Fairly sure that B1 expanded the list of AC's for both Rangers and Druids, as did subsequent Bestiaries.
So citing the Core list alone isn't truly a full reflection of the range of options.
Which brings it back to the flight issue, since thats the only thing you've actually been able to articulate, and since virtually every other non-flying creature of mount appropriate size is available to the Cavalier through the Beast Rider archetype or other abilities.I'm saying your point applies to virtually every other non-caster, and thus isn't a valid reason to dislike the cavalier, since it applies to multiple other classes. It's a paradigm of the system that you dislike, not the class.Its a completely valid reason to hate a class based around its mount yes, rather than dislike the classes that get it as archetypes. This is the class based around a mount, the others are not.
If I want to ride a dinosaur, or a moose, or a tiger(Nightsabers?), or a bear, or a panda, or a dolphin in an aquatic campaign, or a hippo(deadliest animal!) or a creature with gore(charge!), or a kangaroo(joke character), or a toad, or a toad, or anything else thematic or related to the character. Its about customization and theme to me mostly. I don't get a cool Valkyrie style winged Pegasus either, but I don't know many GMs who would let me rain death from the sky on that.
The beast rider is a poor excuse. StreamOfTheSky already had a post that summed up what I thought pretty well.
I honestly think the Beast Rider archetype, the one you specifically take *to* get more exotic mounts... STILL not offering a flying mount (and the options being underwhelming in general, especially for a medium Cav) did a tremendous amount of damage to the possibility of DMs allowing flying mounts by that proviso.
Player: Can I get a flying mount?
DM: Why not take that archetype that exists solely for getting funky mounts?
Player: Because...it still doesn't get any flying mounts...
DM: If Paizo didn't think giving flying mounts to that archetype was balanced, why on earth would I ever just allow one for a normal Cavalier? It's probably broken or something.I kind of wish it had never been printed...
|
Fairly sure that B1 expanded the list of AC's for both Rangers and Druids, as did subsequent Bestiaries.
So citing the Core list alone isn't truly a full reflection of the range of options.
There isn't anything (unless you something that says otherwise, which would be cool) saying the Ranger automatically gets new animal companions. He's got a specific limited list, and unless something specifically says he gets a creature added to that list, he doesn't, just like the cavalier.
|
|
If I want to ride a dinosaur, or a moose, or a tiger(Nightsabers?), or a bear, or a panda, or a dolphin in an aquatic campaign, or a hippo(deadliest animal!) or a creature with gore(charge!), or a kangaroo(joke character), or a toad, or a toad, or anything else thematic or related to the character. Its about customization and theme to me mostly. I don't get a cool Valkyrie style winged Pegasus either, but I don't know many GMs who would let me rain death from the sky on that.The beast rider is a poor excuse. StreamOfTheSky already had a post that summed up what I thought pretty well.
...I honestly think the Beast Rider archetype, the one you specifically take *to* get more exotic mounts... STILL not offering a flying mount (and the options being underwhelming in general, especially for a medium Cav) did a tremendous amount of damage to the possibility of DMs allowing flying mounts by that proviso.
Player: Can I get a flying mount?
DM: Why not take that archetype that exists solely for getting funky mounts?
Player: Because...it still doesn't get any flying mounts...
DM: If Paizo didn't think giving flying mounts to that archetype was balanced, why on earth would I ever just allow one for a normal
i.e. I can't get a flying mount so the class sucks. The archetype that literally gives me every creature of appropriate size other than flying mounts sucks, because I still can't fly. Literally every other creature in your list with the possible exception of the kangaroo can be taken via the Beast Rider archetype.
i.e. I can't get a flying mount so the class sucks. The archetype that literally gives me every creature of appropriate size other than flying mounts sucks, because I still can't fly. Literally every other creature in your list with the possible exception of the kangaroo can be taken via the Beast Rider archetype.
Seriously, its like you read a part of my post and miss the rest. I said the beast rider was a poor excuse, and quoted was StreamOfTheSky said about it. It actually takes away from the RAW cavalier to do it, and it doesn't stack with every other archetypes. The cavalier cannot take any of those mounts. The beast rider can, but not the cavalier. Just like the beastmaster ranger has a pet more up to par with what it should be, but the ranger does not.
