so, has ultimate combat given the cavalier his deserved love or is he still the scrappy forgotten class?
Being a Luring Musketeer cavalier turns you into a face-shooting badass
Being a Luring Musketeer cavalier turns you into a face-shooting badass
how? I still don't have the book, I would like to know more about what the class gained from it
Beast Rider. That is all.
Oh yeah also the lurking musketeer cavalier isn't bad (not great... but certainly not bad... and the lurking cavalier makes a good mounted archer).
Gonna disagree with Abe on this one. Cavalier got a lot of good stuff in this book, the weakest IMO being the Beast Rider. It's basically something that you could get *anyways* just by asking the GM. Even honor guard is "better" than that, since you could've gotten that anyways.
Luring Cavalier, Musketeer, and Strategist jump out to me as being the best ones.
The Horse Master feat is very good. It lets a 4th level cavalier have his mount's level be based off of the character's level, not class levels.
All that. Plus Coordinated Charge teamwork feat gave me a joygasm.
Gonna disagree with Abe on this one. Cavalier got a lot of good stuff in this book, the weakest IMO being the Beast Rider. It's basically something that you could get *anyways* just by asking the GM. Even honor guard is "better" than that, since you could've gotten that anyways.
Luring Cavalier, Musketeer, and Strategist jump out to me as being the best ones.
The Horse Master feat is very good. It lets a 4th level cavalier have his mount's level be based off of the character's level, not class levels.
I like beast rider because it explicitly allows options beyond horses -- something you have to have GM permission without. However I will freely admit that it isn't the 'best' one available.
All in all however I disagree with MIB's assessment still.
interesting, so the cavalier is finally filling the combat leader niche and being good at it I presume?
|
It's still a really poor class. The cavalier does well when it can make mounted charges or there's something worth challenging, and spearcarries or offers small buffs the rest of the time.Its the social skill monkey of the Full BAB classes. Sure, Pallys are also but they need to be careful with how they splash their limited points around. Caviliers can be a bit more diverse.
On a fluff and non crunch side Cavaliers are nominally 'Officers', 'Gentlemen' and such if not played as minor nobility or even having knightly (and thus Courtly) title.
In and of itself, sometimes that can be valuable as well.
The problem comes with the Tactician ability - it's a Standard Action until 9th level - so the combat specialist is giving up combat time to buff everyone else. In a four character party, that's quite a drawback. Thematically, it's also a bit of tenuous reasoning to suggest the Cavalier should be the party's tactician (they should have Charisma-based abilities, yes; being a cavalryman is all about style). I feel as if the designers (when writing the APG) couldn't decide between the classic AD&D Cavalier and the 3.5 Marshal, so decided to combine them.
Cavalier is probably the most 'niche' character class in Pathfinder - all the others are customisable to the extent that you can adapt to the campaign you're in - so I, for one, welcome any new archetypes.
A Strategist (and even a normal Cavalier to a lesser degree) with the Stealth Synergy teamwork feat looks really nice. No more worrying about how to sneak the big guy in full plate into position.
It's still a really poor class. The cavalier does well when it can make mounted charges or there's something worth challenging, and spearcarries or offers small buffs the rest of the time.Its the social skill monkey of the Full BAB classes. Sure, Pallys are also but they need to be careful with how they splash their limited points around. Caviliers can be a bit more diverse.
On a fluff and non crunch side Cavaliers are nominally 'Officers', 'Gentlemen' and such if not played as minor nobility or even having knightly (and thus Courtly) title.
In and of itself, sometimes that can be valuable as well.
The problem comes with the Tactician ability - it's a Standard Action until 9th level - so the combat specialist is giving up combat time to buff everyone else. In a four character party, that's quite a drawback. Thematically, it's also a bit of tenuous reasoning to suggest the Cavalier should be the party's tactician (they should have Charisma-based abilities, yes; being a cavalryman is all about style). I feel as if the designers (when writing the APG) couldn't decide between the classic AD&D Cavalier and the 3.5 Marshal, so decided to combine them.
Cavalier is probably the most 'niche' character class in Pathfinder - all the others are customisable to the extent that you can adapt to the campaign you're in - so I, for one, welcome any new archetypes.
