| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think a lot of the hate comes from them not being the absolute best in melee, and not being spellcasters.
That's right, people hate everything that's not a spell caster. That's why there are so many barbarian hate threads hanging around.
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.
Casters are fun from the start too. Getting new toys every 2 levels is a pretty nice gig. Color spray, grease, create pit, haste, slow, flame sphere, fly, overland flight, enervation ray. That's a lot of nice options, and I know I missed at least a few.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think the Class works well even without using the Mount alot. Personally I prefer Samurai (mounted archery is awesome, Quickdraw is nice, and the Samurai bonuses for saves/etc are awesome), but Cavalier itself can work more than decently. Granting Outflank to your allies is AWESOME for Rogues/2WFers/lower to-hit combatants, and realistically few PCs will take these Feats normally since they're so situational (needing somebody else with the Feat to work) but with Cavalier that isn't a concern. Inquisitor can use the Tactics Feats THEMSELVES, but doesn't help other characters while Cavalier does. Either way, going deep into the classes gets you scaling Banner, which can help cover a Bard's role in terms of buffing. (Shake it Off Teamwork Feat is a great UNTYPED Save Bonus scaling with adjacent allies... which includes Mounts, Familiars, etc). Counting as Fighter levels is always nice as well. (Dwarven Shatterspell HO!!! ...although I think that RAW, you need 1 level of Fighter to stack with)
It is not just dungeons but any fight that takes place inside. Even if mount does not have to squeeze it is hard to charge.
And Beast Totem Pounce builds get nothing but accolades. If Charging is that hard, why doesn't Pounce get equally panned? That Mounts can squeeze seems to not be mentioned quite as often as how much they suck in dungeons. Teamwork Feat: Cavalry Formation is also convenient for this sort of thing.
Fairly sure that B1 expanded the list of AC's for both Rangers and Druids, as did subsequent Bestiaries.
That seems pretty odd, given B1 came out parallel with the CRB and was required to play the game with the given options in CRB. To 'expand the list' with a product that was released parallel and designed for mutual reliance seems pretty odd.
So, no, from a strict RAW interpretation, the Ranger does NOT get free access to a flying mount any more than the cavalier does.Roc was not available as a companion choice when the core rulebook came out.
Meanwhile, the Bestiary entry, which is what added it as an option, explicitly says, "still large enough for a Medium druid or ranger to use the flying beast as a mount." How much harder do they need to tell you a ranger can get one and fly on it?
B1 came out simultaneously with the CRB, and was necessary to use many animals mentioned in the CRB. How much harder do they need to tell you there is a rules exception? Probably the same amount as they use to introduce other 'new class options', which they seem plenty capapble of using ACTUALLY sufficient RAW wording to accomplish in other situations, that doesn't take up any more wording than this case.
Earlier I said, Tactician is weak because action economy and teamwork feats are meh.
Action Economy problems, meet Broken Wing Gambit, Paired Opportunists, Seize the Moment, Target of Opportunity.
I think the Class works well even without using the Mount alot. Personally I prefer Samurai (mounted archery is awesome, Quickdraw is nice, and the Samurai bonuses for saves/etc are awesome), but Cavalier itself can work more than decently. Granting Outflank to your allies is AWESOME for Rogues/2WFers/lower to-hit combatants, and realistically few PCs will take these Feats normally since they're so situational (needing somebody else with the Feat to work) but with Cavalier that isn't a concern. Inquisitor can use the Tactics Feats THEMSELVES, but doesn't help other characters while Cavalier does. Either way, going deep into the classes gets you scaling Banner, which can help cover a Bard's role in terms of buffing. (Shake it Off Teamwork Feat is a great UNTYPED Save Bonus scaling with adjacent allies... which includes Mounts, Familiars, etc). Counting as Fighter levels is always nice as well. (Dwarven Shatterspell HO!!! ...although I think that RAW, you need 1 level of Fighter to stack with)It is not just dungeons but any fight that takes place inside. Even if mount does not have to squeeze it is hard to charge.And Beast Totem Pounce builds get nothing but accolades. If Charging is that hard, why doesn't Pounce get equally panned? That Mounts can squeeze seems to not be mentioned quite as often as how much they suck in dungeons. Teamwork Feat: Cavalry Formation is also convenient for this sort of thing.
