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?
Edit:
I don’t hate them. I have never played them, nor have I seen them in any game.I just don’t like them. The Cavalier suffers some of the same problems as the fighter (crappy will saves; fail as a build it yourself class, etc.) and they have too much focus on the mount.
It looks like a great class if you want to play a small character since you can use your mount almost anywhere, but any class with a mount can be used by a small character, be it druid, Paladin or Ranger (or whatever).
Unlike these three classes the Cavalier can’t trade out his mount and mounts are usually a problem in many campaigns. At least if you play Paizo’s APs. But in Kingmaker Cavalier is probably a solid option, but so is a Druid, Paladin or Ranger or Samurai and they are all more fun.
To me the Samurai pretty much made the Cavalier obsolete. The main reasons are:
Honorable Stand/Demanding Challenge are also nice.
Basically to me, the samurai is a better Cavalier than a Cavalier (and possibly a better fighter than a fighter, or at least a more fun and versatile fighter than a fighter).
If I wanted to play a mounted character I would probably play Paladin or Ranger or even an Inquisitor (with animal domain). They are all so much more versatile and fun than a Cavalier.
Beast Rider + Gendarme is pretty close to a playable Cavalier IMO, except for the current mount restrictions. I'm REALLY not liking the orders and challenge mechanics, and would love to see alternate features for those. At least Ronin/Knight Errant allows you to make your own order. Challenge just pigeonholes every cavalier into being an arrogant SOB that feels effrontery against anything (sentient or otherwise) that dares oppose him, which IMO is REALLY silly. Maybe call it "Combat Focus" or something, but really, challenging a golem or carrion crawler sounds just silly. Thank goodness I can reflavor as needed.
Since the Knight and the Marshal were among my favorites classes of the 3.5 era, I was quite excited when I bought the Advanced Player's Guide and discovered that the Cavalier was kind of a hybrid of those two classes. However, the more I read about the Cavalier's abilities, the greater my disappointment grew. Too many of his abilities are tied to his mount. The bonus granted by his banner are too circumstantial: what if you are the only melee combattant of your group? There is also a problem with tactician: first, in sucks in terms of action economy and unlike the Bard's inspire courage, the action economy do not get better at higher levels. Second, it is often better to dip into another class before taking your first level in the Cavalier's class so that you can meet the prerequisites for a decent teamwork feat because the tactician ability and its upgrades are too spread out over the 20 class levels of the Cavalier. So yeah, this is why I hate the vanilla Cavalier.
That being said, I do like the Honor Guard archetype, which replaces all the mount related powers of the Cavalier, except the mount itself, with some interesting tricks. Order of the Shield works very well with the Honor Guard archetype and it can do a decent job at replacing the Knight of the 3.5 era. However, if you want to get that 3.5 Marshal feel, Order of the Dragon is the way to go.
Its swift action at level 9. And that banner is pretty beautiful on the charger tiger of a human order of the sword beast rider, while the tiger charges the target of a challenge.
Good catch, I haven't noticed that before. Makes tactician a better ability than I thought.
Just ride that thing always, on ships, underwater, in jungle, in castles, in caves, in cities and in houses. No problem there, except when climbing arises.
What if I don't want to? What if I dislike mounted combat? It might be a powerful and viable option, but the Cavalier is the only base class that does not offer an alternative to replace his mount/animal companion. Even the Summoner can choose to use his Summon Monster SLA instead of his eidolon. Of course, it would be silly the play a ''Cavalier'' without a mount, and this is another reason why I dislike this class: it forces me to play a character concept in which I have no interest.
What if I don't want to? What if I dislike mounted combat? It might be a powerful and viable option, but the Cavalier is the only base class that does not offer an alternative to replace his mount/animal companion. Of course, it would be silly the play a ''Cavalier'' without a mount, and this is another reaspon why I dislike this class: it forces me to play a character concept in which I have no interest.
So you don't like the class because it doesn't interest you? That's it?
I'm not really interested in inquisitors, it doesn't mean they're bad, just that I won't choose to play one. If you aren't interested in a class, no one should be holding a gun to your head and forcing you to play one.
What if I don't want to? What if I dislike mounted combat? It might be a powerful and viable option, but the Cavalier is the only base class that does not offer an alternative to replace his mount/animal companion. Of course, it would be silly the play a ''Cavalier'' without a mount, and this is another reaspon why I dislike this class: it forces me to play a character concept in which I have no interest.So you don't like the class because it doesn't interest you? That's it?