Regardless, its all about opinions anyway isn't it?
I also said it wasn't about flying. None of my examples were about flying except the flying Pegasus, which I don't think is a thing.(Totally should be though imo. Valkyrie imagery.)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
But I can instead play a druid, get a flying full progression mount, wildshape so I can fight, oh and 9 levels of spells. Yeah. Cavaliers look just fine next to that.
|
|
Seriously, its like you read a part of my post and miss the rest. I said the beast rider was a poor excuse, and quoted was StreamOfTheSky said about it. It actually takes away from the RAW cavalier to do it, and it doesn't stack with every other archetypes. The cavalier cannot take any of those mounts. The beast rider can, but not the cavalier. Just like the beastmaster ranger has a pet more up to par with what it should be, but the ranger does not.Regardless, its all about opinions anyway isn't it?
I also said it wasn't about flying. None of my examples were about flying except the flying Pegasus, which I don't think is a thing.(Totally should be though imo. Valkyrie imagery.)
Beast Rider trades out Expert Trainer for a vastly expanded mount list. I can find only one Archetype that doesn't give up the mount anyways that is incompatible with Beast Rider. So he gives up the ability to be a horse breeder to have any mount you could ask for......... I'm reading your posts, I'm just wondering if you actually have tried playing the class or its archetypes, or if your stated opinion is based on a bunch of half-researched theory-craft.
Beast Rider alters the Mount ability. It doesn't just add more options, which is a stupid (but RAW, sadly) reason to keep it from stacking with other archetypes. It also actually changes the mount's bonus feat.
So yeah. Kinda hard to combine Beastrider with other cavalier archetypes...
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
But I can instead play a druid, get a flying full progression mount, wildshape so I can fight, oh and 9 levels of spells. Yeah. Cavaliers look just fine next to that.
Again, not about what full casters can do, but how the cavalier compares to other martial casters. You can "But I cast Wish!" anything. It is a known paradigm of the system that full casters outstrip non-casters. Whether a class can compare to other classes in the same areas they're expected to perform is what we should be looking at.
You can't compare a fighter to a 20th level wizard, so you shouldn't be comparing a cavalier to a 20th level druid. How Cavalier stacks up to Ranger, Fighter, Paladin, Monk, Rogue, Gunslinger and to a lesser extent Magus and Bard is a more realistic comparison and a better gauge of whether a class performs at, above, or below expectations.| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
bear, or a panda,
Well you could, only if you are SMALL, because there are NO LARGE BEARS.
It is a conspiracy.
|
|
Beast Rider alters the Mount ability. It doesn't just add more options, which is a stupid (but RAW, sadly) reason to keep it from stacking with other archetypes. It also actually changes the mount's bonus feat.
So yeah. Kinda hard to combine Beastrider with other cavalier archetypes...
Such as?
It works with:Emissary
Gendarme
Honor Guard
Luring Cavalier
Of the archetypes that still get a mount, it isn't compatible with:
Strategist
Samurai
Musketeer, Standard Bearer, and Huntmaster give up the mount and don't come into the equation.
So, you have two archetypes it isn't compatible with, one of which is virtually a completely different class.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
bear, or a panda,Well you could, only if you are SMALL, because there are NO LARGE BEARS.
It is a conspiracy.
Sorry Shifty, you're wrong here. Beast Riders can ride bears.
"In addition, a 7th-level or higher Medium beast rider can select any creature whose natural size is Large or Huge, provided that creature is normally available as a Medium-sized animal companion at 7th level (like a bear)."
Beast Rider trades out Expert Trainer for a vastly expanded mount list.
Beast Rider changes proficiencies, Mount, and expert handler. Its compatible with Gendarme, Herald Squire, honor guard, Luring Cavalier, and strategist, but not with Emissary, Hunts master, Standard Bearer, or musketeer. Of those, Emmissary and Standard Bearer still use the cavalier(Emissary could actually have synergy!) It loses an armor proficiency, and still has a restricted list(4 legs, no flight, capable of bearing weight, and from a list).
I don't think archetypes ever fix a problem with a class
bear, or a panda,Well you could, only if you are SMALL, because there are NO LARGE BEARS.