Cavalry were all about decisive moves to quickly end combat. Tactician fits with that pretty well.
|
|
It's still a really poor class. The cavalier does well when it can make mounted charges or there's something worth challenging, and spearcarries or offers small buffs the rest of the time.Its the social skill monkey of the Full BAB classes. Sure, Pallys are also but they need to be careful with how they splash their limited points around. Caviliers can be a bit more diverse.
On a fluff and non crunch side Cavaliers are nominally 'Officers', 'Gentlemen' and such if not played as minor nobility or even having knightly (and thus Courtly) title.
In and of itself, sometimes that can be valuable as well.
The problem comes with the Tactician ability - it's a Standard Action until 9th level - so the combat specialist is giving up combat time to buff everyone else. In a four character party, that's quite a drawback. Thematically, it's also a bit of tenuous reasoning to suggest the Cavalier should be the party's tactician (they should have Charisma-based abilities, yes; being a cavalryman is all about style). I feel as if the designers (when writing the APG) couldn't decide between the classic AD&D Cavalier and the 3.5 Marshal, so decided to combine them.
Cavalier is probably the most 'niche' character class in Pathfinder - all the others are customisable to the extent that you can adapt to the campaign you're in - so I, for one, welcome any new archetypes.
I think the bigger issues are only once per day for a while, and that Teamwork feats are still overall kind of meh. The Practiced Tactician feat helps a tad, but cavaliers are feats starved as it is.
And of course, the biggest issue is that they really want another good melee character to help out in melee, especially another heavy armor guy, to really take advantage of the good Teamwork feats like Outflank. And they want a lot of characters in the party in general.
Samurais are just so much better in the basic ways like some of their abilities not tied to a mount, better weapons (Eastern > Western), fighter feats for their main weapon, resolve being really good to negate lots of things, they can recharge their challenges, and their default Order is pretty good.
I still think cavaliers are still weak, but I need to fully read their new archetypes (too busy gaming at Gen Con).
Cav-who?
Wha?! How dare you sir! If this were not the internet I would pimp-slap you with a metal gauntlet and demand satisfaction on behalf of cavaliers everywhere.
Well, if this were not the internet, I had a metal gauntlet actually handy, and the cavaliers being discussed were not imaginary... THEN you could consider yourself properly gauntlet pimp-slapped.
Gotta say the Gendarme does a nice job of getting the Cav into the freakish levels of DPR. Also, one of the bonus feats you should select in place of your Tactician feats is Spring Attack, so if you fill out the rest of the Dodge tree (a burden, I know), you can be a beast on horseback, then get off, draw steel, and continue to be a badass in dungeon.
Is there any way yet to get rid of or delay the mount so a battle herald can be built without the vestigial animal?
Standard Bearer swaps when you get a mount and Banner. Musketeer gets rid of the mount completely.
Monks and clerics can now qualify for Battle Herald too.
|
|
Is there any way yet to get rid of or delay the mount so a battle herald can be built without the vestigial animal?Standard Bearer swaps when you get a mount and Banner. Musketeer gets rid of the mount completely.
Monks and clerics can now qualify for Battle Herald too.
OR a better option is to take the Tactician archetype for Fighter.
It's pretty much the same thing as a mount-less cavalier.(Improved skill points, the Tactician ability, massively better aid another power)
It's a great archetype for those who want to play the smart battle leader the Cavalier is supposed to be without the mount in the way (though you have the feats and into to make the mounted combat work too).
Is there any way yet to get rid of or delay the mount so a battle herald can be built without the vestigial animal?Standard Bearer swaps when you get a mount and Banner. Musketeer gets rid of the mount completely.
Monks and clerics can now qualify for Battle Herald too.
OR a better option is to take the Tactician archetype for Fighter.
It's pretty much the same thing as a mount-less cavalier.(Improved skill points, the Tactician ability, massively better aid another power)
It's a great archetype for those who want to play the smart battle leader the Cavalier is supposed to be without the mount in the way (though you have the feats and into to make the mounted combat work too).
Tactician with a level of standard bearer / strategist is great. Real fast tactician progression, banner, and you don't lose any BAB.
I have to say my Wolf Riding Gendarme Halfling Cavalier so far is kicking butt . I know my GM is making sure i can be mounted most of the time . I have dismounted and used my wolf as a flanking buddy . It worked really well to.
|
|
Cavalry were all about decisive moves to quickly end combat. Tactician fits with that pretty well.