I'm not really interested in inquisitors, it doesn't mean they're bad, just that I won't choose to play one. If you aren't interested in a class, no one should be holding a gun to your head and forcing you to play one.
Yet, if we exclude archetypes, the Cavalier is one of the few base classes in the whole game that are tied to a specific combat style. I would probably throw the Monk and the Gunslinger in the same basket, two classes that I'm not very fond of. Even the Ranger can choose between Archery and Two-Weapon Fighting, which I felt was quite restrictive back then, but now, thanks to the APG, he can choose any combat style he wants. That being said, I do like the Cavalier much, much more since Ultimate Combat came out.
EDIT: I think it boils down to expectation. I dislike the Cavalier (base class) because I didn't expect him to be what he is: a cavalier. I known it was quite stupid of me to expect something else from a class with such an explicit name. I think I will only come to peace with the Cavalier once Paizo releases a proper Marshal/Warlord/War Master class, which will probably never happen.
What if I don't want to? What if I dislike mounted combat? It might be a powerful and viable option, but the Cavalier is the only base class that does not offer an alternative to replace his mount/animal companion. Even the Summoner can choose to use his Summon Monster SLA instead of his eidolon. Of course, it would be silly the play a ''Cavalier'' without a mount, and this is another reason why I dislike this class: it forces me to play a character concept in which I have no interest.It forces no such thing, if you dont want to play a mounted warrior, you just dont play Cavalier. If I dont want to play a holy warrior, I'm not going to complain that Paladin forces me into that role, I just choose a different class to play.
*EDIT* Looks like Tarantula beat me to the punch
Playing a Paladin gives you the choice between having a mount and not having a mount. Playing a Paladin does not force you into a specific fighting style.
EDIT: I think that the Paladin would be an even better class without the alignment restriction. It should be called ''Divine Champion'' or ''Crusader'' instead of Paladin and it should let you play any kind of axiomatic/holy/neutral/anarchic/unholy divine warrior you would like to play. In other words, the more a class is customizable, the more I like it and vice-versa.
Beast rider costs just heavy armor proficiency and handle animal bonus, so it cannot be a great boost. But i still think its worth the deal, mainly because many GMs will tand to be less restrictive about tigers dragged along, because druids do that all the time.Is not that stupid compared to the fact that a medium race can not ride something dieferent than a horse until level 7. That defeats the whole purpose of the archetype.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.
Expert Trainer is the best class feature Cavalier offers. It lets you bail on the class forever for something more interesting without losing any mount progression at all (Horse Master feat), also known as "your only relevant class feature."
So losing it is painful. It's not comparing Beast Rider 20 vs. Cav 20. It's comparing Beast Rider 20 vs. Cav 4 / [better class(es)] 16.
:P
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I do agree that classes with more customization are generally what I prefer. Reason being, I can play 2 characters of the same class, and have completely different experiences.
Cavalier is sort of forced into "mounted fighter" role. Sure he can do okay not mounted, but it isn't the point of his class abilities. Its like saying a rogue can do ok without using sneak attack.
On that note, the fact that the class is not very open, doesn't mean it is bad at what it does.
I do agree that classes with more customization are generally what I prefer. Reason being, I can play 2 characters of the same class, and have completely different experiences.
Cavalier is sort of forced into "mounted fighter" role. Sure he can do okay not mounted, but it isn't the point of his class abilities. Its like saying a rogue can do ok without using sneak attack.
On that note, the fact that the class is not very open, doesn't mean it is bad at what it does.
And I never said it was. Mounted combat is a very powerful option. The part I dislike is that it is the Cavalier's ''only'' option. That, and the fact that I cannot ride a wyvern. Why can't I ride a wyvern? :P
also, in a game that i am currently in, my Cavalier was unmounted through most of the game so far, and was still my GM's biggest worry in the group, so much so that he had to implement monsters with "reverse DR" (being immune to high damage, instead of low damage)
Sounds like the Immortals in StarCraft II. It is an interesting idea. :)
i do think it's rather strange that the action to use tactician goes directly from standard to swift,
i would think the large number of levels in between could include a move action stage.
honestly, i think that is a design oversight, or maybe they thought it would be adding 'too much' abilities at a level,
but really it makes less sense to have an abrupt change, so having an 'additional ability'
make it a more smooth flow while having the same top and bottom points seems a no-brainer to me.
banner bonuses applying to your mount and yourself, as well as the mount being a convenient teamwork feat companion are definitely worthwhile points, and between skills and all the other class features i think it's definitely legit to stay in the class many levels.
there are archetypes to give up the mount, either completely, or in lieu of non-mount companions.
could those really have been included in the original class? sure, but they're PFS legal
and the core class already included 'customization options' (the orders).
