a selection of bonus combat feats for the dog, without the pre-requisites.
That way you could go with Dog statistics and still make it an effective tripper or grappler or whatever.
(Edit)ALSO: What are the chances we can get this or something like it into Ultimate Combat?
So far this is my favorite archetype in this competition. Of course, it's only the third one, but still. The design is solid, and the use of hunting dogs by the nobility is enough of a lock in my mind to make the flavor work for me. It's more usable for dungeon games than most cavaliers, certainly.
You have my vote.
Release the hounds!
I really like this archetype, and like it even more because it makes me want to play a class that I was not a fan before. It even made me think of a falcon based variant.
You have my vote.
Like many others, I'm not a big fan of the Cavalier. They have a lot of good points, but I've never really liked classes with a heavy focus on mounted combat. All it takes to severely hamper a such a character is a low ceiling, something I see a lot of in dungeons.
Take away the mount aspect and replace it with hunting dogs, and suddenly I really want to play a Cavalier.
+1
That's one thing that really struck me about this entry, but not the only thing. It's well written, interesting, and more than just a list of abilities - I want to see more from Cody.
This is one of my top four.
|
I don't see this as stepping on the rangers toes. This isn't a wilderness hunter but someone who takes his dogs to war. I guess hunting men not animals.
I would likewise register my concern about the secondary animal companion. I know it's a pack thing however it takes a player away from actually buying dogs(war) and training them. What would have gotten my interest was if that ability was dedicated to buffing normal dogs he trains. He can already grant Teamwork feats to his "pack" so the can force multiply.
And I'm thinking of the Roman Legions having dogs of war that they used to help in battles. So less ranger-y and more war-ish. Overall, this is one of my favorite archtypes of the group.
My own thought is also, definitely stat up the alpha dog of the pack that plays second to the PC, the rest of the dogs you can buy and then used some sort of improved handle animal check from a new feature rather than having a second dog. Still, I really like this archtype.
Great job.
Got my vote.
Good luck!
I think this is a pretty well thought out archetype. Its abilities fit its theme, and it's a really interesting alternate take on the cavalier.
The whole WoW side-conversation just strikes me as, I'm sorry, so ridiculous. Is there someone who honestly believes Blizzard invented the concept of training a dog to kill? Or that an animal that will go for the throat would, you know, go for the throat? If we're going to decide to avoid everything that Blizzard has, not even invented but just named something similar to at some point we're going to get a lot of unhelpfully named abilities for no good reason. I tend to assume the author doesn't even play WoW.
You obviously haven't dealt with IP world before. Its not if somebody is the first to invent, its the first to Patent or Copyright that gets to call it theirs. In this case Blizzard can make the claim as a violation of their video game, their card game, and their PnP RPG. If they choose to defend that claim is up to them, but any case the concept and the phrases exists as part their IP.
It also doesn't matter if the item is unknowing the same. If the end result bears a similar likeness to the IP then the owner can defend their IP. I doubt the writer didn't know. The latest expansion sold 4.7 million units in one month, and game has over 11 million subscribers. Even in his ignorance of not verifying the originality of the key phrases, it's not a defense when it comes to receiving an offical notification of an IP violation with a cease and desist. Which would be devastating to a printed product recall. By the way if you google Hound Master (or houndmaster) the first page is almost all wow content.
As you also illustrated this is not an original idea in terms of the abilities. Even with a little googling you can find Hound based classes for other RPGs
http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?t=101296
http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?t=109204
What differentiates this entry from others is the use of the Cavalier, and its quality. But as a Superstar entry is it original? and does it violate IP. The first question is up to the voters. The second question is probably up to the lawyers.
I would really doubt there would be any issue with IP infringement here since both phrases have been around before Blizzard and since there is not a whole lot of protection for short phrases. There could still be questions about whether the names should be used because of the similarity, but that would only be to distance pathfinder from WoW. But I would dismiss those concerns based on the fact that those phrases have been present in our lexicon for years, I tried to find an origin for them but sometimes finding those origins can be very hard to do.