It is a conspiracy.
I know, obviously someone has something against bears. Beast rider can get large bears. I don't know where he gets his large sized bears from, but I think he should start sharing.
bear, or a panda,Well you could, only if you are SMALL, because there are NO LARGE BEARS.
It is a conspiracy.
Sorry Shifty, you're wrong here. Beast Riders can ride bears.
"In addition, a 7th-level or higher Medium beast rider can select any creature whose natural size is Large or Huge, provided that creature is normally available as a Medium-sized animal companion at 7th level (like a bear)."
Without me checking the book would that include Rocs?
Without me checking the book would that include Rocs?
"A beast rider cannot choose a mount that is not capable of bearing his weight, that has fewer than four legs, or that has a fly speed (although the GM may allow mounts with a swim speed in certain environments).
I agree MrSin, those Cavs need to start sharing their supplies with the Rangers.
Without me checking the book would that include Rocs?
Can't be flying and has to be able to support your weight. Flying cuts encumbrance in half if I remember correctly, but its been a long time since I've had to worry about that.
I agree MrSin, those Cavs need to start sharing their supplies with the Rangers.
Supplies? Do I want to know how they get their animals to large size?
I'd shy away from any drug testing booths...
Anybody have a second reason to dislike 'em?
Earlier I said, Tactician is weak because action economy and teamwork feats are meh. Orders are fluff turned into mechanics, and challenge and orders are both a little weak usually. Orders also tend to be frontloaded if I remember right. That's my opinion anyway.
The standard bearer changes the mount class feature(and also gets rid of 2 of the charge related class features).
As far as the 'orders' being fluff that becomes mechanics, I'm not sure what you mean. What fluff doesn't become mechanics? Me, I can't stand the fact that some lunkhead singing at the back of my head while I'm up to my eyebrows in troglodytes gives me combat bonuses (against the troglodytes, I mean, not against the lunkhead: there'd be logic in that.)
I feel like orders are more role play than mechanics, and I don't like that they are reserved for a particular class. In the sense that a fighter could join an order but wouldn't get anything, but every cavalier is part of a specific order, listens to a particular set of rules, then gets bonuses for it, but somehow a fighter/paladin/wizard/whatever can't join an order and do something similar. I'd think differently of orders if they were a feat or something related to a story. Does that make more sense?
I feel like orders are more role play than mechanics, and I don't like that they are reserved for a particular class. In the sense that a fighter could join an order but wouldn't get anything, but every cavalier is part of a specific order, listens to a particular set of rules, then gets bonuses for it, but somehow a fighter/paladin/wizard/whatever can't join an order and do something similar. I'd think differently of orders if they were a feat or something related to a story. Does that make more sense?
Orders are a class feature. Essentially a way to customize the Cavalier. Like a club where you have to be a Cavalier to join. One of the goodies you get for being a Cavalier along with Mount, Challenge, etc. It is, in theory anyway, more valuable than a feat. And if there is anything I'm tired of it's giving away a classes goodies to other classes and making them irrelevant. I'm not a fan of arch-types that poach on another classes abilities or of feats being allowed to do so.
Come to think of it, I'm not fond of the Rogue not being the pre-eminent skill monkey or the Fighter not being the best straight up killing machine. It's, imo, poor game design when the archetypal classes in a given area have to struggle to keep up. And when a class feature is so popular they give it out like party favors.
*sigh* Not enough sleep. It makes me grumpy.
*edit* On Cavalier Orders, think of them like craft guilds. To join you have to have the required craft skill, or in this case class. Then you get the extra goodies for being a member.
On Cavalier Orders, think of them like craft guilds. To join you have to have the required craft skill, or in this case class. Then you get the extra goodies for being a member.
Yeah, but being a class shouldn't be the sole requirement to get into a club I don't think. It can take away from every other class and reinforce the idea that a class has a particular way to be played as a role for roleplay. I don't like that at all. My point earlier was I'd rather orders be implemented differently, rather than attached to a class. While its great if your running a game based on the rise of Charlemagne, its awful for a toolkit for building your own world. If on the other hand orders were something a barbarian or fighter could join, that'd be pretty cool I think. Its an opinion more than anything.