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?
Its the classical RPG instinct, use lots of unrealistic rules, which fits to what one sees in movies, but when another unrealistic rule, which is about something never depicted in movies, comes along, they start to worry about realism.
Example:
It looks like a great class if you want to play a small character since you can use your mount almost anywhere, but any class with a mount can be used by a small character, be it druid, Paladin or Ranger (or whatever).
Instinctive assumption that somehow a horse would not fit in normal medium creature dungeon crawl. And thats although many dungeons have large creatures in them, which somehow must have ended up there.
I guess a good half of GMs would object to such an action sequence:
Camel uses a move action to enter through human sized tower door (uses 20 tf of movement for 2 squares of double cost), camel goes up tower stairs 15 ft (costing the rest of the camels movement, still double cost) of such a circular tower stairs with 5ft width (with another of the animal feats) and camel and cavalier use both standard attack to whack something on the stairs, the cavalied being happy about 1.5 str bonus but still using a shield.Yet, its completely within rules.
I'm not going to assume that you are intentionally condescending even though your post comes off as condescending.
Instinctive assumptions? I’ve played this game +10 years and in my experience urban settings, traditional dungeon crawls, mountains/climbing and stealth missions makes it hard if not impossible to bring along a mount. At least until you get to higher levels and at higher levels there is always Phantom Steed. Also even if you can bring along a mount getting opportunity and space to charge is also a problem.
What a good half of GMs would object to or not is nothing I know of and nor do you, but I do know that the Devs seems to have the same opinion as I that large mounts is a problem in dungeon crawls and urban encounters.
Recommendations: Cavaliers make excellent team
leaders and can be invaluable on the battlefield
in any adventure. The Carrion Crown Adventure
Path includes a number of traditional
dungeon crawls and urban encounters
that may present a challenge to cavaliers
with Large mounts, so having nonmounted
combat options is recommended.
Due to a computer crash I haven’t all my player’s guides available, but from what I can recall, there are guides where (large) mounts are even more explicitly discouraged.
And the: “Yet, its completely within rules.”? Some stuff just doesn’t fly at our table. Mounts included. (Pun intended).Unlike the paladin’s mount the Druid/Cavalier mount is stupid and as pointed out by Maerimydra and others: “the Cavalier is the only base class that does not offer an alternative to replace his mount/animal companion”.
But the mount isn’t the only issue I have with the Class. It’s also all the other stuff that I already stated in my previous post and the Banner. The Banner isn’t bad but as pointed out by Maerimydra the bonus granted by the banner are circumstantial. I also find the Greater Banner ability awkward and too circumstantial.
Also, from what I can see the some orders are so obviously better than others, but I guess that really isn’t a problem if you know what you want.
Hey, I’m not saying it is a bad class, I’m just explaining why I don’t like it. Although, I do think that most if not all classes that don’t get spells a class feature are problematic, but that is another topic and another thread.
I would have to agree on the mechanical narrowness of the Cavalier compared to other classes.
Admittedly, I'd be fine with the base Cavalier as-is if some of archetypes gave us good alternatives to the mount. Sadly, there's only one archetype that doesn't give the Cavalier an animal companion.
fyi, narrow frame doesn't take away squeezing penalties for the rider.
i'm not sure the problem if people really just don't like the mount, even if there was just one archetype that did that,
but there is samurai+sword saint, musketeer, and huntsman replaces the mount with variable number of dogs/birds.
while mounted, you occupy all the squares of the mount, thus suffer the squeezing penalties.
at least that's my understanding of it.
Squeezing: In some cases, you may have to squeeze into or through an area that isn't as wide as the space you take up. You can squeeze through or into a space that is at least half as wide as your normal space. Each move into or through a narrow space counts as if it were 2 squares, and while squeezed in a narrow space, you take a –4 penalty on attack rolls and a –4 penalty to AC.
When a Large creature (which normally takes up 4 squares) squeezes into a space that's 1 square wide, the creature's miniature figure occupies 2 squares, centered on the line between the 2 squares. For a bigger creature, center the creature likewise in the area it squeezes into.
Although the example given mentions a size category, that isn't needed for the actual core rule.
Instinctive assumptions? I’ve played this game +10 years and in my experience urban settings, traditional dungeon crawls, mountains/climbing and stealth missions makes it hard if not impossible to bring along a mount.Why?