Hard to end combat quickly when you're giving up your main action to direct everyone else in melee, given that you're probably the main melee character in the party.
But it does become a Swift action at 9th level. All in all, I think the Tactician ability would have made more sense being grafted to the Inquisitor, with the Cavalier picking up the Inquisitor's ability to share Teamwork Feats instead.
|
I'm still waiting for my copy, so I can't really comment on any of the cavalier options yet.
Slightly off topic, although still pertaining to cavaliers ...
If you are looking for additional cavalier options and orders, might I suggest:
Advanced Options: Cavaliers' Orders
>>>LINK
and
Advanced Options: More Cavalier Orders
>>> LINK
both from Super Genius Games?
I think there are some interesting options within that can make some very interesting, and in some cases rather non-traditional, cavalier characters.
Everything I've ever read by SuperGenius is horrible out of balance with the rest of the game, and I don't allow it at my table...
That being said, giving the Cavalier Dual-Wield Giant-Size Vorpal-Lances may be required to put him in line with the fighter of his level, so perhaps that's worth looking into?
I was pretty well underwhelmed by the UC choices, and the Sam got NO specific archetypes. There are still also NO challenge-based feats available. No love for that particular class feature?
We do have an Order of the Shield Honor Guard cavalier in my newest party (Cavalier + Caravan = Maybe Win?) for Jade Regent, so we'll see how the highly defensive buffy tower shield specialist splashed character goes for giving immediate action shield defense and +1 ac to allies while challenging goes.
theshoveller: I was talking historically. In game, they kinda have a weird thing going where they shift from commanding from the rear (standard action) to commanding from the front (swift action). Personally, I think it should be a move action regardless, since that would accurately reflect how cavalry officers commanded pre-1850s.
Everything I've ever read by SuperGenius is horrible out of balance with the rest of the game, and I don't allow it at my table...
Not to derail too much, but I was kinda shocked by that statement. I've always found them well balanced. What in particular have you found too powerful? Paizo has used the guy behind SGG in a lot of their products, so it would seem they agree with him balance-wise.
|
|
Cav-who?
Sadly, this is my opinion as well. I was hoping for a hound master type of cavalier. Nope, we got a bunch of very minor variations. The best cavalier by far is a samurai.
The fighter tactician archetype or a samurai actually would work much better for most games. You almost have to build the campaign around allowing a straight cavalier to be useful. This was a big miss in UC.
Funny enough, I really like the UC book based on the improvements for monks / bards along with the gunslinger / ninja / samurai.
|
|
theshoveller: I was talking historically. In game, they kinda have a weird thing going where they shift from commanding from the rear (standard action) to commanding from the front (swift action). Personally, I think it should be a move action regardless, since that would accurately reflect how cavalry officers commanded pre-1850s.
I'm not disputing your historical argument, I'm suggesting that the class features don't suit it very well.
Perhaps an ability that allows your character to become more mobile (something halfway between charge and Spring Attack?) called "Decisive Maneuver" would fit.
|
|
Everything I've ever read by SuperGenius is horrible out of balance with the rest of the game, and I don't allow it at my table...
Those sound like fightin' words! That's like telling Bulhman that his game sux!
While I horribly disagree with your statement, I'll let Mark defend his own work...
[grabs popcorn]
Everything I've ever read by SuperGenius is horrible out of balance with the rest of the game, and I don't allow it at my table...
Not to derail too much, but I was kinda shocked by that statement. I've always found them well balanced. What in particular have you found too powerful? Paizo has used the guy behind SGG in a lot of their products, so it would seem they agree with him balance-wise.
Genius Guide to Feats of Battle, for a start. It's the only PDF I still seem to have on my computer, but I believe there was a genius class guide before archetypes came in, and a genius spells thing that I also disliked quite a lot?
Other than the Psionic rules (which will come as a shock to our other friends when we start playing in Sarusan in a couple months!) virtually all 3rd Party material has been banned from our table though. Anything we use, I (the resident rules lawyer) and the GM usually go over with a fine tooth comb and look up and down and sideways at before allowing into a character, and even those options are few, and far between.
We've liked/allowed/used Hound-Master cavalier from the contest, and have been seriously considering the Multi-Class Archetypes from the homebrew thread I've been all up and down on for the last few weeks, but other than that, we're core/expanded Paizo Pathfinder only.