Fairly sure that B1 expanded the list of AC's for both Rangers and Druids, as did subsequent Bestiaries.That seems pretty odd, given B1 came out parallel with the CRB and was required to play the game with the given options in CRB. To 'expand the list' with a product that was released parallel and designed for mutual reliance seems pretty odd.
...So, no, from a strict RAW interpretation, the Ranger does NOT get free access to a flying mount any more than the cavalier does.Roc was not
Mounted archery samurai. Very authentic desu!
Yep, cavs work without a mount. Did a lot of dungeon bashing in second darkness with one. The drow couldn't stand up to the onslaught.
And Beast Totem Pounce builds get nothing but accolades. If Charging is that hard, why doesn't Pounce get equally panned? That Mounts can squeeze seems to not be mentioned quite as often as how much they suck in dungeons. Teamwork Feat: Cavalry Formation is also convenient for this sort of thing.
I also recommend pouncing for barbarians. That has nothing to do with what how being large can make it a lot less likely in a dungeon.
P1: Hey my medium barbarian has pounce and it is awesome.
P2: Well I guess that means I should use it also even though I am less likely to get the same amount of use out of it for various reasons.
Now tell me Quandary what connection does P1's statement have to do with P2's statement? It matters because you are trying to say that because it is good for barbarian that is must be good for large mounts in limited space.
You can't charge while squeezing, plus it has other penalties.
On top of that depending on the player's to take a feat is not exactly a practical solution, just so you can charge in a dungeon, especially when that is not your only obstacle.
I can open up a few AP's and unless the right is outside, or you are medium mounted combat will have issues.
In a home game the GM can just redo things to help you, but GM Fiat can fix almost any problem.
By mid-levels, as a Medium Barbarian (/melee frontliner), I usually like to be Enlarged whenever possible. (for damage, reach/AoOs)
So I think it's strange to NEVER see that mentioned as a downside/trade-off of Pounce builds, if its such a big problem.
AoOs are one of the major points of melee builds vs. ranged, so giving up on a prime AoO maximization strategy seems worth mentioning.
I never expected anybody to spend a normal Feat on Teamwork Feats, but since Cavs can grant their allies Teamwork Feats that's not really a worry for them. So if Charge lanes are a problem, taking Cavalry Formation and granting it to allies so that you can Charge thru them seems reasonable to consider. The 'free movement' of ending a turn in a non-legal square 'expelling' you to the last legal square can often end up re-enabling the minimum Charge distance in that type of scenario. Wheeling Charge is an obvious Feat for that sort of build too. And then there's the whole Small PC riding Medium Mount thing, a concept that actually has a useful niche here.
Like I wrote, I /do/ prefer Samurai Mounted Archery (and Quickdraw...) not the least because it does feel more useful over-all than Charging (mobile full-attacking rocks whether built to max archery or for swing-hitting, which QD is also nice for), I was just sharing my 2c that I don't see Cavalier Charging as horribly unworkable. But I see Samurai as just an Archetype of Cavalier, so I include it in discussion of the Cavalier class, if you don't like the Charge aspect then Samurai doesn't need to do that to use their special abilities. (I haven't yet played a 'real' Samurai character, more flavored as mounted warrior of the steppe type).
Just because you like to be enlarged that does not make it a problem for everyone else. You are assuming they will be enlarged also. Even if they did, they would have the option to not be enlarge. When the animal is large that is less of an option.
I did look for an option to for Cavs to make their teamwork feats work on allies before my last post. Maybe I overlooked it. What is the ability called, or you can provide a quote.