Talking about making classes special by taking things away from other classes or requiring them for a game is a whole different can of worms I think.
I think the main beef with the cavalier is that almost every other class can do his job, and better. Not just the druid, summoner, and ranger, but a mounted fighter or paladin is more effective, a bard is a better morale booster...
Really, if you take away the mount, you're left with an inferior fighter. The orders and challenge don't help the poor guy all that much.
Minus the fact that that fighter doesn't have a full 20 level progression mount, so the first time he wanders too close to an AOE all of his lance and Spirited Charge feats are now as useless as the charred lump of horseflesh he's sitting on.
Well, yes, at 5th level the Fighter most certainly does NOT have a 20th level progression mount. But then again, neither does the Cavalier. Maybe the Fighter will go toward some prestige class that allows him to get a better mount, or one that directly upgrades the mount he got from that 1 level dip in Cavalier (which at least gives him a replaceable mount over time). Or he'll get a Phantom Steed from a friendly or an item. Or get a Construct or Undead mount. The cavalier, too, will likely go toward that prestige class, AS HE HAS NO OBVIOUS OTHER CHOICES, and then it's one that'll have to buff his mount or he suffers the same exact problem you just mentioned. Sure, Fighter-guys might be several levels behind (around 4-6), but since you're tossing about endgame stuff, those won't make as much difference in the end anyway (~24 HP).
Also, Evasion at 3rd. Yet more for the possible 3 level dip. Not explaining how this class is so hot after that. And then again, who is chucking AoE's at the meatshield anyway? Half intelligent spellcasters will be going after the squishies who don't have the HP to survive this. Even then, they will need to fire them off first, before the squishy AoE chucker gets turned into chunky salsa (unless it's, you know, a Dragon or something, with scads and scads of HP, not exactly a repeat foe during the day).
Then there's the other fact that he can simply Retrain two or three feats and become something entirely different, whereas the Cavalier would have to retrain all of his entire class levels to do a different job. Less than a month (5 days x 4 for specialized feats, 7 days for the 1 dip) versus 2-3 (7 * X levels of Cav).
And the fact that the fighter has 1/2 as many skill points...
Aww man, the poor Fighter loses out on Diplomacy and Bluff and Sense Motive! Clearly his class is inferior now. It's a good thing Intelligence is such a key stat for those two classes and that they are expected to be masters of social circles.
And the fact that the cavalier is getting double charge bonus and no AC penalty....
Which is why it's a possible 3 level class instead of a 1 level class. Not like this was pointed out or anything. In addition, that +2? Will be easily caught up with by the Fighter's levels, just as a side effect of being a Fighter. And he won't need a charge for said bonuses.
If anything, you should point out how the charge penalty is done away with for the Fighter/Cavalier, but not for his mount. Shoulda tried rubbing that in under the 'inferior mount' portion.Nor is the fighter able to share some of his feats with his party members and give them a bonus to some of their saves while still doing all that stuff.....
Awesome. 3 bonus feats to share by 17th level. Yep, that's a real winner, especially in the 1-8 range where that 1-3 level dip is going to make it identical. Or perhaps the 9+ range where they will instead be in a prestige class and not get this bonus? I guess that, yes, at 17 he can laugh at the Fighter for not having the ability to share 2 teamwork feats. Guess the Fighter will go cry into his pile of weapon bonuses and extra combat feats, which I suppose also free up his chance to get extra Teamwork feats of his own if he wants to for some reason.
But yes, if you do pure 20 levels of Cavalier, he MAY have a few small advantages and he MAY be able to leverage his slightly tougher mount versus a mixed Fighter type. All of that for a one-trick-pony style of gameplay that another class can arguably do equal or better at, but can also do other styles of gameplay as well. Base classes are supposed to provide some variety, not end up this focused.
I think the main beef with the cavalier is that almost every other class can do his job, and better. Not just the druid, summoner, and ranger, but a mounted fighter or paladin is more effective, a bard is a better morale booster...
Really, if you take away the mount, you're left with an inferior fighter. The orders and challenge don't help the poor guy all that much.