I consider myself a game designer, and I've been trying to ramp up enough material to start self-publishing, but the initial investment for Adobe Pro is pretty steep in Oz. I have a good eye for balance and a heady for mechanics and systems, and I'm trying to hawk some of my wares currently to LPJ, just to get my name out. I take a wide-angle approach to the balance of anything not official and tend to take for granted that the official printings are my benchmarks and baselines, and fit the further work I do around that. A benefit of not working within my own created system. Boundaries give good guidelines and inspiration. I feel (or I math, depending) that many of the options I've seen from the Super Geniuses are super unbalanced.
Just my 1sp 6cp...
...
The coins down here are worth a lot more than in the states.
Those sound like fightin' words! That's like telling Bulhman that his game sux!
[grabs popcorn]
The one I have is Owen KC Stevens. Trying to figure out what I did with the others... they're around here somewhere...
Fix'd.
Everything I've ever read by SuperGenius is horrible out of balance with my game, and I don't allow it at my table...
Can you like...bold the part you fix next time?
I hate having to take 20 when reading sentences.
Suffice to say, if you think most 3rd party stuff is overpowered, I really do fear that you're products will be underpowered. Super Genius and quite a few other companies have some products up at d20pfsrd.com, and I urge you to take a look at those again. You really are the only person I've ever seen who thinks they're overpowered!
Back to the topic on hand:
I think the Cavalier should start out with the Tactician as a move action.
It's not as good as Inspire Courage, which is a standard action, although it is clearly inspired by IC. (Pun not intended)
I do think that it does work with the class, if you consider the Cavalier as an officer. The fluff suggests this is the case.
theshoveller: the Dervish Dancer gets something like this, so if you were to add it, perhaps you can get inspired from that.
|
The one I have is Owen KC Stevens. Trying to figure out what I did with the others... they're around here somewhere...
Those sound like fightin' words! That's like telling Bulhman that his game sux!
[grabs popcorn]
Around 80% of the PDFs are by Owen K.C. Stephens, (that's me), so it'd be no surprise if all the SGG PDFs you have are my handiwork. (And some of our stuff is up on d20pfsrd.com, so you can always look there if there's some specific item you're wanting to call out.)
If there's anything you feel was unbalanced in any of our products, I'm happy to explain the reasoning of all our designs.
Also, when talking about the cavalier books specifically, Marc Radle is the designer for most of those (I did the raven and wolf orders in the second book), so if it's my design sensibilities you don't like, you may still enjoy Marc's excellent work. Certainly I'd hate to see someone take a pass on his great talent because they don't enjoy what I write.
That said, gaming is a very subjective activity. While I'm always saddened when what we create doesn't match a customer's needs, I'm glad you know what works for your group. I certainly don't take any gamer's attitude to how they want to play their game as "fightin' words."
|
|
[That said, gaming is a very subjective activity. While I'm always saddened when what we create doesn't match a customer's needs, I'm glad you know what works for your group. I certainly don't take any gamer's attitude to how they want to play their game as "fightin' words."
EDIT: <bad attempt at humor> fightin' words </bad attempt at humor>
*blah blah blah* The one I have is Owen KC Stevens... *blah blah blah*
If there's anything you feel was unbalanced in any of our products, I'm happy to explain the reasoning of all our designs.
I'll formulate some specific examples and either shoot an email or start a post and we'll talk shop. I've had similar quality problems with Adamant, LPJ, and Rite publications as well. I bought the whole 101 Spells line and it was very hit-or-miss, and a couple dozen other third party supplements of my friends' that are taking up space in my game room. I have at least perused them all, and play-tested many, and once I can wrap my head around the ideas of just your stuff, I'll be good to talk.
Also, I need to clean my game room. The dustbunnies have tiny spears and are developing language. Character sheets roam the wide open plains, with the occasional miniature case thundering majestically across the horizon. I'm lucky to have escaped with my life. O.O
===========================================
What I'd -REALLY- like to see for the Cavalier... well, I'm already working on ideas for, but I'll spoil/share. What I'm working on for the cavalier is a handful of archetypes to focus on singular aspects of the class and expand them and their concepts.