Tactician (Ex): At 1st level, a cavalier receives a teamwork feat as a bonus feat. He must meet the prerequisites for this feat. As a standard action, the cavalier can grant this feat to all allies within 30 feet who can see and hear him. Allies retain the use of this bonus feat for 3 rounds plus 1 round for every two levels the cavalier possesses. Allies do not need to meet the prerequisites of these bonus feats. The cavalier can use this ability once per day at 1st level, plus one additional time per day at 5th level and for every 5 levels thereafter.
And Beast Totem Pounce builds get nothing but accolades. If Charging is that hard, why doesn't Pounce get equally panned?
Charge builds are problematic because, like Spring Attack builds and Vital Strike builds, they only allow one attack per round. Pounce gets accolades because it solves that problem.
Tactician (Ex): At 1st level, a cavalier receives a teamwork feat as a bonus feat. He must meet the prerequisites for this feat. As a standard action, the cavalier can grant this feat to all allies within 30 feet who can see and hear him. Allies retain the use of this bonus feat for 3 rounds plus 1 round for every two levels the cavalier possesses. Allies do not need to meet the prerequisites of these bonus feats. The cavalier can use this ability once per day at 1st level, plus one additional time per day at 5th level and for every 5 levels thereafter.
Thanks. So we have taken care of the issue of allies, but the size is still an issue.
And Beast Totem Pounce builds get nothing but accolades. If Charging is that hard, why doesn't Pounce get equally panned?Charge builds are problematic because, like Spring Attack builds and Vital Strike builds, they only allow one attack per round. Pounce gets accolades because it solves that problem.
I misread his question..I thought he was saying he found a way for a cavalier to pounce.
Thanks for the answer that I should have given to him combined with the size issue. :)
Just because you like to be enlarged that does not make it a problem for everyone else. You are assuming they will be enlarged also. Even if they did, they would have the option to not be enlarge. When the animal is large that is less of an option.
Yes, the point is that these options conflict, not that everybody MUST be using them, but that if nothing else conflicts with using an option, you probably will use it sometimes (especially when it doesn't require any specific build, but just receiving a spell/scroll/potion). Regardless of somebody's personal preference, pointing out trade-offs in options is a core part of evaluating an exclusive ability (like Totems). Exactly the rationale of pointing out how size may affect the utility of Charging, if you refuse to give up the option of a Medium Size race (i.e. play a Small race) then Charging is harder to set-up.
I did look for an option to for Cavs to make their teamwork feats work on allies before my last post. Maybe I overlooked it. What is the ability called, or you can provide a quote.
Yup, Tactician. Outside of Inquisitors, the most common reason why PCs would ever use a Teamwork Feat :-), thanks to Mr. Cavalier. I still prefer Samurai though.
(mostly because of resolve, and that i do like archery better than charging)
Quandry I was assuming a medium sized race the entire time I was discussing the problems with the mount. I said earlier, or I thought I said, something along the lines of "unless you use a small race".
If I ever use a mounted build I do intend to use a small race. :)
That seems pretty odd, given B1 came out parallel with the CRB and was required to play the game with the given options in CRB. To 'expand the list' with a product that was released parallel and designed for mutual reliance seems pretty odd.
Sorta.
The CRB was released in Beta/Playtest form, and the CRB with regard to Ranger pets is fairly much unchanged since that edition. Prior to that, the CRB as we know it was used in conjunction with 3.5 rules.
Quandry I was assuming a medium sized race the entire time I was discussing the problems with the mount. I said earlier, or I thought I said, something along the lines of "unless you use a small race". If I ever use a mounted build I do intend to use a small race. :)
Sure, I just felt that saying "this sucks donkey b@&%$# if you don't play a small race" just doesn't seem a good reason for the class to suck PERIOD, it just means (on face value, ignoring other compensation strategies) that you should play a small race and not a medium one, just as other class builds are simply not that good with certain races. The over-all thread seemed about the class itself, not the class for medium races. If some option presents particular problems for another option, it seems silly to assume the worst case scenario for the option you're assessing, rather than assume that conflicting options were avoided, similar to Pounce Barbs avoiding Enlarge (while noting that conflict - which people here have done for Charge/Size, if that got lost and twisted around).
