|
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
I don't think you understand what disagreement means, or you are trying to say something that's not coming across clearly to me.
I'm not saying the only thing Cavaliers did was sit on a horse and bleed, any more than I would say that the only thing a Musketeer does is shoot a musket, or that the only thing a Paladin does is Smite, or a (good) Cleric heal/channel.
Are you saying that a Cavalier with NO mounted abilities is still a Cavalier? If so, then YES, we disagree. Just as a Musketeer with NO training in a Musket would not be a Musketeer. If you give a person a title that translates as "mounted fighter" and refuse to give him any mounted capabilities, then maybe that shouldn't be his title.
To use your analogy, I am hardly saying that a Musketeer who fights with a rapier is not a Musketeer. I'm saying a Musketeer who NEVER uses a Musket isn't a Musketeer.
But again, feel free to play however you want to play. My gripe is not with the class per se, but the name. And again, certainly isn't going to stop me from using archetypes that eschew mounted entirely.
|
Yes, the cavalier is a mounted warrior.
BUT, that's not ALL he is!
Seriously, you can play a cavalier that is unmounted for long stretches of time and the class works just fine. Great in fact. The challenge class feature is cool etc. To me, a cavalier is a very good martial class ... and a GREAT martial class when mounted. Much in the way that a Ranger is a good martial class and a GREAT one when fighting one of his favored enemies.
However, I know many people get wrapped up in the "cavaliers suck unless they are mounted" thing, and that's OK.
In fact, when I worked on Advanced Options: More Cavalier Orders, (which I'm very happy to say got it's second 5 star review :) I made sure that some of the orders did not focus on being mounted at all. Now granted, none could be considered truly a 'mount-less cavalier' BUT, I made sure that some got no order specific abilities that relied in any way on being mounted.
Off the top of my head, the Order of the Citadel and the Order of the Shroud cavaliers work very well without a horse.
Also, speaking of the Order of the Citadel, Cheapy mentioned wishing for an order that really focuses on the tactical side of combat and draws inspiration from the Bard, Battle Herald etc. That is very much what I was striving for with the Order of the Citadel. I'd REALLY be curious to hear what you think of that order in particular.
|
|
Yes, the cavalier is a mounted warrior.
BUT, that's not ALL he is!
I'm not saying that. I'm really really really really not saying that. If that's the impression people are getting, then they are either reading too much into my point, looking for an argument, or I've been hit by the Derp Fairy and can't express myself clearly today (this is not a new phenomenon).
The impression I was getting was that people were asking for Cavalier archetypes that had NO mounted capability. That is the ONLY point I am debating against. And even then, I'm not saying that there should never be an archetype that nullifies all of a Cavaliers mounted abilities, simply that it goes against the grain of the Cavalier concept and not a choice I would personally make when designing. In said instance, I would likely make it an archetype for a different class or I would make an alternate class all together.
I welcome the idea, even while debating against it. I applaud it, I will play it, I will enjoy it.
On a side note, Marc, your five stars are richly deserved (Order of the Raven makes me giggle with glee). I downloaded it the day it was released and was very pleased with it. If I didn't feel it would be a cheap excuse for a review, I would jump in and write "what they said" just so I could give you another five star mark in your cap.
I love the Order of the Citadel. I'm playing a Wizard/Cavalier right now, and if my GM allowed 3pp it would be perfect for what I was going for, a Wizard Tactician. The focus on moving allies around the board and giving them bonuses is *exactly* what I was looking for. While I love the 15th level ability though, I do question what it has to do flavor-wise with this order.
Yes, the cavalier is a mounted warrior.
BUT, that's not ALL he is!
Seriously, you can play a cavalier that is unmounted for long stretches of time and the class works just fine. Great in fact. The challenge class feature is cool etc. To me, a cavalier is a very good martial class ... and a GREAT martial class when mounted. Much in the way that a Ranger is a good martial class and a GREAT one when fighting one of his favored enemies.
However, I know many people get wrapped up in the "cavaliers suck unless they are mounted" thing, and that's OK.
In fact, when I worked on Advanced Options: More Cavalier Orders, (which I'm very happy to say got it's second 5 star review :) I made sure that some of the orders did not focus on being mounted at all. Now granted, none could be considered truly a 'mount-less cavalier' BUT, I made sure that some got no order specific abilities that relied in any way on being mounted.
Off the top of my head, the Order of the Citadel and the Order of the Shroud cavaliers work very well without a horse.
Also, speaking of the Order of the Citadel, Cheapy mentioned wishing for an order that really focuses on the tactical side of combat and draws inspiration from the Bard, Battle Herald etc. That is very much what I was striving for with the Order of the Citadel. I'd REALLY be curious to hear what you think of that order in particular.
That order has been tempting me to buy the product. May as well...
|
|
Yes, the cavalier is a mounted warrior.
BUT, that's not ALL he is!
Ok, that's really weird. I responded to this. I *saw* the post after I submitted it. And now it's gone. Let's try it again.
Assuming that was directed at me, I want to reiterate that I'm not saying this. I'm really not. If people are getting that impression, then maybe I was hit by the Derp Fairy and am not expressing myself clearly today.