The heavy armor paladin with -6 armor check penalty is as messy as a horse with stealth and climbing, horse probably has better climb and as good stealth skill. And horse+rider can squeeze anywhere medium chars can enter without penalty(which is true for all buildings and many dungeons) with the only disadvantage, that they cannot charge and that they spent 10 ft per 5 ft. The latter is not a real disadvantage as 50ft/2 is nearly as good as 20ft and the lack of charge is compensated by attack capability of horse and using a shield with a two-handed weapon. (A feat takes care of the attack penalties of squeezing).
My group is currently running the Carrion Crown AP and there was a lot of situations where the animal companion of our Ranger, a medium sized wolf, could not follow us, so yeah, a large sized mount would really be a dead weight in this AP, at least during the first levels (we are currently level 5). There is a lot of climb checks involved and pulling up a horse with a rope would require a Strength score of at least 22-25 (for a 1000-1500 pounds horse) without the barding, not to mention the awkwardness of the situation. :)
And since the horse has better climb scores than the heavy armor paladin, its still unclear, why it should not be possible, simply a large net, tied on upper and lower floor and the horse can climb up and down on its own.
I suspect that a lot of GMs would balk at the idea of horses doing much in the way of climbing, regardless of their climb score. The equine body just isn't built for things like using handholds or scaling a rope.
simply a large net, tied on upper and lower floor and the horse can climb up and down on its own.
Like I said, awkward. If your group is fine with that then more power to you, but not all GMs out there would allow it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Its doubtful the horse has a better climb score. And it is up to the GM to determine what a horse can climb. Since animal companions only get 1skill point per HD, and horses having the scent quality, most PCs I've seen put points into survival, perception, and if you want for narrow frame, escape artist. Already, thats 3 of you limited skill points.
Additionally, do you never see horses with barding? Heck, cavalier horses get light armor prof as a bonus feat. So that horse is probably looking at -1 or -2 to its climb check from armor.
I don't agree a horse can climb a net suspended at an angle with nothing underneath it. Sure, the horse could get started on it, but once its legs were through the holes up to its belly, it doesn't have a way to pull a single leg out at a time to continue moving up. You're better off just tying the net around the horse, and having multiple characters hold the rope to raise/lower the horse. Or just have the wizard cast levitate (assuming the horse&equipment is light enough).
I would be more partial to the block and tackle approach, with the net. needs less characters to lift.
|
*** Mounted combat is a very powerful option. The part I dislike is that it is the Cavalier's ''only'' option. ***
I kind of feel like it's more that a cavalier can bring his mount into multiple styles of combat and do it very well.
Cavalier's can make incredible mounted archers, especially combining Target of Opportunity with their Greater Tactician ability. This can give them extra attacks, combos well with spell casters and other ranged weapon specialists, and doesn't require much investment on the cavalier's part.The base cavalier can do this well (especially with Order of the Sword or Order of the Wild) and still have his traditional charge and smash to fall back on, and the Luring Cavalier archetype can do it even better. Just as an example.
|
|
And since the horse has better climb scores than the heavy armor paladin, its still unclear, why it should not be possible, simply a large net, tied on upper and lower floor and the horse can climb up and down on its own.I suspect that a lot of GMs would balk at the idea of horses doing much in the way of climbing, regardless of their climb score. The equine body just isn't built for things like using handholds or scaling a rope.I suggested using a net. Nothing prevents a horse from scaling an inclined net with the right loop size. Probably climb DC 5-15.
If your group is fine with that then more power to you, but not all GMs out there would allow it.
As i said above:
"Its the classical RPG instinct, use lots of unrealistic rules, which fits to what one sees in movies, but when another unrealistic rule, which is about something never depicted in movies, comes along, they start to worry about realism. "If a 61 HP char can jump from the tenth floor and the GM is fine with guranteed survival because rules say so, its rather bizarre to have problems with a horse with climb skill scaling an inclined net, since that is also allowed with the rules.
And it should be irrelevant that horses in this world seldom do this, because in this world no human has a guranteed survival when jumping from the tenth floor.
@Tarantula
You see, its a problem about GMs not allowing what is permitted by rules.
I've had this conversation before too. Our real world also doesn't include horses with near human intelligence or horses capable of taking out elephants in one on one fights, but the world of the game does. It can make for some wild inconsistencies when GM's start trying to apply real world logic to a fantasy game.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A horse with 3-4int still isn't "near human" and the clarifications from Animal Archive show you still use the Handle Animal skill to control them.
