| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Why do Monks and Rogues get all the attention?
Because Rogues are awesome, for mundane characters, and Monks are god awful but people want to like them. Cavaliers are too droll and uninspiring to get a thread. They are like Paladins who want to be Fighters but are neither so no one cares.
Maybe:
1) We just haven't gotten to them yet. Check your calendar, we probably already scheduled it.
or
2) Everyone agrees implicitly, tacitly, unanimously even, that they suck, across all the Interwebz, so no thread has been started for something we all miraculously agree upon.
or possibly
3) We're waiting for Ultimate Combat before we start those threads?
Take your pick :p
Because Rogues are awesome, for mundane characters, and Monks are god awful but people want to like them. Cavaliers are too droll and uninspiring to get a thread. They are like Paladins who want to be Fighters but are neither so no one cares.
Thanks, my cavalier character just started crying. I hope you're happy.
I think they just got their thread.
|
Are they any good in campaigns without any dungeons?
They seem more like a class for DMs to use as NPCs. My impression is that some classes and archetypes are mostly for DMs to add flavor. Like the religious leader of lizard people being a Dragon Shaman. Or Conanish Snake cultists being Serpent Shamans.
Kingmaker.
They don't totally suck in Kingmaker since they can stay mounted 90% of the time there and not be small sized PC's. Other than that they pretty much are the sux0rs...
|
Ugh, naysayers.
I have players who are running Cavaliers, Rogues and Monks. They are all contributing, they are all having fun. Naysayers are playing some kind of game that I've never played. Where there is some weird competition to compete with other players for spotlight time, damage per round, and most enemies disabled.
Cavaliers work great in dungeons EVEN when they don't bring their mount! It's almost as if there's a whole bunch of class features that have nothing to do with mounted combat built into the class!
And, here's the nutty thing: Cavaliers who want to bring their mount into the dungeon make small size melee warriors relevant.
The "this class sucks" threads are just a major bummer man, because they just ain't true.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
The "this class sucks" threads are just a major bummer man, because they just ain't true.
How DARE you, sir!
Do you think these kind folks spend hours upon hours on the forums, warning players and GMs alike, simply because they enjoy feeling superior? Nay, I say. They are shining nights, forming the vanguard, bringing a warning to all who would play a class that sucks.
These men are heroes. That you neglect their accomplishment makes you lower than a worm.
*single tear* Carry on, you valiant sayers of "nay".
I have a problem with Cavaliers, and it is this:
I like to plan out my characters all the way to level 20, even if I don't expect to ever get there, and most classes get a 'capstone' ability that is good (Or totally awesome, I'm looking at you Heavens Oracle..)
The Cavalier gets Supreme Charge, which is somewhat good, but kind of narrow and definitely not as good as some of the ones for other classes... Oh, and they also LOSE a significant class feature once they hit 20. It's like congratulations! You are level 20! So now, if your special mount dies, and you have to replace it, it doesn't get its Improved Evasion/Devotion etc abilities.. ever. Those are gone.
Ummm...
I don't like cavaliers...
I'm not saying they are terrible, I just don't like them for reasons like the above.
The Cavalier isn't able to have a "this class sucks" thread because he couldn't fit his horse into the forum and since they're all about their horses, he stayed with it in Real Life.
As a Cavalier player, I feel I should chime in on this. There was a moment I realized that thanks to my horse's barding, taking charge attacks, and its Horseshoes of Speed, I no longer cared about the squeezing penalty while in dungeons. Sure my mount has a -4 to AC and to attack rolls, but it wasn't that big of a deal. If we're in a confined space, the reach from my lance is more than enough to keep us going. It's worth the annoyance to keep my horse with me.
Very rarely has squeezing been any kind of hinderence while indoors.
I've just seen in play an Order of the Dragon (level 14 reached) and I can say they are quite awesome.
The challenge does work vs neutral or good enemies, and the 4 skill/level are great. The order powers are cool (I admit the party was "perfect" for him because was big and full of melee).
