If you roll you scores your human Cav could theoretically end up with an int score of 3.
As for animals and their int score. I’m no rules expert but the PRD says this:
Animal
[...]Traits: An animal possesses the following traits (unless otherwise noted in a creature's entry).
•Intelligence score of 1 or 2 (no creature with an Intelligence score of 3 or higher can be an animal).And
A Horse with int higher than 2 is probably a no with many GMsINTELLIGENCE (INT)
Creatures of animal-level instinct have Intelligence scores of 1 or 2. Any creature capable of understanding speech has a score of at least 3.
Meanwhile, we have no explanation on what an animal becomes when an animal goes above 2, but we have a paizo blog about handle animal(which I hate...), and we have PFS rules on it, and we have the rules for animal companion telling you that the animal with 3 or more intelligence has a wider choice of skills and feats but nothing more.
Why is this even a topic? Also, why can't you get magical beast mounts? Isn't that like... a thing for fantasy games?
Also, why can't you get magical beast mounts? Isn't that like... a thing for fantasy games?
Have to agree on that point. Honestly, giving the Cavalier an expanded selection of mounts (including eventual magical bests) would do a lot to boost them up. It's a huge problem for me that the class that's all about mounted combat generally has the weakest selection of mounts in the game. Any other class with an animal companion/mount gets either a broader selection, or some other options to power their mount up (spells, Barbarians being able to share rage with their mounts, etc.). The only way to get any expansion on your options is to take Beast Rider, which costs you a nice class feature and heavy armor proficiency and still leaves you with a limited selection.
Giving the Cavalier the best mounts in the game instead of the worst would do a lot to help them out. My level 20 Cavalier should have the option of riding something better than a mundane horse.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Also, why can't you get magical beast mounts? Isn't that like... a thing for fantasy games?Have to agree on that point. Honestly, giving the Cavalier an expanded selection of mounts (including eventual magical bests) would do a lot to boost them up. It's a huge problem for me that the class that's all about mounted combat generally has the weakest selection of mounts in the game. Any other class with an animal companion/mount gets either a broader selection, or some other options to power their mount up (spells, Barbarians being able to share rage with their mounts, etc.). The only way to get any expansion on your options is to take Beast Rider, which costs you a nice class feature and heavy armor proficiency and still leaves you with a limited selection.
Giving the Cavalier the best mounts in the game instead of the worst would do a lot to help them out. My level 20 Cavalier should have the option of riding something better than a mundane horse.
Don't they already have that via the Knights of the Inner Sea book, or is the argument that they should get this naturally.
Don't they already have that via the Knights of the Inner Sea book, or is the argument that they should get this naturally.
Knights of the inner sea is setting specific, you would think that would be part of the core game, something that exist before you create the setting. I actually don't have that pathfinder companion(its a companion right?) so I wouldn't know what it has to say on the subject. At the moment you can only access animals through an archetype, which unfortunately gives up several other class features to get something someone might argue you should get in the first place.
Don't they already have that via the Knights of the Inner Sea book, or is the argument that they should get this naturally.Also, why can't you get magical beast mounts? Isn't that like... a thing for fantasy games?Have to agree on that point. Honestly, giving the Cavalier an expanded selection of mounts (including eventual magical bests) would do a lot to boost them up. It's a huge problem for me that the class that's all about mounted combat generally has the weakest selection of mounts in the game. Any other class with an animal companion/mount gets either a broader selection, or some other options to power their mount up (spells, Barbarians being able to share rage with their mounts, etc.). The only way to get any expansion on your options is to take Beast Rider, which costs you a nice class feature and heavy armor proficiency and still leaves you with a limited selection.
Giving the Cavalier the best mounts in the game instead of the worst would do a lot to help them out. My level 20 Cavalier should have the option of riding something better than a mundane horse.
Knight of Inner Sea gives them a little variety. You now have several varieties of horse to choose from instead of a single generic horse. Yay.
Not even remotely in the same neighborhood as, say, giving Cavaliers eventual access to magical beasts as mounts.
|
Don't they already have that via the Knights of the Inner Sea book, or is the argument that they should get this naturally.Also, why can't you get magical beast mounts? Isn't that like... a thing for fantasy games?Have to agree on that point. Honestly, giving the Cavalier an expanded selection of mounts (including eventual magical bests) would do a lot to boost them up. It's a huge problem for me that the class that's all about mounted combat generally has the weakest selection of mounts in the game. Any other class with an animal companion/mount gets either a broader selection, or some other options to power their mount up (spells, Barbarians being able to share rage with their mounts, etc.). The only way to get any expansion on your options is to take Beast Rider, which costs you a nice class feature and heavy armor proficiency and still leaves you with a limited selection.