The heavy armor paladin with -6 armor check penalty …
The ACP It isn’t a problem. Especially since I wouldn’t focus on mounted combat. Also there are traits that decrease the ACP and Mithral armor that decrease the ACP.
Hey wait: The Cav can’t use LoH or channel energy, they are not immune to fear and they don’t cast spells etc etc. and unlike the Paladin they got a really stupid mount. I guess and an ACP of -3 vs +0 makes up for the difference.You see, its a problem about GMs not allowing what is permitted by rules.
Ah, so they are playing the game wrong? Or might the problem be that some players can’t take no for an answer?
If a 61 HP char can jump from the tenth floor and the GM is fine with guranteed survival
And if a 61 HP Animal Companion would jump from the tenth floor the GM would also be fine with guranteed survival. I fail to see your point.
There are realism and realism. In the X-men movie they can do a lot of stuff that isn’t realistic. I have no problem with that, but I would have a problem if the X-men would start singing and dancing and the movie turned into a musical.
It is not only a matter of realism. Some things just aren’t done.
Also, a horse is a horse is a horse. It’s an animal. A creature with an int score of 2. A really, really stupid creature. If my GM told me “Horses can’t climb”, I would be fine with it just as if he said: “regardless of you being able to put skill ranks to the creature you can’t give it ranks in UMD, linguistics or fly”.
Even if they horse by RAW can put ranks in climb, some things are just too silly.
Its doubtful the horse has a better climb score. And it is up to the GM to determine what a horse can climb. Since animal companions only get 1skill point per HD, and horses having the scent quality, most PCs I've seen put points into survival, perception, and if you want for narrow frame, escape artist. Already, thats 3 of you limited skill points.
Pal also doesnt have many skill points, they need cha and str. Pal has effective same number of skills, because he needs perception, while horse/camel can ignore it. Probably str 18, 1 skill point in climb at level 2, -4 to -6 from armor, so +2 to 4. Camel has with human Str 20 and will get also climb skill at level 2, will wear leather or chain shirt (has not yet medium armor prof), so its +7 to +9, horse +6 to +8 (depending upon whether is mwk +3 AC leather or non-mwk chain).
[
Paladins don’t start with int 2. They can start with int 12 or even 14. Human Paladin with int 10 that adds all his favored class bonuses to skills gets 4 skills per level. And no, maxing perception is not mandatory. If seen many paladins with no or only a few ranks in perception.
If you and your GM think it is OK to have horses climbing. Fine. I have no problem with it. Just don’t say the rest of us are playing the game wrong.
Regardless, I don't like the Cav.
|
|
A horse with 3-4int still isn't "near human" and the clarifications from Animal Archive show you still use the Handle Animal skill to control them.
Paladins automatically have mounts with near human intelligence. A Cavalier who felt like adding his mounts stat points to INT could easily have a mount with near human intelligence. Various creatures that are not animal companions can serve as mounts and have human int or better. My point was that no one blinks an when a Mounted Fury barbarian's horse runs 100 feet and then leaps into the air to strike down a dragon with both hooves and a bite, but god forbid the same horse should traverse a steep incline or be allowed inside a 1000 year old abandoned temple because there's a flight of stairs up to the entrance.
|
|
Cavalier's can make incredible mounted archers, especially combining Target of Opportunity with their Greater Tactician ability.
That reminds me of a question, the horse is also an ally, so when a cavalied is mounted he will get full benefit when using tactican wiht any team work feat, that just needs an adjacent ally?
E.g. the ons with +2CMD or CMB or +1 save per ally or AOO if ally scores critical.
As a general rule, yes, a cavalier's mount counts as an ally and can both benefit from and trigger teamwork feats.
A horse with 3-4int still isn't "near human" and the clarifications from Animal Archive show you still use the Handle Animal skill to control them.Paladins automatically have mounts with near human intelligence. A Cavalier who felt like adding his mounts stat points to INT could easily have a mount with near human intelligence. Various creatures that are not animal companions can serve as mounts and have human int or better. My point was that no one blinks an when a Mounted Fury barbarian's horse runs 100 feet and then leaps into the air to strike down a dragon with both hooves and a bite, but god forbid the same horse should traverse a steep incline or be allowed inside a 1000 year old abandoned temple because there's a flight of stairs up to the entrance.
First, unless the barb's horse has pounce, it can't do that. Second, that is perfectly reasonable for a horse to be able to run and jump.