I really like this archetype, and like it even more because it makes me want to play a class that I was not a fan before. It even made me think of a falcon based variant.
You have my vote.Another good idea: Falconer.
Then you could have Go For The Eyes instead of Go For The Throat.
You just read my mind. Must remember to prepare mindblank...
Hmmm...just looked at the great wikipedia- maybe the group Humble Pie should sue WoW as they had an album released in 1981 by the name of....wait for it....Go for the Throat.
Enough said on this topic.
I like the idea of a Houndmaster archetype, but I just don't think Cavalier was a good pick for it to be an archetype of.
You obviously haven't dealt with IP world before. Its not if somebody is the first to invent, its the first to Patent or Copyright that gets to call it theirs. In this case Blizzard can make the claim as a violation of their video game, their card game, and their PnP RPG. If they choose to defend that claim is up to them, but any case the concept and the phrases exists as part their IP.
Incorrect. The phrases "Go For the Throat" and "Kill Command" are not trademarks of Blizzard Entertainment or its parents or subsidiaries, and they cannot be copyrighted (as they fall in the category of "titles, names, short phrases, and slogans" which are specifically exempt from copyright law; the case could also be made for the "common property/no original authorship" exemption, because neither phrase is original in any way) or patented. Thus, no, they are not Blizzard IP and Blizzard cannot do anything about them. If the art for the World of Warcraft Hunter abilities had been included with the text, then yes, it would be an IP violation, because that art is protected.
That all said, anyone who's ever played a Hunter in WoW would immediately draw the connection and that's not a good thing for the entry. If the names were entirely coincidental, that's one thing (although even a tiny bit of research would have discovered the connection), but if they were taken from WoW that's, IMO, a big no-no for future rounds. Not only would that show a lack of creativity and pride of work, it risks drawing ire from the fairly sizable "D&D is too MMO-like already" crowd. Note that I'm not saying it was on purpose; just saying that if it was, any future entries should avoid it :)
Anyway, I think this is an excellent archetype, and it will get one of my votes.
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 6
,
Dedicated Voter Season 6
|
Growing on me after initial reading. I hate multiple pets due to in-game time issues, but two dogs seem easier to run with than two different animals. My first take was that this should be a ranger archetype, but I'm being sold on the idea of it being an appropriate courtly option. And I love that it takes charging away, since mounted combat rules are still a problem in Pathfinder.
Lands in the keep pile for now.
I think this archetype is amazing. Probably my favourite among the top 32. Cavalier is probably the single least likely class for me to play, just because of how much I dislike the idea of a mounted character. With this one archetype, though, you've transformed this "eh" class into something that suddenly looks interesting and useful.
I really like this one. I've beena fan of the Cavalier since I picked up a copy of the Advanced Players Guide so it's nice to see a well thought out archetype for them.
This has my vote.
I like this a lot.It has a very Scots/Irish feel to it and I could see me playing it.Like many others my reaction to the Cavalier as written was a distinct 'Meh' but this archetype makes me think off it as a viable playing opportunity.
Just one question arises.If you multiclass into ranger or druid do you get a third dog?
Just one question arises.If you multiclass into ranger or druid do you get a third dog?
Animal Companion Classes always stack, multiple Companion classes don`t grant separate Companions. I guess if you Multiclass with the Beastmaster Ranger Variant who ALSO gains multiple Animal Companions, you could gain further Companions, but that is thru splitting up their HD, so they would all be weaker.
Of course, what this Archetype makes me REALLY want to see is a Paladin/Hound Master PrC, applying Paladin Mount benefits to the Hounds and going with a Hound Archon theme in general. :-]
Just one question arises.If you multiclass into ranger or druid do you get a third dog?Animal Companion Classes always stack, multiple Companion classes don`t grant separate Companions.
Incorrect. In fact, it's the exact opposite, and always has been.