Giving the Cavalier the best mounts in the game instead of the worst would do a lot to help them out. My level 20 Cavalier should have the option of riding something better than a mundane horse.
Knight of Inner Sea gives them a little variety. You now have several varieties of horse to choose from instead of a single generic horse. Yay.
Not even remotely in the same neighborhood as, say, giving Cavaliers eventual access to magical beasts as mounts.
To compound the issue the differences amongst the horses are minor and they cost you a trait to take them. So basically you either need to give up one of your traits to get a horse that get +10 ft movement speed when running or withdrawing or you're screwed if you don't use the trait system in your game.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
A few things:
1) The samurai is a cavalier, for all intents and purposes. And the Huntmaster, Beastrider and Sword Saint all do away with the "Only Ponies!" stuff that seems to rankle people. I'd expect more down the line too.
2) The cavalier easily out does the fighter. The charge builds laugh at iterative attack DPRs, skill points and challenges are lovely swag and the mount is powerhouse icing on the cake.
Especially at level 1, when that free horse makes your action economy and gold economy FAR stronger than your average martial.
3) The mounts are useless in dungeons argument is a little bunk. Yes, sometimes you can't take your charger up the 50 ft wall, before you get fly or levitate spells, but even with that nerf you have a full bab challenge/buff tank/face who is slightly weaker than a fighter. This isn't a weak character without the mount. With it, action economy wins the day 90% of the time.
4) The "orders restrict my roleplaying" is silly. They inform it. The comments regarding choosing a domain, choosing a school or even choosing a rage totem are spot on.
You can play an order of the cockatrice as shy, dull and boring, but when he hits the battlefield, watch out. In fact, how many sports stars could be described in this fashion? Jonathan Toews of the Blackhawks springs to mind for me immediately.
What order forces you to "roleplay a certain way? They're just mechanics with a flavour, and even RAW that flavour doesn't force you to do anything, it just defines the roleplaying elements of the order. The cockatrice cavs will generally be flashier, the swords more martial, the star more pious, etc.
But you can be a cocky member of the star, a pious member of the dragon or a cooperative member of the cockatrice, just like you can be a druid who is scared of snakes, a barbarian who loves court dinners or a paladin who gambles. All without Rule 0 too.
You can dislike the class, just like you can dislike clerics because of the religion thing, wizards for the casting arcane spells thing or druids for the nature thing.
But there's no real gripe with the cav I can see beyond preference. They are mechanically potent, offer a variety of flavours within the confines of "mounted warrior with a code" archetype and the mount isn't really the anchor people make it out to be. Even without the mount, the other features are potent and there are tricks around the size problems too.
I rolled up a Cavalier and was really excited to play him, but I'm just not big on mounted combat and the horse was just kinda flavor I ended up not using. I rerolled him into a Paladin around level 5 because I wasn't having fun.
I love knights and military and the class is a great concept, but I just wish they had archetypes that didn't take the mount and maybe gave us weapon training or something.
It's literally the only class without an option to switch out your mount or animal companion for something else.
I may end up rolling a Fighter with a dip in Cavalier later, but it just makes me sad. I want to love the class.
4) The "orders restrict my roleplaying" is silly. They inform it. The comments regarding choosing a domain, choosing a school or even choosing a rage totem are spot on.
The comments were that orders affected your class features as much as domains and schools, which is independent of role play. Also wrong, unless domains affect every spell you cast like order's change your challenge every time you challenge.
What order forces you to "roleplay a certain way? They're just mechanics with a flavour, and even RAW that flavour doesn't force you to do anything, it just defines the roleplaying elements of the order.
All of them? They are mechanics with enforced flavor. If you don't follow the edict you lose your order and the bonuses you got from it.