IMHO they are good mechanically and by flavour. And not every campaing is full of dungeons, and moreover not every dungeon is so tight you cannot enter in it with an horse, or a Dragonne. No large or larger creatures in your dungeons?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Cavaliers can be decent, but it depends heavily on group composition. They really suffer if LeBron James isn't in the party.
Cavaliers can be decent, but it depends heavily on group composition. They really suffer if LeBron James isn't in the party.
But that shouldnt be such a big deal, cause when it really counts, lebron casts reduce person on himself and wishes he was still with a cavalier.
Cavaliers can be decent, but it depends heavily on group composition. They really suffer if LeBron James isn't in the party.But that shouldnt be such a big deal, cause when it really counts, lebron casts reduce person on himself and wishes he was still with a cavalier.
But that would mean wishing he were in Cleveland, and why in the world would anyone wish that? I mean, the rivers catch on fire there.
What I don't understand is why the absolutely MUST be mounted for people to think of them as any good.
They have lots of other features and don't all have to be order of the sword.
Next everyone is going to say Samurai suck because you have to be on your horse all the time too.
I don't actually think there's anything wrong with cavaliers in terms of power. They're plenty powerful and have a number of tricks up their sleeves. I also really like the archetypical Arthurian knight, so they're thematically sound, too.
I just don't like dragging a mount around. I'm 99% sure Ultimate Combat will present a mountless Cavalier archetype, so I'll probably play one then.
|
|
Personally, I LOVE critters. Thinking back all the way to high school I've never once played a character without some kind of familiar, cohort, animal companion, or similar such ball and chain. The Cavalier (To me) simply presents the capability to acquire an animal companion through entirely non-magical means, and allows me to try a full build martial character with a big mean helper buddy along beside me. I might even look at getting leadership in the future :D
|
|
Cavaliers are fine. Their only problem is that they are rather non-controversial, so after everybody has done the "Summoners are OP", "Oracles shouldn't be called Oracles", "Witches made my MT obsolete", "Alchemists lolwut" and "Inquistor weapon proficiencies suck" threads, there's not much left to argue on about the poor little Cav.
Personally, I LOVE critters. Thinking back all the way to high school I've never once played a character without some kind of familiar, cohort, animal companion, or similar such ball and chain. The Cavalier (To me) simply presents the capability to acquire an animal companion through entirely non-magical means, and allows me to try a full build martial character with a big mean helper buddy along beside me. I might even look at getting leadership in the future :D
Use Leadership to get yourself a Dragonne. You won't regret it. ;D
I don't actually think there's anything wrong with cavaliers in terms of power. They're plenty powerful and have a number of tricks up their sleeves. I also really like the archetypical Arthurian knight, so they're thematically sound, too.
I just don't like dragging a mount around. I'm 99% sure Ultimate Combat will present a mountless Cavalier archetype, so I'll probably play one then.
i dont think a cavalier without a mount could be called a cavalier. his freakin class name means dude on a bloody horse. i know what they could call that build...lame.
Why does the horse gotta be bloody?
Besides, names of a class are of little importance.
The archetype would actually be Commander or Warlord.
I don't actually think there's anything wrong with cavaliers in terms of power. They're plenty powerful and have a number of tricks up their sleeves. I also really like the archetypical Arthurian knight, so they're thematically sound, too.
I just don't like dragging a mount around. I'm 99% sure Ultimate Combat will present a mountless Cavalier archetype, so I'll probably play one then.
i dont think a cavalier without a mount could be called a cavalier. his freakin class name means dude on a bloody horse. i know what they could call that build...lame.
I would love a version wihtout mount and with orders and auras like the 3.5 marshal (that sucked, medium BAB and all, but with cavalier class features would rock!).
I would call it "Knight", a nobleman/elf/dwarf/awakened rabbit trained in discipline and command.
@donato: the player above took the dragonne and it worked quite well.
The "this class sucks" threads are just a major bummer man, because they just ain't true.How DARE you, sir!