All I am saying is that a Cavalier with NO mounted capability isn't really a Cavalier. It's his number one training and he should be better at it than a non-Cavalier. Saying a Cavalier doesn't need to be trained in fighting on horseback is like saying a Navy Seal doesn't need to know how to swim. There's not alot of water outside the compound where Seal Team Six did their awesomeness, but don't tell me there's anyone on that team that can't do a backstroke.
Orders and archetypes that don't add to mounted capabilites are fine. Archetypes that *lessen* the Cavaliers mounted capabilities are fine. If your archetype will *eliminate* a Cavaliers mounted capabilities, then I think that should fall under the realm of alternate class instead of archetype
TANGENT:
Marc, your book reeks of awesome. Order of the Raven makes me giggle with glee. Your five star ratings are well deserved, and if it didn't feel cheap, I would enter a review that just said "what they said" just so I could give you another five star mark in your cap.
The Order of the Citadel is my second favorite as far as flavor, absolute favorite as far as mechanics. I've been playing a Wizard/Cavalier whose goal was to be a Wizard Tactician style field-commander. The focus on maneuvering allies and giving them bonuses to certain tactics is exactly what I wanted. If only I could convince my GM to allow 3pp, it'd be perfect. My only question: I like the 15th level, but I'm wondering why you chose this order for it?
|
|
All I am saying is that a Cavalier with NO mounted capability isn't really a Cavalier.Since when do class names have meaning?
A monk by definition is someone who leads a monastic lifestyle, as represented by the lawful alignment restriction. Yet we now have the martial artist who doesn't follow a monastic lifestyle and need not be lawful. Ooops.
A ranger that doesn't range isn't really a ranger. I bring you the Urban Ranger, which would, as a NPC, stay in town. Sounds, in fact, like a class that along with detective bards makes up the elite PC classed portion of the city watch. Calling that bunch of homebodies rangers is like calling a law abiding locksmith a thief.
The only answer I can give, and it's a weak one at that, is that fantasy was my first introduction to those two terms. In fact, even now I had to go looking to try and find the origin of the word Ranger to prove that it wasn't made up by Tolkien. Even then, the only reference I found to its origin was on a website for baby names which says it comes from Old French for "Forest Guardian". Were I more familiar with them prior to my intro to fantasy in the 80's, I might have had the same objections about them as well.
However, I will point out:
Monk - refers to the eastern monk, not the christian monk. Eastern monks were often on the fringes of chinese society and thus were the first people hit by the mongols. As such, monks were quite proficient in the martial arts as no one was willing to come to their defense. So there is certainly precedent for a religious temple full of people who could spend all day meditating on infinity, and yet capable of whupping your ass all night. Monks were bad-asses, don't you watch "Deadliest Warrior"? :)
In the end, it's semantics, and not one I'm too terribly adamant about. I have my opinion and am willing to express it, but it's certainly not something I'm going to let interfere with my enjoyment of the game. If there's a cool archetype that nullifies a Cavalier's mounted capacity, I'm certainly not going to boycott it any more than I boycott the Witch class for its hexes and cackling and arcane magic. I am more than capable of seperating my historical elitism from my gamer "OOOO... SHINY!"
All of this "Cavaliers suck if not mounted" is really tiresome, but may be true in the game as is. APs, from what I read, are mainly in environs which are not conducive to mounted combat on large creatures (possible exception, Kingmaker?).
This is the reason I wish that PF would give us some BECM[I optional] throwback love.
Basic: Dungeoneering close to settlements to try to stay alive. (Risky for everyone, not just Cavaliers sans mounts)
Expert: Adventuring abroad in the wider world, but taking your time shopping before you go, to try to stay alive. (Great for cavaliers, time to shine)
Companion: Establishing a base and defending it, to try to stay alive. (Ideal for cavaliers, esp. those who choose to focus on leadership)
Master: Adventuring on the planes, taking your home base with you, but basically able to stay alive in all but the most lethal environs. (Cavaliers on Advanced Half-celestial Griffons with fighter levels!)
Immortal: Being a deity, and so staying alive. (Valkyrie!)
Maybe that is to rigid and defines/restricts too heavily what the game should be, at different levels. But 13-17 levels of dungeon crawls seems pretty restrictive, too.
Talk to your GM about wanting to play a Cavalier, if you're truly sold on mounted combat, and SOMETIMES, they might throw you a bone.
Just play a small Cavalier and you can be mounted most of the time . For those times that you can't be, your wolf/pig still makes a great flanking buddy for you . Anywhere a large dog with a 4 year old on its back can go ,so can your wolf/fling Cavalier .
I'm playing a Halfling Cavalier in a homebrew right now and i'm always one of the most effective chars. in the game, mounted or not .
I agree that a med sized Cavalier does have issues use their mount and there really should have been some archetypes that was geared more to non-mounted cavaliers .
Beastmaster, kinda solved the mounted problem.
Either Wolf or Lion make suitable mounts and GREAT flankbuddies.
The tiger (with a saddle of flying) has the same effective abilities as a GRIFFON. The hippogriff is nice but Pounce and flying is where its at.
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'm curious; what new archetypes did UC give the cavalier? Did that one suggestion for the Hound Master make it in?
And if you want to try something new yet well-done and balanced for cavaliers, may I suggest the two PDFs for new cavalier orders from Super Genius Games? Especially the second, which allows for armored horse archers, maidens astride unicorns, and wolf riders among other ideas.