In addition, each order includes a number of edicts that the cavalier must follow. If he violates any of these edicts, he loses the benefits from his order’s challenge ability for 24 hours. The violation of an edict is subject to GM interpretation. A cavalier cannot change his order without undertaking a lengthy process to dedicate himself to a new cause. When this choice is made, he immediately loses all of the benefits from his old order. He must then follow the edicts of his new order for one entire level without gaining any benefits from that order. Once accomplished, he gains all of the bonuses from his new order. Note that the names of these orders might vary depending upon the campaign setting or GM’s preference.
|
|
Honestly I've never had a problem with the orders and liked how they've all really felt unique and flavorful. The problem is that the mount ability is incredibly ingrained in the class to the point of it's capstone literally requiring you to BE on the mount in order to use it which is fine if you are in an open space with clear terrain allowing you to charge. On top of this the options for a medium races mount are just boring. I mean we are playing in a world where their are knights that ride half eagle half lion crossbreeds through the sky and yet we are all stuck with just a horse? What about dwarves from the deep underground or humans from the high mountains where horses aren't really viable, or the elf from primal forests where elk or giant deer ala princess mononoke are preferred as they can more easily traverse the terrain? Just some more options would be nice. Hell I'd be cool with the ability to use your charge off the horse.
4) The "orders restrict my roleplaying" is silly. They inform it. The comments regarding choosing a domain, choosing a school or even choosing a rage totem are spot on.The comments were that orders affected your class features as much as domains and schools, which is independent of role play. Also wrong, unless domains affect every spell you cast like order's change your challenge every time you challenge.
Thanks for ignoring all the examples I provided to support my claim. A war domain cleric isn't going to be a pacifist or else they can expect to lose their cleric powers and a druid won't be clear cutting forests with their druid powers for very long either.
These things are ENTIRELY tied into roleplaying, as is the paladin's LG edict, the barbarians non-lawful edict, etc. I'd love to see an example of roleplaying that the cavalier is denied because of his mechanics.
Also, I don't see the order impacting your choice of mounts, feats, BAB, etc. the way alignment impacts your choice of familiar, channeling energy abilities, smite powers, or summoned monsters.
There are lots of mechanics with roleplaying edicts built into the. Cavaliers happen to be more, uh, cavalier about them than many other classes.
What order forces you to "roleplay a certain way? They're just mechanics with a flavour, and even RAW that flavour doesn't force you to do anything, it just defines the roleplaying elements of the order.All of them? They are mechanics with enforced flavor. If you don't follow the edict you lose your order and the bonuses you got from it.
Are the edicts really shackling you that much? Paladins and Clerics and Druids are in an equally terrible boat. Except the Cavalier gets a myriad of orders to choose from, so if you don't like that edict you can choose a different order.
Again, I'd love to hear a situation where your edict crippled your character in such a fashion that you lost all your powers, you know, like how DMs pick on paladins, or even druids.
Fighters and rogues are pretty much the only class that don't force you to attach roleplaying to your mechanics.
And for those who hate this, I submit the Ronin order.
Thanks for ignoring all the examples I provided to support my claim. A war domain cleric isn't going to be a pacifist or else they can expect to lose their cleric powers and a druid won't be clear cutting forests with their druid powers for very long either.
The claims that had nothing to do with what I said. I specifically said that it was about mechanics, and you go on about role play.
If you took war domain your god is likely one of war and expects you to war. Its not attached to the domain, its attached to the ideal or deity. If on the off chance your deity has nothing about war, but you took the war domain, you don't have to be all about war. Though that's a weird situation. Deities in the game are given a collection of domains, and every once in a while there's a weird one. Some are related to background and have nothing to do with the deities tenants. Also, non lawful and following tenants is actually pretty broad because its not static. Orders are static.
These things are ENTIRELY tied into roleplaying, as is the paladin's LG edict, the barbarians non-lawful edict, etc. I'd love to see an example of roleplaying that the cavalier is denied because of his mechanics.
Those are not edicts. They have other names. Alignment restrictions is are whole different problem, and the code itself has a lot of flak.
A good example? How about if I just disagree with the bonuses they give? How about if I want one order's particular abilities because I think that better helps my concept, but that order is about something entirely different and my GM is urging me to do the order that gives me nothing I want but is all about my concept. When you disagree with what the author decided for you, then your always in trouble. This is why I don't like these things being a big package deal, I don't always agree, and if you give people freedom to choose everyone wins.
Are the edicts really shackling you that much? Paladins and Clerics and Druids are in an equally terrible boat. Except the Cavalier gets a myriad of orders to choose from, so if you don't like that edict you can choose a different order.