Honorable Protector (Challenge)
War Leader (Standard)
Front Line Commander (Tactics/Commands)
Thundering Chasseurs (Mount)
Something about Order Paragons
I'll circle around and around the concept with a few ideas like:
Cavaliers are ALWAYS: Martial, Noble, Brazen
Cavaliers are NEVER: Magical, Stealthy, Hesitant
So the Honorable Protector gives up his mount and charge abilities (and quite possibly his tactician abilities) for 1-on-1 dueling and aggro management abilities. A real TANK on the battlefield who's sole purpose is to break the line, defend the back row, and defy the overwhelming numbers of mooks to single out the BBEG.
The War Leader is the Bardalier. Cavabard. Whatever. He buffs his allies and absolutely keeps his tactician stuff, but may give up his challenge for effects that get his team into a cohesive whole. Zones of control and flag-area-auras? Powerful Voice and Lines of Sight are important for your war leader. Great place to flat out steal ideas from the 4e Warlord.
Another great candidate for stealing bags of tricks from the Warlord is the Front Line Commander, who may give up his challenge and/or mount for expendable resources like Ki or Grit to make sudden immediate actions and negation/retaliation effects, with teamwork/competence bonuses to things like skill checks, group maneuvers (pincer, shield wall, turtle, break, retreat, brace...), and of course, all those shiny teamwork feats. The Barbarian may not want to follow his instructions, but the Rogue and Ranger will be sucking up the bonuses and using up all the teamwork feats they can lay their greedy little mitts on.
Thundering Chasseurs are focused on their mount. Dazzling displays, fearsome charges, non-standard tricks... The only problem I have with this particular character is that it needs a big fat disclaimer on it asking the GM if there are more than three dungeons of 1-2 experience levels worth of game play during a 20-level spread. If there are, it may not be worth playing. Having your bad-@$$ mount relegated to guarding the loot wagon is abysmally sorry. They need a 'charge into danger' ability that lets them add their level to saves vs fear and acrobatics checks made when charging at least 20', or forcing them to charge 20' on their next turn to take the bonus. Maybe even a limited 'slow fall' ability on a charge so they never hesitate to try crazy stunts and skewer people.
And I want -more- out of orders. Order Paragons should be able to peel out techniques and tactics based on their order the same way Oracle's get Revelations. 2/8/15 is nice and all, but the Order Paragon should get one at 5, 10, 13, and 17 too.
They need archetypes and FEAT CHAINS to support them that make them feel bold and beautiful and, as the Aussies down under say, 'harder than'. The Cavalier should stand shoulder to shoulder with the Paladin without missing a stroke, and should be able to surpass him when it comes to leadership, if not panache.
The Cavalier, even with those options presented in the UC, feels too bound up in the horse-riding, and it's just not a feasible option for most campaigns.
All that being said, I wanna play a Dragoon.
|
|
*blah blah blah* The one I have is Owen KC Stevens... *blah blah blah*
I'll formulate some specific examples and either shoot an email or start a post and we'll talk shop.
If there's anything you feel was unbalanced in any of our products, I'm happy to explain the reasoning of all our designs.
Sounds good to me. :)
I've had similar quality problems with Adamant, LPJ, and Rite publications as well.
Fair enough, but I didn't write any Pf material for them, just SGG and Paizo itself. :)
What I'm working on for the cavalier is a handful of archetypes to focus on singular aspects of the class and expand them and their concepts.
I think those sound cool. I look forward to seeing what you come up with.
...said cool stuff about the cavalier...
I also look forward to seeing what you'll come up with. I like the idea of a mountless cavalier that focuses on the tactical side of combat (and made a quick Bard version of it), and I'll be working on a cavalier version of that soon. So far my inspirations for this will be from the Battle Herald, Bard, and War Master (from SGG). If I can find my copies of the Warlord from 4e, I might take a look at that too...
The mounted cavalier is just too situational for my tastes.
Very neat, Cheapy. Few questions and suggestions on your thread, mostly academic. Get on the Mutliclass Thread and give us what you've got.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Hmm.
Interesting arguments, however:
1.Mounted SUCKS.
2.Cavalier is mounted, see point 1.
3.New cavalier stuff is all still mounted, See point 1.
4. No options not to be mounted, just different versions of being mounted, see point 1.
5.Its great, can change the mount, can change what to do mounted, can even change everythign but the mounted options, still see point 1.
Point 1. Mounted sucks.
Unless you fix the fact that quite a bit of the cavalier cannot be used, not used effectivly, or used because they forced the game into a situation to be fair, otherwise you cannot use your character effectivly, then it still sucks.
