Of all the APG classes, cavaliers are the least popular. This isn't too surprising, they specialize in mounted combat, which doesn't always work in every campaign, and the challenge ability does compare it to the paladin.
That said I don't see why it's so dumped on. I haven't had a chance to play one, (I've had to play other roles) so has anyone else? What where people's experiences? Are there any good tricks with them?
PS- I should not that I really like them from a flavor standpoint, and I like playing bards and other backing characters, as well as team faces, so this class really appeals to me.
I don't have any experience playing a cavalier, but one of my players has a (now level 3) halfling cavalier that rides a wolf for a mount. Great thing is he gets all the benefits of mounted combat (with the size detriments of course) but can go a LOT of places that a full grown man on a horse cannot go. Just an idea for you. As far as game play goes, he ends up being your run of the mill melee combatant, but I blame that on the mentality of the player, not on the limits of the class.
I think they're a great class. They do need some more orders to choose from, but I love 'em.
I don't have any experience playing a cavalier, but one of my players has a (now level 3) halfling cavalier that rides a wolf for a mount. Great thing is he gets all the benefits of mounted combat (with the size detriments of course) but can go a LOT of places that a full grown man on a horse cannot go. Just an idea for you. As far as game play goes, he ends up being your run of the mill melee combatant, but I blame that on the mentality of the player, not on the limits of the class.
There is the option of a small cavalier- you trade power for usability, I've played a lot of dungeon crawls and being able to keep your mount in the caves is nice.
On the other hand, there is something to be said about charging into battle on a destrier looking down on lessor foes in contempt.
Tying a class to a mount really limits it's utility in traditional dungeon campaigns. Even with a small rider on a medium mount you still have to deal with things like ladders, pits, scaling walls, etc. While eventually you can stick the dog into a extradimensional space or give them flying or what not there is still several levels that the mount can limit the PCs.
Granted this is a problem with most of the pet options unless you take a flying pet or a dismissable pet like the eidolon. Most of the other pet classes (druid in particularly) don't lose as much utility when they don't have access to a mount though.
I like the hound master homebre archetype in the RPG superstar as a potential solution. You still have to deal with unfriendly terrain issues but you can actually be a medium sized hound master and not have to worry about a large mount.
Tying a class to a mount really limits it's utility in traditional dungeon campaigns. Even with a small rider on a medium mount you still have to deal with things like ladders, pits, scaling walls, etc. While eventually you can stick the dog into a extradimensional space or give them flying or what not there is still several levels that the mount can limit the PCs.
Granted this is a problem with most of the pet options unless you take a flying pet or a dismissable pet like the eidolon. Most of the other pet classes (druid in particularly) don't lose as much utility when they don't have access to a mount though.
I like the hound master homebre archetype in the RPG superstar as a potential solution. You still have to deal with unfriendly terrain issues but you can actually be a medium sized hound master and not have to worry about a large mount.
The houndmaster was my favorite archetype from RPG Superstar. I'm just not overly impressed by some of the later abilities, Kill command is sort of meh.
|
Okay, who else reading this got hooked in by the title?
I'm not particularly fond of the Cavalier; not only is it a mounted class, which is not so fun in most campaigns, but it's called the Cavalier; anyone else remember the old D&D cartoon? Who's the guy everyone hates, the annoying fellow with the shield? He's a cavalier. Bad name choice, Paizo.
That said, the title has planted a bug in my brain that I can't get out; the cavalier is the perfect mix of arrogance, superiority, and raw machismo for making Old Spice Guy.
I just need to learn the class in order to write him up.
I actually dislike the small demihuman on a wacky mount direction, so the idea of workable alternatives sounds good. For me, most of the time anyway, a choice to play a cavalier would be for thematic reasons over gamist factors, so making a cavalier viable in combat, as opposed to dominant, while preserving the flavor I'm aiming for is what I'd be most concerned about. I've definitely seen some encouraging builds, but the talk has been pretty limited from what I can tell based on searches I was doing about two months back.
Wilderness campaigns happen.
Dungeon-less campaigns happen.
Mounted combat characters, like any characters, are only as successful as the communication and cooperation between the GM and the players.
ALSO: Yes awesome thread title. Also.
Okay, who else reading this got hooked in by the title?
I'm not particularly fond of the Cavalier; not only is it a mounted class, which is not so fun in most campaigns, but it's called the Cavalier; anyone else remember the old D&D cartoon? Who's the guy everyone hates, the annoying fellow with the shield? He's a cavalier. Bad name choice, Paizo.