Did I use extreme words like shackles or infer that they were completely insane? No. I said I didn't like them. I never like being told exactly how to roleplay. Suggestions are great, but being told "You are this. Be this way!" is actually a bad thing. If they were suggestions, instead of enforced, then it would be a much different case.
Paladin's are the only ones who are really restricted and told how to role play and have a single way to play. Clerics have a large number of deities/domains/ideals(though it has its own problems, that's another long thread), and druids don't even have a restriction beyond neutral and respecting nature, which doesn't really tell you how to play, but more of what not to do(and to be honest, it rarely, if ever, comes up.)
Those examples are not the same as the cavalier. The cavalier doesn't get this amazing 'myriad' and the others are forced into certain small restrictive options.
And for those who hate this, I submit the Ronin order.
Which can be read as "Don't like being told how to role play? Here! Your forced to be this." That's horrid solution.
From the PRD/Core Rules/Rules about animal companions in generalIf the companion's Intelligence score is 2 or lower, it is limited to a small selection of feats. You should decide what feats the animal learns, though the GM should have a say about whether a desired feat is appropriate to the animal's type and training—fortunately, the feats on the list are appropriate for just about any animal. If the animal's Intelligence is 3 or higher (whether from using its ability score increase or a magic item), it can select any feat that it qualifies for. You should decide what feat it learns, subject to GM approval, although the creature's higher intelligence might mean it has its own ideas about what it wants to learn.
Animal companions CAN have Int scores higher than 3. There is no "Probably no with many GM's" involved, unless they are house ruling. Society wise it is perfectly legal. Basic rules wise, it is perfectly legal.
yet another reason for me not to like the class. Messy, contradictory and unclear rules regarding animals and animal companions.
Thanks for ignoring all the examples I provided to support my claim. A war domain cleric isn't going to be a pacifist or else they can expect to lose their cleric powers and a druid won't be clear cutting forests with their druid powers for very long either.The claims that had nothing to do with what I said. I specifically said that it was about mechanics, and you go on about role play.
If you took war domain your god is likely one of war and expects you to war. Its not attached to the domain, its attached to the ideal or deity. If on the off chance your deity has nothing about war, but you took the war domain, you don't have to be all about war. Though that's a weird situation. Deities in the game are given a collection of domains, and every once in a while there's a weird one. Some are related to background and have nothing to do with the deities tenants. Also, non lawful and following tenants is actually pretty broad because its not static. Orders are static.
These things are ENTIRELY tied into roleplaying, as is the paladin's LG edict, the barbarians non-lawful edict, etc. I'd love to see an example of roleplaying that the cavalier is denied because of his mechanics.Those are not edicts. They have other names. Alignment restrictions is are whole different problem, and the code itself has a lot of flak.
A good example? How about if I just disagree with the bonuses they give? How about if I want one order's particular abilities because I think that better helps my concept, but that order is about something entirely different and my GM is urging me to do the order that gives me nothing I want but is all about my concept. When you disagree with what the author decided for you, then your always in trouble. This is why I don't like these things being a big package deal, I don't always agree, and if you give people freedom to choose everyone wins.
Are the edicts...
So let's actually describe this objection: you want the bonuses of the order of the shield, but hate the notion of defending the weak... I *guess* you're sol in PFS, but how often does the defense of the weak come up in your games? And why is that so antitheitical to the guy who gets a bunch of powers dedicated to keeping bad guys from the squishy guys?
Seems like a real corner case to me.
As for the Ronin, if ALL of the other options, you know, the 10+ of them, are no good, that's still there as a last resort.
So unless you're the pickiest eater that class system RPG's have ever seen, you should be able to fulfill your build, and if not, go ronin, which is in no way a mechanical trap. And if you're still dissatisfied, then maybe rule 0 is called for.
The fact that the order has mechanical and roleplaying elements in it may frustrate you, but there are, as pointed out, a host of examples of how this is actually just a feature of pathfinder. Rogue, Fighter, the rest are alignment and roleplaying bound to mechanics.
The pacifist cleric with the war domain is gonna have their god get pissed in most games, as is the goblin baby killing paladin. Hope for a lenient GM or play GURPs if you really can't stand accepting rewards while getting the order of the cockatrice's benefits.
Dissection! Though this is a rather large post.