It's just annoying that the small races get so much more utility and mileage out of it. Kind of over the 'quirkyness' of Labrador mounted halflings charging along coridoors with mini-lances.
It's OK, you're just jealous of Benji ;-)
The CRB was released in Beta/Playtest form, and the CRB with regard to Ranger pets is fairly much unchanged since that edition. Prior to that, the CRB as we know it was used in conjunction with 3.5 rules.
I was going to write something about B1 then being effective Errata for the CRB,
and then I remember that exactly that happened with the Nat Wpn/Iterative rules ;-)that was eventually unified though, and this hasn't been updated.
as i wrote before, it just isn't using the adequate language to add it to the ranger list, which is straight forward enough to do if intended.
Perhaps worthy to ask James Jacobs about though, if it really bugs you...?
Dunno, although B1 is not an assumed player resource, only the CRB is, which is why they give truncated stat blocks for the various AC's.
My guess anyhow.
You get to add to the list by purchasing said book (like the PFS boon giving out Axe Beaks or Faerie Dragons - the chronicle sheet stipulates you must have the relevant book)
I can't believe no one has mentioned an amazing prestige class called MAMMOTH RIDER that you can take very nicely from cavelier. AND if you're smart you take the two feats to get an extra pet and ride a mammoth and have a tiger or something.
My group has played Legacy of Fire, Kingmaker, Serpent's Skull, and Carrion Crown. The Cavelier would have performed just fine in the first three so far. I have been the only one to create a mounted character, however I chose to be a summoner because flying is so powerful :D
However, I will say Cavelier all the way to 20 does seem awfully boring :(
I'm not a fan of the cavalier though not for any mechanical reason. I just find that, like so many of the extra classes, the concept can be done better with the base classes from the rulebook. Especially paladin or mounted fighter.
Also, most games are dungeon based in some form or other which limits their use. If you are playing in a game that is more game of thrones-esqe or is less dungeon heavy then they play fine I suppose.
Eitherway I would rather play that concept with a mounted fighter than take the cavalier class.
I can't believe no one has mentioned an amazing prestige class called MAMMOTH RIDER that you can take very nicely from cavelier. AND if you're smart you take the two feats to get an extra pet and ride a mammoth and have a tiger or something.
There's a feat in pathfinder to get another pet?
Mammoth Rider isn't a cavalier, nor a cavalier only archetype, but I do like it. At worst its a bit late to get into. I like mixing it with barbarian myself.
Some games I have run have been very very open.
I have been surprised there has not been more cavalry and cavaliers.
I guess they like to slog it on foot.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And Beast Totem Pounce builds get nothing but accolades. If Charging is that hard, why doesn't Pounce get equally panned?Charge builds are problematic because, like Spring Attack builds and Vital Strike builds, they only allow one attack per round. Pounce gets accolades because it solves that problem.
Yeah, but with x4 damage with peak BAB, your DPR is likely better with one attack than 4 attacks with diminishing BAB, other things not withstanding. And a first level cav is doing x2 and your barb is only getting one attack. It's not until end game when pounce overtakes spirited charge for potential hits, but the spirited charge still has a higher chance to hit.
Tack on a vital strike build and the mount charge build is formidable. The large creature argument is the only thing which is really bogging the cav down. That and the flying mounts.
But in the high levels, most dungeons are probably large creature friendly, and the Cav has a RAW GM clause for other mounts, and the mount is described as similar to a druids companion. They should have just allowed anything that could be ridden. I would as a GM.