Do you think these kind folks spend hours upon hours on the forums, warning players and GMs alike, simply because they enjoy feeling superior? Nay, I say. They are shining nights, forming the vanguard, bringing a warning to all who would play a class that sucks.
These men are heroes. That you neglect their accomplishment makes you lower than a worm.
*single tear* Carry on, you valiant sayers of "nay".
Bold is mine.
"Shining Nights?" Isn't that an oxymoron?
On topic, though, I actually like the cavalier, thematically. Mechanically, it looks pretty sound, as well. It has a near-universal smite, the ability to share teamwork feats, and all kinds of horse-related stuff.
However, like the monk, who looks like a 2d10 damage flurrying, super-fast, AC-powerhouse on paper, I think this class suffers from usability. It's not MAD, like the monk, but a lot of its abilities really do rely on the mount. And while we can argue for small Cavaliers with riding dogs or open-world campaigns, from a medium-sized perspective in a dungeon crawl, they do suffer. And yes, they do have other abilities, but without the mount you're really only playing half a class.
In conclusion, cavaliers don't suck, but they are limited very much by the campaigns in which they participate.
I can't wait to see if we get some kind of Warlord archetype in UC. Barring that, though, I think the best iteration of the cavalier to date has been the RPG Superstar Hound Master.
...Catch Phrase,
-Chris
When we had marshals in our 3.5, we changed it to a full BAB. Cause there was really no reason for it to have a 3/4 bab.
At least it wasn't something like a "Warrior caster" who still had 1/2 bab...
I don't actually think there's anything wrong with cavaliers in terms of power. They're plenty powerful and have a number of tricks up their sleeves. I also really like the archetypical Arthurian knight, so they're thematically sound, too.
I just don't like dragging a mount around. I'm 99% sure Ultimate Combat will present a mountless Cavalier archetype, so I'll probably play one then.
i dont think a cavalier without a mount could be called a cavalier. his freakin class name means dude on a bloody horse. i know what they could call that build...lame.
Oracles can be built without any prophetic visions, even though their name implies that they should.
Magi weren't traditionally guys that fought with a sword in one hand and magic in the other.Limiting class options based on their names is silly.
The "this class sucks" threads are just a major bummer man, because they just ain't true.
+1
|
I just don't like dragging a mount around. I'm 99% sure Ultimate Combat will present a mountless Cavalier archetype, so I'll probably play one then.
You mean the Samurai?
Seriously a Cavalier without a mount is like a Cleric without divine spells.
It is what the class is.
I am willing to bet that no one complaining about the class has actually played one or even built one out.
They can do ridiculous damage very easily.
I played one, for the time I could, I was a dominator of the battlefield, and never once picked up a lance.
Samurai still have a horse, they don't get the warlord stuff either.
as long as it is also strongly hinted that the cav can become a warlord instead of pony rider
Not enough angers in this thread, fix now! The built in mounted abilities with no options absolutely enrage me. After multiple core classes got interesting options for very similar abilities, being tied to a mount just feels like blatant laziness in writing. The other reason I hate cavalier is because the knight class from ph2 was so boss compared to other 3.5 classes. Not strictly talking balance here but in terms of unique abilities knight broke some ground in opening up armor and shield options and your defenses interacting with the battlefield and allies. Cavalier fails to live up to that standard, especially since half of the knight's cool features did get implemented into pf just in other classes or feats.
|
Because Rogues are awesome, for mundane characters, and Monks are god awful but people want to like them. Cavaliers are too droll and uninspiring to get a thread. They are like Paladins who want to be Fighters but are neither so no one cares.
As much as I hate to agree with Cartigan, the cavalier doesn't inspire me. He strikes me as a paladin-wannabe who has failed to get the attention of a god, and thus lacks any of the "holy" abilities.
I think the problem is that a Cavalier is boring. There may be constant flame wars over Monks being so weak they can't flurry their way out of a wet paper bag or the Ranger being 10 times better than a fighter and rogue combined, at half their level, but no one is arguing that they're dull classes.