So let's actually describe this objection: you want the bonuses of the order of the shield, but hate the notion of defending the weak... I *guess* you're sol in PFS, but how often does the defense of the weak come up in your games? And why is that so antitheitical to the guy who gets a bunch of powers dedicated to keeping bad guys from the squishy guys?
Seems like a real corner case to me.
SOL In PFS? Why is that? Anyways, my point was that its best to have suggestions for RP values, rather than enforce them. That said, Evil cavalier who cares about his teammates might want order of the shield but not care that much about the weak. Or for a closer to real life example a chevalier who doesn't care about the people, but does a fine job as a knight holding the lines. Order of the shield is about protecting the common folk! But as it just so happens, not everyone's into that gig, but plenty of people could be all about holding the lines and being resolute.
So unless you're the pickiest eater that class system RPG's have ever seen, you should be able to fulfill your build, and if not, go ronin, which is in no way a mechanical trap. And if you're still dissatisfied, then maybe rule 0 is called for.
I am not a picky eater, I like trying new things and lots of flavors. I however do not like being told what my dish is, and what I am eating tonight. I can ask for a suggestion, but please do not pick out my menu and tell me that I wanted the chicken when I wanted the beef. Though I'm not one to go to a Mexican restaurant and expect Spaghetti, I do expect my choice between Taco's and Burrito's.(Supposing we're using the food metaphor, and an attempt to keep the food simple.)
Rule 0 is not a great defense for a problem someone might have. The best core is open and flexible, but with many suggestions and further ideas through books and setting specific stuck in setting specific books. However, when you get stuck in rigid ideas like the paladin code, edits, alignment restrictions, mount restrictions, sometimes its just a mess and not everyone agrees with the results. If you happen to like things as is that's fine, just be careful about the way you treat others. Someone else might not like their flavor pre picked, some may find that more intrusive on their ideas and decisions.
The fact that the order has mechanical and roleplaying elements in it may frustrate you, but there are, as pointed out, a host of examples of how this is actually just a feature of pathfinder. Rogue, Fighter, the rest are alignment and roleplaying bound to mechanics.
Don't use the word frustrate please. It makes it seem like a tantrum or immature, and really invalidates what I say, or at least makes it seem like you don't care that much.
There is a lot of criticism out there about alignment restrictions and the like. Would you like me to tell you how to roleplay? If no, then I'm sure you'll understand not everyone does. Again, its okay for a setting, not so much for every case for everyone in the game according to core.
The pacifist cleric with the war domain is gonna have their god get pissed in most games, as is the goblin baby killing paladin. Hope for a lenient GM or play GURPs if you really can't stand accepting rewards while getting the order of the cockatrice's benefits.
Your comparing a pacifist cleric to a baby killing paladin? That's... pretty extreme. Order of the cockatrice is all about getting rewarded I thought?
Anyways, your making assumptions about god's will. That's a mess of its own, and varies greatly depending on your GM and game, and setting, and the god in question. If its a god of Love and War, or Peace and War, or one who inherited the mantle of war but is one of Honor, they may have an entirely different view on war and their tenants. Its not about the domain, its about the tenants and god. Similarly, if your ideal is the time between war and peace, then your in a weird place in life. All sorts of crazy examples.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
SOL In PFS? Why is that? Anyways, my point was that its best to have suggestions for RP values, rather than enforce them. That said, Evil cavalier who cares about his teammates might want order of the shield but not care that much about the weak. Or for a closer to real life example a chevalier who doesn't care about the people, but does a fine job as a knight holding the lines. Order of the shield is about protecting the common folk! But as it just so happens, not everyone's into that gig, but plenty of people could be all about holding the lines and being resolute.
I don't disagree, but the order of the dragon will do a lot of what you're looking for then... Which is kind of my point. Unless you are obsessed with a mechanic and it doesn't fit your corner case build and your GM isn't flexible, the cav has a myriad of other options that probably could, if you're willing to sacrifice a little mechanically. Just like an evil cleric cannot channel healing and a good cleric cannot heal the unliving easily.
I am not a picky eater, I like trying new things and lots of flavors. I however do not like being told what my dish is, and what I am eating tonight. I can ask for a suggestion, but please do not pick out my menu and tell me that I wanted the chicken when I wanted the beef. Though I'm not one to go to a Mexican restaurant and expect Spaghetti, I do expect my choice between Taco's and Burrito's.(Supposing we're using the food metaphor, and an attempt to keep the food simple.)Rule 0 is not a great defense for a problem someone might have. The best core is open and flexible, but with many suggestions and further ideas through books and setting specific stuck in setting...