Bellerophon is a great example of a flying cavalier. And elven eagle knights are all sorts of awesome. Or Deurgar carrion crawler knights. The class lends itself to so much that horse/camel/wolf denies, beast master not withstanding.
|
Beast Rider
You gain the service of a monstrous companion or mount.
Prerequisites: Animal companion or mount class feature, character level 7th, half-orc or orc.
Benefit: Select one of the following creature types: elephant, pteranodon, rhinoceros, stegosaurus, or triceratops. Add this creature type to your list of possible animal companions or mounts. When summoning a creature of the selected type to serve as a mount or companion, treat your effective druid level as if it were two levels higher (to a maximum of your character level). If the creature is large enough for you to ride, it gains the combat training general purpose (see Handle Animal) at no cost.
Enjoy your flying mount.
Yeah, but with x4 damage with peak BAB, your DPR is likely better with one attack than 4 attacks with diminishing BAB, other things not withstanding. And a first level cav is doing x2 and your barb is only getting one attack. It's not until end game when pounce overtakes spirited charge for potential hits, but the spirited charge still has a higher chance to hit.And Beast Totem Pounce builds get nothing but accolades. If Charging is that hard, why doesn't Pounce get equally panned?Charge builds are problematic because, like Spring Attack builds and Vital Strike builds, they only allow one attack per round. Pounce gets accolades because it solves that problem.
I agree with you that a charge build can rock. In fact, I have an 11th level Paladin in Kingmaker right now, and his Spirited Charges are devastating!
Quandry I was assuming a medium sized race the entire time I was discussing the problems with the mount. I said earlier, or I thought I said, something along the lines of "unless you use a small race". If I ever use a mounted build I do intend to use a small race. :)Sure, I just felt that saying "this sucks donkey b@&%$# if you don't play a small race" just doesn't seem a good reason for the class to suck PERIOD, it just means (on face value, ignoring other compensation strategies) that you should play a small race and not a medium one, just as other class builds are simply not that good with certain races. The over-all thread seemed about the class itself, not the class for medium races. If some option presents particular problems for another option, it seems silly to assume the worst case scenario for the option you're assessing, rather than assume that conflicting options were avoided, similar to Pounce Barbs avoiding Enlarge (while noting that conflict - which people here have done for Charge/Size, if that got lost and twisted around).
I understand, but to me it still sucks if I can't do what I want to do with a class most of the time unless I go with certain races. Barbarians are not normally large so that is not a fair comparison. With most players choosing medium sized races the class has issue. I would feel the same way if the class required you to be large in order to be effective. Being a medium sized creature is not just a worst case scenario, and I am avoiding making them large like you did with the barbarian. It is the normal scenario.
You can't compare the default condition of barbarian not being large to the default condition of a mount being large.
And Beast Totem Pounce builds get nothing but accolades. If Charging is that hard, why doesn't Pounce get equally panned?Charge builds are problematic because, like Spring Attack builds and Vital Strike builds, they only allow one attack per round. Pounce gets accolades because it solves that problem.Yeah, but with x4 damage with peak BAB, your DPR is likely better with one attack than 4 attacks with diminishing BAB, other things not withstanding. And a first level cav is doing x2 and your barb is only getting one attack. It's not until end game when pounce overtakes spirited charge for potential hits, but the spirited charge still has a higher chance to hit.
Tack on a vital strike build and the mount charge build is formidable. The large creature argument is the only thing which is really bogging the cav down. That and the flying mounts.
But in the high levels, most dungeons are probably large creature friendly, and the Cav has a RAW GM clause for other mounts, and the mount is described as similar to a druids companion. They should have just allowed anything that could be ridden. I would as a GM.
Bellerophon is a great example of a flying cavalier. And elven eagle knights are all sorts of awesome. Or Deurgar carrion crawler knights. The class lends itself to so much that horse/camel/wolf denies, beast master not withstanding.