I have to agree on that point. The fact that a bunch of other classes get a superior selection of mounts compared to the class that is heavily focused on mounted combat is something of a problem. You'd think the class that's heavily built around mounted combat would get a better selection of mounts, not a worse one.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Also, Pathfinder DOES seems to have a blood oath against flying mounts, yes. About the only reliable way to do it is to allow 3.X material, or go with a Summoner. That latter is an interesting option, but it kinda rubs it into people's faces when they can get a high speed flying mount with PERFECT maneuverability and everyone else is left holding the bag of poo. The 'mount' being sapient is just icing on the excrement cake, as it can willingly serve as a mount, not need training, be given complex commands, be given reach (so the Summoner can be an archer and Rapid Shot into 'melee' from Mount-back if he chooses), learn from mistakes, and can become a Lovecraftian monstrosity of destruction with extra limbs, bites, and the like.
Or, you can play a Knight-themed class and have a freakin Horse or Dog or Camel or something. Yay....
I hope they fix this in the future, but am not holding my breath.
On Cavalier Orders, think of them like craft guilds. To join you have to have the required craft skill, or in this case class. Then you get the extra goodies for being a member.
Yeah, but being a class shouldn't be the sole requirement to get into a club I don't think. It can take away from every other class and reinforce the idea that a class has a particular way to be played as a role for roleplay. I don't like that at all. My point earlier was I'd rather orders be implemented differently, rather than attached to a class. While its great if your running a game based on the rise of Charlemagne, its awful for a toolkit for building your own world. If on the other hand orders were something a barbarian or fighter could join, that'd be pretty cool I think. Its an opinion more than anything.
Talking about making classes special by taking things away from other classes or requiring them for a game is a whole different can of worms I think.
I think they did orders of knighthood for Golarion - Knights of the Inner Sea iirc - which were open to various classes. The Cavalier Orders as a class feature are really just a way of customizing Cavaliers as part of their basic class features package. And yeah, some of the other posts brought up some old issues for me.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The Cavalier's challenge ability lets them do a small nova, which compensates for their lower overall combat effectiveness. Having four skill points per level isn't game-changing, but it does mean you don't have to feel embarrassed about being somewhat less efficient in melee. If a class can bring interest to the table, and offers some benefit for trade-offs, that is generally a value, even if the class's abilities are somewhat situational.
The charge thing has already been discussed. A Cavalier's charge is beautiful, it's like a cruise missile. Unfortunately, charges are just difficult to pull off. Maybe it was just my group, but there were always issues with PCs wanting to do charges. Sometimes it worked out, sometimes it didn't. The Cavalier compounds the problem of being mounted with the limitations of Banner, which is sort of like an enhanced bless spell that requires you to charge. Since your allies are going to have the same difficulties as you, this is mainly going to be of benefit to the Duelist in the group (acrobatic charge).
The challenge ability is hit and miss. It's a reliable damage dealer, but you can't bring it to bear all the time. It starts off with a decidedly limited number of uses, and the -2 AC penalty makes it difficult to deploy against groups. Your hated rival, the Summoner, is the worst possible foe, as multiple weaker, but hard-hitting opponents will present a real danger when you try to go after the real meat. The bonuses granted by the orders are all over the place, from the mount-reliant but solid bonus of Sword to various typed bonuses that will probably cancel out with the party bard, if there is one.
The thing the class brings to the table that is kind of special is the tactician ability. Unfortunately, the support for teamwork feats is weak. Many of them would provide only limited utility for the Cavalier. Combat Medic is not bad, and there are several things that can generate good bonuses for flankers if you're a sort of sketchy Cavalier. But there's not really much that is going to provide a consistent, numerical advantage. Even with the tactician ability, which makes the feats a far better value than a non-Cavalier using them, these feats usually have trouble competing with solids like Weapon Focus, Critical Focus, Improved Critical, and Power Attack. This could be a much better ability if there were more teamwork feats, but even in the best of situations, these are basically very situational combat feats that require you to coordinate with an ally.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't hate Cavaliers, I just don't care about them. They are extremely boring, IMO.
Cavalier is the one class I've never had any sort of interest in.