Well, they may not have a ground beef burrito, but they do have bean, chicken, pork and steak burritos, and a ground beef taco, enchilada and taquito.
Seriously, with the samurai on top, the cav has so many flavours, three which are horse free, and all of which have lots of orders to pick from, plus the ronin, which is a build your own order RAW, that I find it hard to imagine anyone who actually likes the class having trouble fitting the roleplaying to the mechanics.
Your argument sounds like an argument against classes, because all classes are going to force you into a roleplaying niche with their mechanics, because that's what they do.
I'm not trying to paint you as immature. I understand that there are systems that offer more in class flexibility, and even classes like the fighter and the rogue offer more roleplaying options than the cavalier.
But I do think that having very mild restrictions attached to the orders isn't that oppressive and is unlikely to constrain your roleplaying.
I use words like shackle and frustrated because you sound passionately opposed to the notion of mechanics being attacked to roleplaying. However, I think it's only fair to acknowledge that this is a feature of the game:
Monks, Barbarians, Clerics, Wizards, Sorcerors, Summoners, Paladins, Druids, Cavaliers, Oracles, Inquisitors, Anti-paladins and Witches all have mechanics that are linked to roleplaying and if you'd like, I can provide corner cases for all of them that the RAW doesn't allow me to roleplay. Singling out the cavalier for this crime, even though it's one of the more flexible classes in this respect, is narrow sighted.
I don't disagree, but the order of the dragon will do a lot of what you're looking for then... Which is kind of my point. Unless you are obsessed with a mechanic and it doesn't fit your corner case build and your GM isn't flexible
Order of the dragon is not what I'm looking for if I want to hold the lines, he's who I want if I want someone to assist constantly(Which oddly enough, isn't always the best action to assist.)
Again, rule 0 is not the best defense. If it was I could say I don't like the cavalier because he can ride a flying pink pony in my home game, or that he's awesome because his alicorn kicks butt and my custom Order of the Black Saint is just what I needed.
Your argument sounds like an argument against classes, because all classes are going to force you into a roleplaying niche with their mechanics, because that's what they do.
Right, because magus has this edict system that tells me... oh wait, no it doesn't. Codes, tenants, alignment restrictions... Didn't I just talk about these and how they have their own critisims?
the ronin, which is a build your own order RAW,
He has a build your own edict(why does need one?), but his mechanics are set in stone if we're talking about RAW.
But I do think that having very mild restrictions attached to the orders isn't that oppressive and is unlikely to constrain your roleplaying.
I use words like shackle and frustrated because you sound passionately opposed to the notion of mechanics being attacked to roleplaying. However, I think it's only fair to acknowledge that this is a feature of the game:
Monks, Barbarians, Clerics, Wizards, Sorcerors, Summoners, Paladins, Druids, Cavaliers, Oracles, Inquisitors, Anti-paladins and Witches all have mechanics that are linked to roleplaying and if you'd like, I can provide corner cases for all of them that the RAW doesn't allow me to roleplay. Singling out the cavalier for this crime, even though it's one of the more flexible classes in this respect, is narrow sighted.
I don't have the space, nor time to go through every last class and explain how it affects its roleplaying, but I should note there is a huge difference between playing a summoner and saying my background involves figuring that out somehow, and having a restriction on my power and losing it all if I stop acting a certain way that doesn't have to do with the order abilities! Worse, for some reason I forget how to do attack non lethally with the flat of my blade, if I for some reason kill a man who surrendered.
What you call mild... Is relative. Its a thread about personal opinion. It shouldn't be an argument when someone says "I don't like orders because it is a constraint on my roleplay". I feel like I can make my own characters, with their own personalities, and who act in their own way and use the mechanics given to help bring that idea to life. When I have alignment restrictions, edicts, codes, in the way of a character idea it can become a problem. More so when many GMs I know aren't interested in allowing people to be a little different. It's a completely legitimate criticism of the way orders are designed.