Since pounce is more likely to take place than a spirited charge if you are medium I would still take the barbarian, and you can vital strike on a spirited charge.
I think what is needed is another action, perhaps called a "limited charge" or similar, where you get only some the benefits of the charge, but it has fewer restrictions. For example, allow a *single* requirement to be ignored (straight line, no difficult terrain, 10' minimum distance), but any charge bonus is halved (both attack bonus and damage bonus as applicable).
The problem with the cavalier is not that it can't work. It has more to do with the lack of space when you bring in a large mount. In a campaign that has more outdoor fighting than normal I think it works a lot better. I just happen to remember my experience with a large animal companion, but that was ok for me because as a druid I had other things I could do to help out, but if that companion had been my main way to be useful I would not have been happy.
I think what is needed is another action, perhaps called a "limited charge" or similar, where you get only some the benefits of the charge, but it has fewer restrictions. For example, allow a *single* requirement to be ignored (straight line, no difficult terrain, 10' minimum distance), but any charge bonus is halved (both attack bonus and damage bonus as applicable).
There are feats, abilities, or magic items that take care of all of those. In addition to those restrictions, there are feats that will let you charge through your allies' or through your enemies' squares.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Since pounce is more likely to take place than a spirited charge if you are medium I would still take the barbarian, and you can vital strike on a spirited charge.
Seriously? At level 10? Large creatures are PRETTY darn common by then. And in those cases of 5ft corridors, how often is the barbarian pouncing anyways?
And whether the Barbarian is SLIGHTLY more optimal is a moot point. Point is that the Cavalier is viable, and actually has a fairly common corner case superiority to a Barbarian. The power attack multipliers alone dazzle.
And a full armour BAB with a host of party buffs that break the action economy is fantastic. Couple that with an animal companion who can take narrow frame and still contribute, and you're laughing.
Lets face it: Any scenario that involves the mount squeezing likely involves one of the melee martials waiting behind the tank, using their composite bow. This is as much of a corner case as not being able to charge. And the Cavalier is an excellent tank, so the Barb can stand behind him with his bow, lamenting how he cannot pounce.
Cavs are a completely viable tier 3 class. They trump the fighter as far as I'm concerned, if only for an animal companion and the opportunity to rock a x3 charge with a x5 potential critical by level 3. If they nova, they can end a fight before it begins with a solo or a BBEG.
Cavs are a completely viable tier 3 class. They trump the fighter as far as I'm concerned, if only for an animal companion and the opportunity to rock a x3 charge with a x5 potential critical by level 3. If they nova, they can end a fight before it begins with a solo or a BBEG.
I'm a big fan of the Cav but one-shotting encounters isn't all that fun for me. Also, a lot of GMs would start setting up fights to prevent you from charging because one player trivializing encounters is boring for the other players.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Cavs are a completely viable tier 3 class. They trump the fighter as far as I'm concerned, if only for an animal companion and the opportunity to rock a x3 charge with a x5 potential critical by level 3. If they nova, they can end a fight before it begins with a solo or a BBEG.I'm a big fan of the Cav but one-shotting encounters isn't all that fun for me. Also, a lot of GMs would start setting up fights to prevent you from charging because one player trivializing encounters is boring for the other players.
If a class that, with little to no optimization, can warrant the DM nerfing it through rule 0, I think we can safely say that it's a viable class.
I would design fights to prevent one shot kills as a DM as well. But there's something sweet about coming across a terrible, slavering monster, huge in size and killing it dead in one glorious charge.
But that's a flavour best tasted as a treat, I agree. But that's the same with a pounce barbarian going nova. Both builds equal terrible solo murder.
Add to this the buffs, social skills and an animal companion, the cav is combat ready and has out of combat utility.