That said, the title has planted a bug in my brain that I can't get out; the cavalier is the perfect mix of arrogance, superiority, and raw machismo for making Old Spice Guy.
I just need to learn the class in order to write him up.
I know, right?
I always think of the French, the word Chivalry, and horses. From Wikipedia:
"Cavalier derives from the same Latin root as the Spanish word caballero, the Vulgar Latin word caballarius, meaning 'horseman'."
"Chivalry" came from the same place.
Howevermuch I do like the notion of a small cavalier on a small mount, I do agree it has many (maybe too many) wacky possibilities. Case in point:
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_zW2CWpcTojw/Rr228nBvlEI/AAAAAAAAAFc/0vigKtqUHr8/s 400/it-didymusdog.jpg
|
|
Teamwork feats. Which I realize the inquisitor has as well, but she also has some relatively low-level power which enables her to get the advantage of them even if her partnered ally doesn't share the feat. For the cav, the bonus teamwork feats just feel like a waste.
It may just be our playstyle, but in our group the 'you and your ally must possess' feats are typically relegated to NPC groups where one person (the GM) is behind the design of all of them.
I have been tempted to make a samurai halfling who rides a cohort blink dog mount after 7th level, tho (kind of an Okami vibe). Samurai seems to fix a lot of the cav's problems.
I always think of the French, the word Chivalry, and horses. From Wikipedia:
"Cavalier derives from the same Latin root as the Spanish word caballero, the Vulgar Latin word caballarius, meaning 'horseman'."
"Chivalry" came from the same place.
Howevermuch I do like the notion of a small cavalier on a small mount, I do agree it has many (maybe too many) wacky possibilities. Case in point:
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_zW2CWpcTojw/Rr228nBvlEI/AAAAAAAAAFc/0vigKtqUHr8/s 400/it-didymusdog.jpg
That picture is exactly why I don't want to play a small sized cavalier, they are goofy.
That said- playing as the old spice guy is as awesome as playing a halfling isn't.
Two things....
1) The Cavalier is pretty awesome even without his mounts. Only three abilitys don't work while not mounted. Also the mounted abilities (the three charges) work with any mount. So unless you are going for the boring traditional dungeon crawls with 5' wide corridors(but than you have other issues I think in your game)...you can just bring a subterrian mount with you.
2) The non mounted abilities(which is the majprity of them) are pretty niffty and fun to use.
Sure if your DM lets you make a cavalier...and say no you must have a horse...and than says the campaign takes place in 5' corridoor worls...than yes it is not that fun(though using Tactic with the teamwork feat Swap Places you would rule 5' wide world)..and than say no you can't make a more approiate character for the game. Than there is issues with the cavalier...but ten again I notice these DM would also have wizards spell bnooks constantly stolen...a fighters weapon or a cleric holy symbol constantly broken or stole...and a magical spot light following the rogue where ever she goes.
Like all classes it needs to be communicated well with the players. I see it as a similiar to saying wizards suck because my DM is running a game in the Mana Wastes.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Okay, who else reading this got hooked in by the title?
...
That said, the title has planted a bug in my brain that I can't get out; the cavalier is the perfect mix of arrogance, superiority, and raw machismo for making Old Spice Guy.
I just need to learn the class in order to write him up.
Hello gamers. Look at your character, now back to me, now back to your character, now back to me. Sadly, he isn't me, but if he stopped using his boring old core class and switched to APG Cavalier he could be more like me. Look down, now back up, where are you? You're charging across the field of battle as the character your character could be like. What's in your hand? Back at me. It's a +5 magical lance with an orc skewered upon it. Look again. The orc is now DIAMONDS. Anything is possible when you're a Cavalier and not a core class. I'm on a horse.
Hello gamers. Look at your character, now back to me, now back to your character, now back to me. Sadly, he isn't me, but if he stopped using his boring old core class and switched to APG Cavalier he could be more like me. Look down, now back up, where are you? You're charging across the field of battle as the character your character could be like. What's in your hand? Back at me. It's a +5 magical lance with an orc skewered upon it. Look again. The orc is now DIAMONDS. Anything is possible when you're a Cavalier and not a core class. I'm on a horse.Okay, who else reading this got hooked in by the title?
...