The problem with the Cavalier (ignoring the issues of needing to be mounted all the time) is that most of his class features, although mechanically sound, are just plain dull. No one reads the Alchemist section on Mutagens or the Witch hexes and say "I dunno that's kind of boring." I don't really see a reason to take Cavalier. Fighter are better at combat but don't have the mounted restriction, the Paladin has a better mount (or skip it and get weapon) and more class features, the Ranger can get the companion mount and still be better at everything else.... why am I playing a Cavalier again?
|
|
I don't think they are completely terrible, but they have lots of problems that prevent full use or fun factor. They are definitely behind fighter and barbarian in melee unless mounted. Especially since the samurai alternate class is pretty damn solid/good.
Mounted just isn't something that can happen a lot. Other than Kingmaker, it's just really hard to stay on your mount all the time. Charge abilities are great of course, but staying mounted is hard. Even in Kingmaker I've been on foot a lot.
Tactical feats are not very good at the moment, so Tactician isn't uber.
Animal Trainer is just...meh. Love the flavor, but it's annoying for an actual level benefit.
Challenges are good, and Orders are solid for the most part, although most of them are too good. Only Cockatrice is somewhat neutral/evil.
Their flavor really screams "not good enough to be a paladin" to me at least. It's a bit annoying.
|
Cavaliers are awesome, and I fahrt in yoor general direction.
First of all, mounted combat can be a blast. The mounted charge is an iconic trope from fantasy fiction. It is the heroic fantasy equivalent of crashing the Batmobile into the bad-guy's hideout. It's high speed, big damage fun - the melee equivalent of the big Hollywood explosion.
Secondly, the Cavalier has lots of other abilities that make him great beyond his mount. He's a solid front-line tank who can dish out dish out good damage and who can still serve as a party's diplomatic face. His tactical abilities and banner abilities grant bonuses to his allies like a Bard. I don't know if you've looked, but the Bard/Cav prestige class Battle Herald is actually a pretty cool class as well! His cavalier orders allow him some decent customization as well, allowing the player to focus on one aspect over another. What's not to love?
Finally, Just like any other class, if you want to get the most out of it you need to talk to your GM. Let the Gm know: "This is why I'm playing this class. These are the abilities I want to play with." A good GM will make it happen. If there's a cavalier in the party, and the GM is providing frequent opportunities for mounted combat, he's not doing it right.
It's a shame the Cavalier didn't keep its Oaths. It's what drew me to the class in the first place. Of course, now Paladins have Oaths. Any word if the Cavalier is getting its Oaths back in UC?
Now you all want to respond to the thread? What, is everyone tired of arguing about monks? The title doesn't even make sense anymore, since the rogue and monk threads subsided.
For the record, I am currently playing a cavalier. He has a giant spider mount (special circumstances) and they are awsome. Giving +4 flanks to allies rocks, as does doing *5 damage on a charging crit with a lance to a challenged enemy. Yeah, yeah, he's not winning DPR olypmics (especially in cities that are afraid of spiders) but I don't care. During a long siege he trained a pack of war dogs used in defending the city (takes him 3 days to wartrain a suitable animal. He forages for food for the group (which shouldn't ever be necessary but our cleric is very odd and refuses to create food and water).
I'm sure now that I've said this, the monk threads are already back at the top....
|
|
Challenges are good, and Orders are solid for the most part, although most of them are too good. Only Cockatrice is somewhat neutral/evil.
If you are looking for a more evil oriented order, you might want to check out the Order of the Skull from Advanced Options: Cavaliers' Orders
Cavaliers from that order are NOT good!
Just saying' :)
|
|
Challenges are good, and Orders are solid for the most part, although most of them are too good. Only Cockatrice is somewhat neutral/evil.If you are looking for a more evil oriented order, you might want to check out the Order of the Skull from Advanced Options: Cavaliers' Orders
Cavaliers from that order are NOT good!
Just saying' :)
Doesn't help my Muammar Gaddafi in PFS.