I think what is needed is another action, perhaps called a "limited charge" or similar, where you get only some the benefits of the charge, but it has fewer restrictions. For example, allow a *single* requirement to be ignored (straight line, no difficult terrain, 10' minimum distance), but any charge bonus is halved (both attack bonus and damage bonus as applicable).There are feats, abilities, or magic items that take care of all of those. In addition to those restrictions, there are feats that will let you charge through your allies' or through your enemies' squares.
Pick up the Sargava Companion. Take Power Attack and Improved Bullrush, and you qualify for Rhino Charge, letting you Ready a 'Partial Charge' as a Standard Action, leaving you your normal Move Action to move to avoid obstacles and set up clear charge lane of the minimum distance (so you can use this to constantly Charge the same target every round by backing up with the Move Action). Hugely useful for Charge builds just using it on your turn (Ready: When I sneeze... Achoo!) never mind the interrupt possibilities vs. enemies (especially disrupting spellcasters).
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Who's down for combining the cav and fighter classes into the same class?
Who's down for combining the cav and fighter classes into the same class?
4+ skill points for fighter and decide what your orders/mount/tactician is worth. Can't be too difficult.
Cavaliers should get combat styles like rangers, but more developed with more feats since they don't get spell casting. I also think they should get an alternate option to the mount, the samurai gets one.
Does the samurai get an alternate option to the mount?
Is there a new archetype? That would be really great. Could you link it?
Who's down for combining the cav and fighter classes into the same class?
I would love that for Pathfinder 1.5.
Cavaliers should get combat styles like rangers, but more developed with more feats since they don't get spell casting. I also think they should get an alternate option to the mount, the samurai gets one.Does the samurai get an alternate option to the mount?
Is there a new archetype? That would be really great. Could you link it?
|
And Beast Totem Pounce builds get nothing but accolades. If Charging is that hard, why doesn't Pounce get equally panned?Charge builds are problematic because, like Spring Attack builds and Vital Strike builds, they only allow one attack per round. Pounce gets accolades because it solves that problem.I misread his question..I thought he was saying he found a way for a cavalier to pounce.
Thanks for the answer that I should have given to him combined with the size issue. :)
Cavaliers do get their own special version of Pounce in the Mounted Skirmisher feat.
Which is not to say that other characters can't also use the feat, but a cavalier who gets to ride on his mount (which itself has full 20 level AC progression) apply charge bonuses to his first hit with a lance and then continue a full attack sequence... That's pretty spectacular. And if Charging is so rare, than that feat should be more valuable than Pounce since the cavalier will get to utilize it far more often. Mounts also have the ability to squeeze, getting them anywhere a Medium critter can go.
Here's the link.Cavaliers should get combat styles like rangers, but more developed with more feats since they don't get spell casting. I also think they should get an alternate option to the mount, the samurai gets one.Does the samurai get an alternate option to the mount?
Is there a new archetype? That would be really great. Could you link it?
Thanks for the link :-)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I do agree that its pretty stupid that the Beast Rider cavalier specifically has a clause that states that you cannot pick a mount with a Fly speed.
Mounts also have the ability to squeeze, getting them anywhere a Medium critter can go.I suspect many GMs will balk at that and break the rules to avoid a cavalier riding his mount inside buildings made for humans, which is perfectly possible with narrow frame, because buildings made for humans have no normal area with smaller than 5 ft corridors. Only charge could not always be used, but cavalier would be still strong on his mount. Lance after all is still a two-handed weapon wielded in one hand upon a mount, so 1.5 str bonus with shield. And many enemies inside such building would be smaller, so +1 to hit. And horse or camel attack (camel actually better than horse).
You're burning one of the mount's feats and skill points on qualifying for narrow frame. Why would they balk? You've invested points to mitigate a weakness.
Its no worse than archers taking precise shot to avoid the -4 for shooting into melee. If you expect to be shooting into melee, why wouldn't you take that feat?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I do agree that its pretty stupid that the Beast Rider cavalier specifically has a clause that states that you cannot pick a mount with a Fly speed.
This. ^^