Okay a rogue does not rely on backstab, but tell the people playing the rogue oh by the way, you can only use the back stab ability 1 out of 6 times, only in a dark room with four walls, of x dimension, otherwise you can never use it?
or you can turn undead, but you can only turn undead outside during the day.
Or a paladin can smite. But only in a wide open field, during the night.
Sure these abilities are not the most important class features, and there are other powers, but it sucks when a big power can only used sort of, some of the time, if the party and dm want to make an effort to work it into the game.
|
|
...Mounted SUCKS... [reasons why it sucks]...
A cavalier is a mounted warrior, it's in the definition of the word. However, with the exception of an adventure like Kingmaker, a mounted character is going to spend a significant time missing out on a portion of his character. I see the point.
AND, unlike a ranger or druid, who can generally take their animal companion on a dungeon crawl, you have to leave a significant portion of your characters abilities topside. It's a very niche class. I understand that, and my Cavalier/Wizard has been in two mini dungeons so far and being seperated from my mount took away a *serious* amount of fun factor. Especially when I lost my spellbook and was amounted to rogue stats without class abilities.
But that's just it. Take away the mounted focus, and you don't have a "Cavalier", you have a "Knight". And when I hear the complaints about the class, I think what they are really asking is "I want a Knight class, change this to make it one"
I think it makes much more sense to create an archetype to turn a fighter into a knight than to take a characters whose fundamental aspect is to be mounted, and make an un-mounted version.
|
|
see i disagree, the majority of knights could fight as well on foot as horseback. The samurai is a great example of playing a cavalier on foot. you are telling me that knights did most of their fighting on horseback? perhaps in grand melees, or at a joust. But the rest of the time? even in legends, it was their armor, their skills, their nobility. They should focus on things such as skills, the smite, is a great power, have mounted as either less of a focus, or one of two options, but right now they created a class that should either just die, or have options. The hound master cavalier was brilliant.
I do not understand why they continue to push an element of a class that is the worst recieved of the class.
just a thought.
|
|
see i disagree, the majority of knights could fight as well on foot as horseback. The samurai is a great example of playing a cavalier on foot. you are telling me that knights did most of their fighting on horseback? perhaps in grand melees, or at a joust. But the rest of the time? even in legends, it was their armor, their skills, their nobility. They should focus on things such as skills, the smite, is a great power, have mounted as either less of a focus, or one of two options, but right now they created a class that should either just die, or have options. The hound master cavalier was brilliant.
I do not understand why they continue to push an element of a class that is the worst recieved of the class.
just a thought.
That's my point: Cavalier </> Knight. Look up the word Cavalier. It comes from the latin caballārius for "men on horseback". The identification with knights is a fairly recent addition to the term and to make that identification (which most editions of the game have done) shoehorns the Cavalier into a certain role that goes against the actual meaning of the word.
All I am saying is that it goes against the grain of a Cavalier, which has a similar word origin to Cavalry (cavallerie), a group of people really not known for non-mounted combat.
Cavalier is a mounted class, and what you are arguing is that you want it to be a Knight class, which is not the same thing.
Now, I don't mind *mitigating* the emphasies on mounted combat, but to take the mounted stuff away entirely defeats the purpose of playing a "Cavalier".
In the end, I'm debating semantics over the word, and you're talking about viability of the class. I'm not going to fight anyone one bit over whether the Hound Master was a good idea or whether it's a good idea to make a "Knight" archetype that gives up some of it's mounted abilities for more foot-based abilities. Versatility is awesome, viability is awesome, HOWEVER YOU WANT TO PLAY, THAT'S AWESOME.
I'm certainly not going to get pissy or refuse to use the class because Paizo decided to expand it beyond it's base definition any more than I would boycott the Bard or Witch for having arcane based magic (both of which have religious origins). In fact, I applaud the whole idea of orders, I think it's an incredible addition to the game. And however and whatever direction they go with it, I'm eager to see more, regardless of how much it rubs my history degree the wrong way.
In short, if it makes your game better, I hope the designers make it.
|
Hmm.
Interesting arguments, however:
1.Mounted SUCKS.
I have to agree with this 100%
I play a lot of pathfinder Society games and absolutely refuse to play a Cavalier because 90% of the time the adventure takes place in a location I won't be able to get a horse into. And I refuse to play a halfling cavalier on a sheep dog...