That said, the title has planted a bug in my brain that I can't get out; the cavalier is the perfect mix of arrogance, superiority, and raw machismo for making Old Spice Guy.
I just need to learn the class in order to write him up.
+1 for pure awesomeness.
Also, when you write up the Old Spice man, don't forget to make him epic!
I recently started playing Rise of the Rune Lords with a character who had the trait Militia Veteran in order to get ride as a class skill (and a +2 bonus) and who spent his first acquired treasure to buy a horse. A number of levels later the GM let me replace that trait with another skill-related trait because we'd not had a single fight in which riding was possible.
|
|
Hello gamers. Look at your character, now back to me, now back to your character, now back to me. Sadly, he isn't me, but if he stopped using his boring old core class and switched to APG Cavalier he could be more like me. Look down, now back up, where are you? You're charging across the field of battle as the character your character could be like. What's in your hand? Back at me. It's a +5 magical lance with an orc skewered upon it. Look again. The orc is now DIAMONDS. Anything is possible when you're a Cavalier and not a core class. I'm on a horse.
+1 internets
Teamwork feats. Which I realize the inquisitor has as well, but she also has some relatively low-level power which enables her to get the advantage of them even if her partnered ally doesn't share the feat. For the cav, the bonus teamwork feats just feel like a waste.
It may just be our playstyle, but in our group the 'you and your ally must possess' feats are typically relegated to NPC groups where one person (the GM) is behind the design of all of them.
I have been tempted to make a samurai halfling who rides a cohort blink dog mount after 7th level, tho (kind of an Okami vibe). Samurai seems to fix a lot of the cav's problems.
Thats why at low levels the Cavalier gets the ability to give other people his teamwork feats temporarily. WHile the inquisitor can make solo use of the teamwork feats, the Cavalier is awesome because he makes everyone else more awesome.
(...) One day my dire bat riding halfling shall soar the night skies again...
I'm building a Swan (NOT GOOSE!) riding halfling paladin but I'm still looking for some swan-style mount/companion stats. Base/Swim/Fly moves are not very common but in an urban (venician-type) setting I think it might fit nicely!
Wilderness campaigns happen.
Dungeon-less campaigns happen.
Mounted combat characters, like any characters, are only as successful as the communication and cooperation between the GM and the players.
Indeed they do, but it should be a rule of thumb that classes shouldn't be created (in main source books) where their primary class ability is significantly limited to certain types of campaigns.
Indeed they do, but it should be a rule of thumb that classes shouldn't be created (in main source books) where their primary class ability is significantly limited to certain types of campaigns.
+1
Unfortunately as more niche style classes are developed this will be a problem. As developers try to make sure to fill the niche role they tend to lose the ability to work in all campaign types.
The mounted combat issue has been a major determent for me even learning much about the class. Maybe I'll try a small sized cavalier one of these days though.
Indeed they do, but it should be a rule of thumb that classes shouldn't be created (in main source books) where their primary class ability is significantly limited to certain types of campaigns.Wilderness campaigns happen.
Dungeon-less campaigns happen.
Mounted combat characters, like any characters, are only as successful as the communication and cooperation between the GM and the players.
All class in any book can be serverly limited by campaign types.
Cavalier has been a pouplar, and effective, class in my campaigns. In my groups, it's the most popular APG class.
Additional orders will always be welcome, but cavaliers are a far cry from "only viable" when mounted.
Finally, I haven't played in or run a "dungeon-focused" campaign in years. Are dungeons & indoor settings present, even essential? Sure, but no more so than outdoor environments & urban settings.
A class doesn't have to shine in every situation to be a "good" class and the evaluation criteria shouldn't be confined to "must be good in a dungeon".
The game ain't Dungeons & Dragons anymore. It's PATHFINDER. Self-imposed limitations or prior-edition/other game design focus need not apply. Mechanically, I get the need to have combat-related balance. There's nothing that says combat has to occur in a dungeon.
Indeed they do, but it should be a rule of thumb that classes shouldn't be created (in main source books) where their primary class ability is significantly limited to certain types of campaigns.Wilderness campaigns happen.
Dungeon-less campaigns happen.
Mounted combat characters, like any characters, are only as successful as the communication and cooperation between the GM and the players.
All class in any book can be serverly limited by campaign types.
So what kind of campaign will toss out the Monk, Cleric, Fighter, Rogue, Bard, Ranger, Druid, Wizard, Sorcerer, Alchemist, Inquisitor, Paladin, or even the Summoner? I don't mean DM homebrew designed to screw one or more of those classes out of existence, I mean ordinary campaigns.