It would take too long for me to express exactly what I think about this Archetype so I will just say this, I love it. It makes perfect sense, from an aesthetic point of view. Many Knights trained Warhounds and kept them for the hunt. Why WOULDN'T there be a Cavalier who specialized in it?
So, in conclusion (of a very short piece) kudos to the creator and I wish you the very best of luck!
DM Wellard said: Just one question arises.If you multiclass into ranger or druid do you get a third dog?
Quandary said: Animal Companion Classes always stack, multiple Companion classes don`t grant separate Companions.
Zurai said: Incorrect. In fact, it's the exact opposite, and always has been.
Druid class, Core Rulebook page 51:
Class Level: This is the character's druid level. The druid's class levels stack with levels of any other classes that are entitled to an animal companion for the purpose of determining the companion's statistics.
Once again, thank you very much everybody!
DM Wellard said: Just one question arises.If you multiclass into ranger or druid do you get a third dog?
Quandary said: Animal Companion Classes always stack, multiple Companion classes don`t grant separate Companions.
Zurai said: Incorrect. In fact, it's the exact opposite, and always has been.
Druid class, Core Rulebook page 51:
Class Level: This is the character's druid level. The druid's class levels stack with levels of any other classes that are entitled to an animal companion for the purpose of determining the companion's statistics.
Huh. Color me wrong, then. I know that was the case in 3.5, though, as there was an entire series of feats to allow different classes to stack their animal companion levels. I just assumed (and there's my error) that Paizo kept it the same given their anti-multiclass leanings.
I've never played WOW, so I don't know anything about that discussion.
It seems odd to have a cavalier without a mount.
However, I do like the theme and implementation. I like the ability names and their effects. It was a good total package.
This class got one of my votes. Though for full disclosure I should say that I may be biased as I know Cody personally I still feel that this entry was very strong and it did get my top vote based on the mechanics and the flavor of the class.
Good luck.
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010 Top 8
aka Benchak the Nightstalker
|
Excellent work on the Archetype round Mr. Coffelt! I'm really digging the Hound Master, it's a great idea for an archetype, lots of good flavor, and I think you executed it mechanically very well.
You've got my vote this round.
PS> Since you're in the Boise area, if you're ever looking for something to do, feel free to shoot me an email at brazenhead@hotmail.com. I'll buy you a congratulatory beer (or drink of choice) for making the 32.
Hound Master (Cavalier)
1.Is the Archetype conceptually interesting?
2.Are the mechanics of the Archetype interesting?
3.Are the mechanics of the Archetype balanced and well executed?
But rather than simply adding up the marks for a final score I'm gonna interpret them as a point in 3-dimensional space and the final mark of your submission will be the length of the vector between the origin and this point.
Note that my ranking doesn't need to directly correspond with my votes, as other factors like: Strength of your item submission, mood, my horrorscope and other random stuff still factor in. Also note that this scheme is highly subjective and only mirrors my perception and opinion about your archetype submission.
Conceptual Mojo (CM): 3, Immediately thinking of the dragon Age dogs and some cool other visuals. However beastmasters are kinda old and tried. Cavalier beastmasters are new though.
Mechanical Mojo (MM): 4, Great stuff. I especially like the teamwork feat training. Works well with cavaliers.
Mechanical Execution (ME): 3. Well thought through and neatly balanced without being bland. The ability names are not always fitting however.
Final note: Great stuff. This really has superstar potential. I'm not too wowed by the general concept, but the execution really got me.
Total Score: 5.831
|
|
Growing on me after initial reading. I hate multiple pets due to in-game time issues, but two dogs seem easier to run with than two different animals.
Yeah, this was a biggie for me. Two big hunting cats would be somewhere between six and ten extra attacks, once pouncing / raking comes into play.
A pair of dogs / wolves is going to take quite a while before it gets past two extra attack rolls per round.
As it is, right now, a pair of dogs adds less attack and damage rolls to the equation than a single war-trained horse would, since the horse gets three attacks, and each dog only gets one, so it's potentially less obtrusive than a single warhorse getting a full attack sequence.