I have HeroLab, and I love building characters. That means I create a great variety of builds just to entertain myself for a few minutes. I have dozens of builds for every class, and yet, I couldn't bother to make more than a single Cavalier build... Because Cavaliers are just that bland...
Their fluff is okay, but many other classes can do it much better and their mechanics are underwhelming at best...
Whenever I think about making a Cavalier, I build a Ranger instead. Or a Paladin. Or a Barbarian. Or a Fighter who uses Leadership to get a mount.
Cavaliers get a lot better if you houserule the Tactician ability. A move action to start with isn't too extreme, nor is letting the ability be used on any teamwork feat the cavalier knows. We're experimenting with allowing the drill sergeant ability work similarly to the Inquisitor's Solo Tactics and let the Strategist archetype teach himself and a small group ANY teamwork feat for a limited time.
This class really shines for NPCs, IMO. A cav troop can all suddenly sprout teamwork feats as they ride into an encounter and get pretty dangerous very quickly.
Without playing a cavalier I would have never realized what special joy running someone over with a mount brings me. As such, I'll always be fond of them, even though I agree that the samurai and other classes are probably more useful across a broader range of circumstances.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Cavaliers are boring: Are you kidding? Order of the Cockatrice alone is role playing gold...
All you do is lance charge: My Order of the Cockatrice cavalier 5/Rogue[Rake] has zero mounted combat feats, & I've lance charged once so far (Ok it was a devastating crit). (Using in an AP, loved him so much I rolled out a PFS version). I'm a flanking off-tank and the rogue in the party's best friend. I TWF + bite attack (Tusked), the Rogue [Rake] ability or Dazzling Display let me Demoralize for the Orders' bonus to hit. Challenge lets me crank on extra damage per hit (Order increases the damage output on Challenge), and tactician lets me gift Precise Strike on the party... with our melee heavy group its brutual.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
you're stuck with a freaking horse or wolf all the way to level 20.
Might I recommend Cavalier Mounts. It has options for cavaliers, including flying mounts.
[/shameless plug]
you're stuck with a freaking horse or wolf all the way to level 20.Might I recommend Cavalier Mounts. It has options for cavaliers, including flying mounts.
[/shameless plug]
Illegal for PFS.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Illegal for PFS.you're stuck with a freaking horse or wolf all the way to level 20.Might I recommend Cavalier Mounts. It has options for cavaliers, including flying mounts.
[/shameless plug]
So what's new?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Also, Pathfinder DOES seems to have a blood oath against flying mounts, yes. About the only reliable way to do it is to allow 3.X material, or go with a Summoner. That latter is an interesting option, but it kinda rubs it into people's faces when they can get a high speed flying mount with PERFECT maneuverability and everyone else is left holding the bag of poo. The 'mount' being sapient is just icing on the excrement cake, as it can willingly serve as a mount, not need training, be given complex commands, be given reach (so the Summoner can be an archer and Rapid Shot into 'melee' from Mount-back if he chooses), learn from mistakes, and can become a Lovecraftian monstrosity of destruction with extra limbs, bites, and the like.
Or, you can play a Knight-themed class and have a freakin Horse or Dog or Camel or something. Yay....
I hope they fix this in the future, but am not holding my breath.
...and take a three level dip into cavalier (musketeer) to get firearm goodies and relevant mounted combat bonuses, which is the idea behind my current "Panzer Dragoon" build.
I think all gun-granting archetypes that aren't for the actual gunslinger are PFS-illegal.
Unless you speak of home game sorcery, in which case lock and load.
I think all gun-granting archetypes that aren't for the actual gunslinger are PFS-illegal.
They aren't, but to be fair PFS has a lot of rules and that's not one based on reading RAW. I think its a little silly personally. Its something about keeping guns with gunslinger or something like that.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think all gun-granting archetypes that aren't for the actual gunslinger are PFS-illegal.They aren't, but to be fair PFS has a lot of rules and that's not one based on reading RAW. I think its a little silly personally. Its something about keeping guns with gunslinger or something like that.
PFS wants to keep firearms "uncommon". PFS does a lot of silly things. It's good for getting people into the game, or floating you between home groups, but not necessarily the best example of the game.