Hello gamers. Look at your character, now back to me, now back to your character, now back to me. Sadly, he isn't me, but if he stopped using his boring old core class and switched to APG Cavalier he could be more like me. Look down, now back up, where are you? You're charging across the field of battle as the character your character could be like. What's in your hand? Back at me. It's a +5 magical lance with an orc skewered upon it. Look again. The orc is now DIAMONDS. Anything is possible when you're a Cavalier and not a core class. I'm on a horse.Okay, who else reading this got hooked in by the title?
...
That said, the title has planted a bug in my brain that I can't get out; the cavalier is the perfect mix of arrogance, superiority, and raw machismo for making Old Spice Guy.
I just need to learn the class in order to write him up.
You win the internets.
This is now the only viable character option.
|
|
Thats why at low levels the Cavalier gets the ability to give other people his teamwork feats temporarily. WHile the inquisitor can make solo use of the teamwork feats, the Cavalier is awesome because he makes everyone else more awesome.
May just be me, but if I'm going to take a feat, I'd rather it work all the time than x rounds/day - particularly for a feat that may be conditional in the first place (other thing I like about inquisitor's teamwork feats - she can switch them up to suit the day's activities).
So what kind of campaign will toss out the Monk, Cleric, Fighter, Rogue, Bard, Ranger, Druid, Wizard, Sorcerer, Alchemist, Inquisitor, Paladin, or even the Summoner? I don't mean DM homebrew designed to screw one or more of those classes out of existence, I mean ordinary campaigns.
And magic using class...a campaign that takes place in the mana waste(Golarion setting...not home brew)...no magic means no magic.
Rogue: A campaign that is just hack n' slash...with out numbering foes constantly...though this might be the exception that proves the rule.
Ranger: Simple either a campaign that aviods his favored enemy...and make his choosen combat style ineffective.
Fighter: a social campaign...
Paladin or any cleric: There is no gods...or find the missing gods etc...
All these are just as possible(and a heck of more interesting to play in) as a all 5' wide(really who the freak constructs corridors that wide) dungeons world. And again I would totaly play a cavalier in that type of game..Tactic: Swap places would rock.
Also there is nothing wrong with the above campaign...but the GM has to be upfront about it with his player...'there is no magic'...etc... than it is fine.
And magic using class...a campaign that takes place in the mana waste(Golarion setting...not home brew)...no magic means no magic.
"Campaign actively trying to screw one or more of the classes out of existence"
Ranger: Simple either a campaign that aviods his favored enemy...and make his choosen combat style ineffective.
A campaign that manages to avoid all, what - 5?, of your favored enemies is a campaign where the DM is actively trying to screw the Ranger.
Fighter: a social campaign...
False.
Paladin or any cleric: There is no gods...or find the missing gods etc...
"Campaign actively trying to screw one or more of the classes out of existence"
Thats why at low levels the Cavalier gets the ability to give other people his teamwork feats temporarily. WHile the inquisitor can make solo use of the teamwork feats, the Cavalier is awesome because he makes everyone else more awesome.Teamwork feats. Which I realize the inquisitor has as well, but she also has some relatively low-level power which enables her to get the advantage of them even if her partnered ally doesn't share the feat. For the cav, the bonus teamwork feats just feel like a waste.
It may just be our playstyle, but in our group the 'you and your ally must possess' feats are typically relegated to NPC groups where one person (the GM) is behind the design of all of them.
I have been tempted to make a samurai halfling who rides a cohort blink dog mount after 7th level, tho (kind of an Okami vibe). Samurai seems to fix a lot of the cav's problems.
Which is why you also need Leadership. Then you have a cohort who you're also making more awesome and a bunch of support archers/ casters in the back whom you are also also making more awesome. Sadly, it's Leadership, and most GMs don't like it, for other obvious reasons (I'm looking at you Leadership summoner with Leadership Eidolon).
Cavalier has been a pouplar, and effective, class in my campaigns. In my groups, it's the most popular APG class.
Additional orders will always be welcome, but cavaliers are a far cry from "only viable" when mounted.
Finally, I haven't played in or run a "dungeon-focused" campaign in years. Are dungeons & indoor settings present, even essential? Sure, but no more so than outdoor environments & urban settings.