Pointed more toward mechanics, I dislike package deals you can't break out of. Orders happen to be that, you take the whole gig and you have to live with it. Mysteries you can choose revelations, or rage powers you get a very wide selection, but not so much with orders. They don't make the class feel more flavorful for me, more so just locked into a particular style of play "Hi, I'm a cavalier. I'm automatically part of an order of knights... Oh! And if I stop, I lose a good chunk of my abilities." I don't like that. Not only is he built for charging on a horse, but he's also always part of a knightly order or an errant, and errants are a specific order with specific mechanics unrelated to a be your own kinda' guy.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As others have mentioned, the big hate with Cavalier is a required mount, and a good few too many class features around mounted charging.
All other companion classes give an alternative option.
Druids have a domain, wizards have a magic wand, rangers have bonded allies, summoner... Ok maybe not all of them but summoners can pocket their pet in a pinch.
Cavalier could have been made more attractive with an alternative so you can be something besides the dude on horseback. As cool as that fantasy shtick is, mounted combat and mounted companions aren't for everyone, and they make adventuring difficult, because no one wants to lug a large sized creature up a mountain.
But yeah, for me personally, I don't like banners and mounts. It's also why I don't like most of the samurai options. Too much horsemanship.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Order of the dragon is not what I'm looking for if I want to hold the lines, he's who I want if I want someone to assist constantly(Which oddly enough, isn't always the best action to assist.)
Again, rule 0 is not the best defense. If it was I could say I don't like the cavalier because he can ride a flying pink pony in my home game, or that he's awesome because his alicorn kicks butt and my custom Order of the Black Saint is just what I needed.
Rule 0 has always been a last resort in all of my arguments. There are a multitude of orders to choose from. 16 paizo orders, including the ronin/knight errant which eliminates all the roleplaying shackles you so dislike. Would you complain if the ronin package was the only thing attached to the challenge? Or would you just complain that the challenge was too vanilla and lacked variety?
You have 16 options of orders to choose from, and there's a super genius book that has a whole host of other options, as well as other 3rd party stuff. If you really can't build your niche build after that, you're probably being picky. I'm sorry they only have peanut butter and chocolate but not peanut butter and fudge. At this point, rule 0 your peanut butter and fudge. To tell me it's a weak argument ignores the things that came before it.
Right, because magus has this edict system that tells me... oh wait, no it doesn't. Codes, tenants, alignment restrictions... Didn't I just talk about these and how they have their own critisims?
Have fun playing your enchanting duelist who uses her dazzling beauty to charm foes and turn them against each othe... oh wait, I don't get charm spells. I suppose I'll fall back on my planeswalker general build, where my character summons allies from across the planes to help him wage war.... oh, no summon spells either.
Darn, guess I'm stuck playing a blaster gish. Tell me again how class doesn't limit your roleplaying options?
the ronin, which is a build your own order RAW,He has a build your own edict(why does need one?), but his mechanics are set in stone if we're talking about RAW.
So are the fighters, but you aren't complaining that they have to be weapons masters. If the challenge mechanic was simply: you must follow an edict determined by you and the DM and at certain levels you gain the benefits of the ronin order, with no other orders, would you still be complaining? Because there's no forced roleplaying here, just limited mechanics, which are a whole other complaint.
I don't have the space, nor time to go through every last class and explain how it affects its roleplaying, but I should note there is a huge difference between playing a summoner and saying my background involves figuring that out somehow, and having a restriction on my power and losing it all if I stop acting a certain way that doesn't have to do with the order abilities! Worse, for some reason I forget how to do attack non lethally with the flat of my blade, if I for some reason kill a man who surrendered.
Losing it all? You lose your mount, teamwork feats, banner bonuses, full bab and charge bonuses? And you lose it for one day because your evil knight was a jerk to a peasant. A good night's sleep and you're holding the line with the best of them. How often do you run into peasants that you choose to neglect or attack in your games?
And you don't forget how to knock a guy out, you simply suffer minuses like the rest of the plebes. Call it a wavering of resolve, call it your supernatural focus slipping, call it your patron god of your order abandoning you for your sins. Easy to fluff the mechanic. But I suspect you've got a thing against powers per day perhaps?
What you call mild... Is relative. Its a thread about personal opinion. It shouldn't be an argument when someone says "I don't like orders because it is a constraint on my roleplay". I feel like I can make my own characters, with their own personalities, and who act in their own way and use the mechanics given to help bring that idea to life. When I have alignment restrictions, edicts, codes, in the way of a character idea it can become a problem. More so when many GMs I know aren't interested in allowing people to be a little different. It's a completely legitimate criticism of the way orders are designed.