A Cavalier is NOT all about being mounted. That is one small aspect of what a Cavalier is all about.
To more easily make my point I will turn from Cavaliers in RPGs to Musketeers in literature. :)
The Three Musketeers are not defined by the fact that they used Muskets... in the vast majority of their adventures they used swords! What defined them was that they were elite soldiers, leaders, and lovers. They were the elite of the elite. They were the best warriors in France, the best swordsmen, the most loyal patriots... oh and they occasionally used muskets...
THAT is what I look for in a Cavalier. The best leadership, the best battlefield tactician, the master of controlling a battle and oh yeah sometimes they get on horses too.
Lets face it just the fact they are on a horse is impressive. (This months PFS event was the Grand Melee... a PVP event to pit our characters against one another. This year we fought in teams, usually three teams competing per table to advance to the next round. First round, both the other teams had cavaliers and I admit I was seriously nervous about fighting them. Turned out that while they were among the higher levels at our table they died the easiest. Out of six players lvl 5 cleric (me), lvl 4 fighter (my partner), lvl 5 cavalier, lvl 4 cleric, lvl 5 cavalier, lvl 2 bard only the cavaliers died... tells you something when a lvl 2 bard outlives the lvl 5 cavaliers)
Okay my point in that ramble was that at first the fact that these guys were mounted had me intimidated. Then we slaughtered them. Second round of the tournament I faced another cavalier and had no doubts he would be first dead... and he was (he died before another lvl 2 bard did, and even a lvl 2 fighter survived the round). I know that not one Cavalier survived to the third round of the Grand Melee, and from my experience in slaughtering three they are easy targets and inconsequential to the fight).
I'm sorry but a 5th level Cavalier should not be easier to kill than a 2nd level bard! I want a Cavalier to impress me, to make me nervous in the knees and then to back it up. So far, from slaughtering Cavaliers so easily, I would say they are the weakest class in the game so far. One trick ponies are usually the weakest, and the Cavalier is a one trick pony.
So someone please... pleeeeeease make a Cavalier not suck. :)
|
|
see i disagree, the majority of knights could fight as well on foot as horseback. The samurai is a great example of playing a cavalier on foot. you are telling me that knights did most of their fighting on horseback? perhaps in grand melees, or at a joust. But the rest of the time? even in legends, it was their armor, their skills, their nobility. They should focus on things such as skills, the smite, is a great power, have mounted as either less of a focus, or one of two options, but right now they created a class that should either just die, or have options. The hound master cavalier was brilliant.
I do not understand why they continue to push an element of a class that is the worst recieved of the class.
just a thought.
That's my point: Cavalier </> Knight. Look up the word Cavalier. It comes from the latin caballārius for "men on horseback". The identification with knights is a fairly recent addition to the term and to make that identification (which most editions of the game have done) shoehorns the Cavalier into a certain role that goes against the actual meaning of the word.
All I am saying is that it goes against the grain of a Cavalier, which has a similar word origin to Cavalry (cavallerie), a group of people really not known for non-mounted combat.
Cavalier is a mounted class, and what you are arguing is that you want it to be a Knight class, which is not the same thing.
Now, I don't mind *mitigating* the emphasies on mounted combat, but to take the mounted stuff away entirely defeats the purpose of playing a "Cavalier".
I disagree with most of this... sorry. A Musketeer is by definition someone who fights using a musket. Yet the Three Musketeers usually fight with swords. The musket was a PART of what defined who they were.
A Cavalier is more than a guy who keeps the back of a horse warm. Every character can sit on a horse in combat. Does that make the character a Cavalier? No.
What makes a Cavalier a Cavalier is WHAT he does. In real life a Cavalier controlled the battle, was the master of speed and power, terrified every soldier on foot, had a clear vision of the ebb and flow of battle, directed the conflict with sound tactics and vision.
In my experience with the Pathfinder Cavalier, they are great targets, keep the back of the horse warm until their dead bodies grow cold, and a huge disappointment.
The problem is that in the game they are defined strictly by being on the back of a horse (or mount whatever). When a Cavalier dismounted his horse, did he cease to be a Cavalier? No, he was still a major threat no matter where he was, or what he was doing. Being a Cavalier is far far far more than keeping the back of a horse warm :)