A class doesn't have to shine in every situation to be a "good" class and the evaluation criteria shouldn't be confined to "must be good in a dungeon".
The game ain't Dungeons & Dragons anymore. It's PATHFINDER. Self-imposed limitations or prior-edition/other game design focus need not apply. Mechanically, I get the need to have combat-related balance. There's nothing that says combat has to occur in a dungeon.
Site specific encounter locations are pretty common though. It doesn't have to be a classical dungeon, it could be a urban maze or a heavily forested mountainside or an sunken man-o-war. Each of those presents significant challenges for mounts and isn't a classical "Dungeon".
For something like a cavalier who can really depend on being mounted to be a heavy DPR character having a substantive percentage of the time in which he doesn't have access to a mount can be frustrating to the Player. Making a campaign so that it's always friendly to mounts can be frustrating for a GM.
I'm not saying that a mount focused class is inherently bad, the knight is a very important figure in both the source literature and is a concept a lot of people want to play. I just want additional options so that I can use the cavalier chassis for other pet-centric concepts.
At any rate, I think we all can agree that a medium sized cavalier who wants to ride his horse everywhere would be disappointed in most campaigns.
That said, How hard is it to build a switch-hitter cavalier- rather than switching between ranged and melee, one that is good at both foot and riding? Does the cavalier have enough feats for both?
|
|
The only issue with the cavalier is that when he goes into dungeons he ends up singing [url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ljPFZrRD3J8"[/url] alot.
Now, when he does have his horse and a lance, he can do ridiculous damage on a single attack.
Having a small character on a medium mount fixes most of these problems (I love my wife's gnome cavalier) but does take the damage level down slightly since you lose strength in those builds both from the character and the mount if you go order of the sword so you can add the mount STR to the damage roll.
Based on all of my reading so far, I suspect you will not see any merit in any of my points, nor concede that you might have overstated thing rather strongly. But then again, you might surprise me. =)
Pretty much spot on. Both the quoted above, and the reasons you posted above in the same post.
First off, let me comment on the awesomeness of this thread title. You sir, win teh intranets.
Also:
The only issue with the cavalier is that when he goes into dungeons he ends up singing [url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ljPFZrRD3J8"[/url] alot.
Nearly spit my coffee everywhere.
|
|
Okay, who else reading this got hooked in by the title?
I'm not particularly fond of the Cavalier; not only is it a mounted class, which is not so fun in most campaigns, but it's called the Cavalier; anyone else remember the old D&D cartoon? Who's the guy everyone hates, the annoying fellow with the shield? He's a cavalier. Bad name choice, Paizo.
That said, the title has planted a bug in my brain that I can't get out; the cavalier is the perfect mix of arrogance, superiority, and raw machismo for making Old Spice Guy.
I just need to learn the class in order to write him up.
The title sure got my attention!
Cavalier is the perfect name for this class! You have to know your D&D history grasshopper;) The cavalier as a class was first introduced in the First Edition Unearther Arcana book. The D&D cartoon came later.
I really like Paizo's version of the cavalier! I agree on more orders though. In fact, stay tuned on that front ;) oh, and keep an eye on Super Genius Games ;) That's all I'm sayin' ;)
|
|
So what kind of campaign will toss out the Monk, Cleric, Fighter, Rogue, Bard, Ranger, Druid, Wizard, Sorcerer, Alchemist, Inquisitor, Paladin, or even the Summoner? I don't mean DM homebrew designed to screw one or more of those classes out of existence, I mean ordinary campaigns.Indeed they do, but it should be a rule of thumb that classes shouldn't be created (in main source books) where their primary class ability is significantly limited to certain types of campaigns.Wilderness campaigns happen.
Dungeon-less campaigns happen.
Mounted combat characters, like any characters, are only as successful as the communication and cooperation between the GM and the players.
All class in any book can be serverly limited by campaign types.
There is "tossed out" and limited. The cavalier is a full BaB class with Banners regardless of if it can use it's mount or not.
It isn't like arcane casters in a dead/wild magic zone, or clerics and paladin who lose contact with their deity, etc...
It can still fight and help the party. It just can't charge through things doing ridiculous amounts of damage. Like every class, it has to figure out ways to create situations where it can do what it does well.
I would prefer if all the mounted combat feats were rolled into the Ride skill, or the Ride skill plus a single feat.
I would prefer if all the mounted combat feats were rolled into the Ride skill, or the Ride skill plus a single feat.