However, I've found that cavaliers are fantasic for PFS play. Their extra skill points and additional social skills make it easier to complete faction missions, and many of the maps have plenty of stretches where they can at least get in an opening charge. It's very friendly to small cavaliers, since PFS scenarios (at least in my experience) tend to be a little easier than most home games, so a reduced die size and lower strength doesn't hamper you much.The biggest problem I've had in PFS with the cavalier is the number of GM's who seem to want to arbitrarily limit where I can / cannot take my mount, despite the druid pets being allowed pretty much free rein. I remember playing PFS at PAX last year and being told that my cavalier couldn't have his horse with him because "it wasn't fair to the other players for me to be so overpowered, and besides, you probably would have dismounted outside the village anyways".
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Cavaliers are boring: Are you kidding? Order of the Cockatrice alone is role playing gold...
You don't need a Cavalier class to role play a Knight. you can always give your character whatever personality/background you want. You can make a "Knight of the Order of the Cockatrice" character with a Ranger.
Classes are just mechanics. Fluff is what you make of it. And IMO, Cavalier's mechanics are boring, restrictive and weak.
And IMO, Cavalier's mechanics are boring, restrictive and weak.
You are entitled to your opinion but I disagree.
Most posters seem think of the Cavalier as a poor man's Fighter (unless you can line up a charge) and discount the mount and tactician features. This is wrong. The Cavalier is a front-line support character (with full bab + challenge + heavy armor) whose abilities focus on granting actions and changing the combat rules for his allies. The mount is more than just a means to provide Cavaliers with charge attacks - it is the Cavalier's private flank buddy for using teamwork feats*. Finally, archetypes, alternate classes, and orders allow a modular approach that allows the Cavalier to be modified to fill a number of other roles. The samurai, for example, gives you a martial character half-way between a paladin and a fighter in a lot of respects (situationality, survivability, importance of ethical codes).
* Admittedly the teamwork feats that grant numerical bonuses tend to be pretty lame. The ones I like are those like Escape Route and Pack Attack which either change the combat rules (allowing an ally to move without provoking AoOs, say) or grant additional actions.
How do you give people actions and change the combat rules for allies?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
How do you give people actions and change the combat rules for allies?
Teamwork feats and Order abilities. More than a few of the teamwork feats in UC give some kind of action advantage - Sieze the Moment, Coordinated Charge, Pack Attack, Target of Opportunity. Others change the rules - see Calvary Formation and Escape Route. Even some of the TW feats in the APG are decent in this respect: Swap Places and Lookout.
As for Order abilities I'd prefer Order of the Dragon (8th level ability, standard action) can grant different static bonuses or allow allies (Cav included) to move up to their speed as an immediate action. The 15th level ability costs a standard action and allows the Cav and allies to all move up to their speed and make an attack as an immediate action (charging if they prefer to gain all the banner bonuses).
The beauty of all this is that it gives the Cavalier a support role that helps the entire party out in terms of battlefield mobility in a way that is entirely complementary to whatever other buffing the party might have access to. At lower levels Tactician costs a standard action and will most often be seen either just before combat, while the Cavalier is moving into position on his horse, or in dire straits (say using Escape Route to allow a mangled teammate a way out of the front line). At later levels the action economy for Tactician improves considerably (to a swift action) and you have more uses per day, so you have a lot more flexibility in when to use it.
So I personally really like the cavalier. I think they're versatile, mechanically interesting, and fill their own special little niche within the fantasy world. They give you that knight who can be of any alignment, give you a progressing mount without tying you in to spellcasting, and their unique use of Teamwork feats give them some interesting ways to "buff" the party.
But I noticed there are a lot of people who are extremely dissatisfied with the class, and I was curious to hear the reasons why. Thoughts?
I like them. They are tough, have some good abilities, you don't just have to fight mounted (but that can be a really cool choice in certain terrain). I think a lot of the hate comes from them not being the absolute best in melee, and not being spellcasters.
But I can instead play a druid, get a flying full progression mount, wildshape so I can fight, oh and 9 levels of spells. Yeah. Cavaliers look just fine next to that.
Level 9 spells are a long way away for most adventure paths or games. The cavalier is a lot of fun long before you get to level 9 spells. For honour and glory, and that oh so sweet charge.