Going down a steep incline (define steep here, because it matters) may or may not make sense. If the horse starts to stand on it, and just starts sliding, no way is it going to be letting you lead it down. If it is able to stand and work its way down, sure, that is fine. Same thing with stairs. Sure, fine.
Stairs, fine. They're made to be walked on.
"Climbing" up a rope net thing held at an incline? No. Not possible due to the horses anatomy.
|
|
First, unless the barb's horse has pounce, it can't do that. Second, that is perfectly reasonable for a horse to be able to run and jump.
Going down a steep incline (define steep here, because it matters) may or may not make sense. If the horse starts to stand on it, and just starts sliding, no way is it going to be letting you lead it down. If it is able to stand and work its way down, sure, that is fine. Same thing with stairs. Sure, fine.
Stairs, fine. They're made to be walked on.
"Climbing" up a rope net thing held at an incline? No. Not possible due to the horses anatomy.
First, most Mounted Fury's take Beast Totem and Ferocious Mount specifically because of the fact that they can share their rage powers with their mount, that's why I chose the Archetype.
Second, you are once more laying your own preceptions of what is and is not reasonable over a fantasy game with no consideration to the fact that either scenario is equally valid by the rules. Go find me a video of a horse making a running bite attack against elephant and then convince me how that's more likely than a guy with an empathic bond to a beast that surpasses any real world horse leading said beast down a steep incline after it has willingly carried him into battle against fire-breathing monsters.
Making a blanket statement that something is impossible because of a creatures anatomy in a game that features creatures with human torsos sprouting out of equine bodies where a head would normally be located, or the dreaded froghemoth, is not only a little lacking in weight as a solid argument, it's a bit assinine.
If I can teach my horse to utilize martial combat styles (totally doable), teaching him to place his weight evenly to run or walk up a net certainly isn't outside the realm of possibility.
As a side note, due to their high strength and various limitations on what skills are useable or useful, I've seen more than a few PFS parties where the horse had hands down the best climb skill.
Did I miss anything?
Challenge is pretty weak imo. Mounts choices are restrictive without archetypes. I think you hit most of them though, though I have no idea why people want a horse on a tightrope...
Second, you are once more laying your own preceptions of what is and is not reasonable over a fantasy game with no consideration to the fact that either scenario is equally valid by the rules. Go find me a video of a horse making a running bite attack against elephant and then convince me how that's more likely than a guy with an empathic bond to a beast that surpasses any real world horse leading said beast down a steep incline after it has willingly carried him into battle against fire-breathing monsters.
Making a blanket statement that something is impossible because of a creatures anatomy in a game that features creatures with human torsos sprouting out of equine bodies where a head would normally be located, or the dreaded froghemoth, is not only a little lacking in weight as a solid argument, it's a bit assinine.
If I can teach my horse to utilize martial combat styles (totally doable), teaching him to place his weight evenly to run or walk up a net certainly isn't outside the realm of possibility.As a side note, due to their high strength and various limitations on what skills are useable or useful, I've seen more than a few PFS parties where the horse had hands down the best climb skill.
Sorry, I don't have a video of a horse attacking an elephant. Since video cameras have become ubiquitous elephants have been generally a protected animal.
Having re-looked at the skill for climb, it defines incline as less than 60º and wall as more than 60º. With that definition, I would say that yes, sure, a horse can use climb to try to move up/down any incline. Not walls.
Does the horse a barbarian is riding have human torsos sprouting out of it? No. I am talking about the physical capabilities of a horse mount, the fact that lots of other crazy non-real things exist does not change the fact that a "just like real life" horse exists, and is the subject of the discussion.
Furthermore, the climb skill states that you must have both hands free to climb. Therefore, RAW a horse cannot climb, as it does not have 2 free hands. In fact, it has 0 hands.
Did I miss anything?Challenge is pretty weak imo. Mounts choices are restrictive without archetypes. I think you hit most of them though, though I have no idea why people want a horse on a tightrope...
Order of the sword lets you add CHA to attack and damage on a charge, making it superior to a paladin's smite as far as damage is concerned, it also gives you one of the mounted combat feats for free at lvl 8.
It also lets you use your mounts STR in addition to your own.It also gives you a dodge bonus to AC against your target.
Weak nothing, people just need to read more imo.
Weak nothing, people just need to read more imo.
Challenge on its own is very weak imo. Your order does change it, but since its chained to your order that means you have to pick an order based on what challenge you want to. YMMV.