That would be nice, but I can see why they didn't do that.
SO what feats should a level 10 cavalier have? Mount Combat, ride-by attack, spirited charge and power attack obviously, but what of the other two? (three if human)
SO what feats should a level 10 cavalier have? Mount Combat, ride-by attack, spirited charge and power attack obviously, but what of the other two? (three if human)
I'd think the Old Spice Man would go Cockatrice all the way, which opens some options for Dazzling Display and related 'I'm better than you feats,' no?
|
The only issue with the cavalier is that when he goes into dungeons he ends up singing [url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ljPFZrRD3J8"[/url] alot.
I shared this with my gaming group along with the old spice cavalier thing. One guy had this in response... I've uh, bleeped out the inappropriate words.
**** you Phantom Steed I've got a horse outside...**** your flying carpet I've got a horse outside...****ing your magic broom I've got a horse outside
;-)
I'd think the Old Spice Man would go Cockatrice all the way, which opens some options for Dazzling Display and related 'I'm better than you feats,' no?
SO what feats should a level 10 cavalier have? Mount Combat, ride-by attack, spirited charge and power attack obviously, but what of the other two? (three if human)
He'd probably have an 18 in charisma too.
Two things....
1) The Cavalier is pretty awesome even without his mounts. Only three abilitys don't work while not mounted. Also the mounted abilities (the three charges) work with any mount. So unless you are going for the boring traditional dungeon crawls with 5' wide corridors(but than you have other issues I think in your game)...you can just bring a subterrian mount with you.2) The non mounted abilities(which is the majprity of them) are pretty niffty and fun to use.
Sure if your DM lets you make a cavalier...and say no you must have a horse...and than says the campaign takes place in 5' corridoor worls...than yes it is not that fun(though using Tactic with the teamwork feat Swap Places you would rule 5' wide world)..and than say no you can't make a more approiate character for the game. Than there is issues with the cavalier...but ten again I notice these DM would also have wizards spell bnooks constantly stolen...a fighters weapon or a cleric holy symbol constantly broken or stole...and a magical spot light following the rogue where ever she goes.
Like all classes it needs to be communicated well with the players. I see it as a similiar to saying wizards suck because my DM is running a game in the Mana Wastes.
This sums my experience as well. Our is an Order of the Dragon Cavalier. Dragonne mount. Unmounted us very powerful anyway, and has 4 skills level. A plate able to do more than few things out of combat is great too.
Cavalier = Mounted combat only is a misconception.
|
Hello gamers. Look at your character, now back to me, now back to your character, now back to me. Sadly, he isn't me, but if he stopped using his boring old core class and switched to APG Cavalier he could be more like me. Look down, now back up, where are you? You're charging across the field of battle as the character your character could be like. What's in your hand? Back at me. It's a +5 magical lance with an orc skewered upon it. Look again. The orc is now DIAMONDS. Anything is possible when you're a Cavalier and not a core class. I'm on a horse.Okay, who else reading this got hooked in by the title?
...
That said, the title has planted a bug in my brain that I can't get out; the cavalier is the perfect mix of arrogance, superiority, and raw machismo for making Old Spice Guy.
I just need to learn the class in order to write him up.
You win the thread.
He'd probably have an 18 in charisma too.I'd think the Old Spice Man would go Cockatrice all the way, which opens some options for Dazzling Display and related 'I'm better than you feats,' no?
SO what feats should a level 10 cavalier have? Mount Combat, ride-by attack, spirited charge and power attack obviously, but what of the other two? (three if human)
He's Old Spice Man. He'd have 18s in everything and his dice would always roll 20s.
I myself just recently retired a Cavalier after he proved too disastrous to the Serpent Skull AP. Being mostly out in the open, being a Cavalier 5 / Bard 1 / Battle Herald 4 and having both the Taldan Knight and Leadership feat allowed him and his cohorts to just eat through encounters nearly unaided by the rest of the party, due to the large amount of damage handed out by the 8th level Fighter cohort, the large amount of AC the Herald has, and all the bonuses the Battle Herald himself hands out. My crowning glory (and the events that led to my decision to stop playing him so the rest of the group could stop feeling left out) was a Huge Sized Spider killed in 1 hit (thanks in part to the Critical Hit Deck) and Two Tyrannosaurs dropped in 3 rounds (which was due in part to another Player's Witch, who put one of the beasts to sleep).
Overall I've had fun with the Cavalier, while my party less so.