But, again, this criticism is a criticism of Monks, Barbarians, Clerics, Wizards, Sorcerors, Summoners, Paladins, Druids, Cavaliers, Oracles, Inquisitors, Anti-paladins and Witches, to varying degrees. The game forces mechanical choices upon you dependant on roleplaying choices. I'm sorry you dislike this, but it's been part of the game since 1975. This isn't the cavalier's fault, it's the game's fault. Here is really where you need to Rule 0 that stuff out of your game, or play a different game. If 16+ orders doesn't allow you to be different, you probably need to tune the mechanics to suit your tastes. But don't claim that there is no variety or that roleplaying choices are being jammed down your throat.
Pointed more toward mechanics, I dislike package deals you can't break out of. Orders happen to be that, you take the whole gig and you have to live with it. Mysteries you can choose revelations, or rage powers you get a very wide selection, but not so much with orders. They don't make the class feel more flavorful for me, more so just locked into a particular style of play "Hi, I'm a cavalier. I'm automatically part of an order of knights... Oh! And if I stop, I lose a good chunk of my abilities." I don't like that. Not only is he built for charging on a horse, but he's also always part of a knightly order or an errant, and errants are a specific order with specific mechanics unrelated to a be your own kinda' guy.
A cavalier IS a knight. That's what the class is about. That's where the powers come from. If you don't like it, rule 0 the class, or be a druid or a ranger if you want to be a beast rider without an order, be a dragoon fighter or barbarian if you want to be a mounted powerhouse without the ever-so restrictive orders. Or be a paladin or anti-paladin, where at least it doesn't tease you with the illusion of 16 choices and you become a mounted crusader.
Best yet, you can just dip 4 levels of cav and have that mount be as good as a full cav for the cost of one feat and not have to worry about the challenge except as a slightly helpful boost to your fighter/barb/ranger/whatever once a day. Losing it for breaking the edict becomes a tame penalty.
There are options, and full credit if you don't like playing a knight but you want the shiny powers that come with it, but the cav has non-charge builds, can keep up with a fighter with the gendarme archetype, even without going charge focus, has choices that allow you to not play a horsie-man, provides options that don't force you to roleplay a certain way to gain some benefit from the challenge (and quite good ones too, IMHO) and the class covers a broad range of historical and literary archetypes.
I'm sorry you don't like them, but for anyone on the fence, I feel your arguments are about taste or flaws in pathfinder versus the class itself.
Well that's a lot of text.
If 16+ orders doesn't allow you to be different, you probably need to tune the mechanics to suit your tastes. But don't claim that there is no variety or that roleplaying choices are being jammed down your throat.
Here's the thing though, why do I have to choose between the options given to me? Wouldn't it have been easier just not to attach the roleplaying mandates to the orders, so that I could be whatever I wanted. Sure, there are 16+3rd party + Homebrew. However, if you had suggestions then I could be anything. I'd have all of those options and more, and mix and match. If I become a beast totem barbarian I'm not told "This is how a beast totem barbarian acts!" If I play a witch I'm not told "This is how a witch who takes this hex or patron acts!" and so on. I have all of the options, and I'm not limited.
Rule 0 is a terrible defense for the core game. I happen to have played in PFS, and with many GMs who only do RAW, and in those games I have to depend on the core game giving me the freedom to choose or to be good. When I'm at home, I have quite a few house rules, ones I made because I have criticisms of the game, some class design, and so on. I have them because those are the reasons I don't like classes. Why hate cavalier you know? It doesn't illegitimate my criticisms that I can houserule.
Have fun playing your enchanting duelist who uses her dazzling beauty to charm foes and turn them against each othe... oh wait, I don't get charm spells. I suppose I'll fall back on my planeswalker general build, where my character summons allies from across the planes to help him wage war.... oh, no summon spells either.
Darn, guess I'm stuck playing a blaster gish. Tell me again how class doesn't limit your roleplaying options?
I think your mixing up mechanics and role play. You can play an enchantress who dazzles foes and turns them against each other with a sorcerer, and then choose to be part of an order and act knightly and takes part in duels. You can also play a magus who is a knight who uses his knowledge about magic to defend the hold or whatever. I never said the cavalier could or should do any of that. You can also play a cavalier who knows a bit about magic and dumps some points into UMD, spellcraft, and Knowledge. The magus, however, does not have to be the knight of an order, nor does he have any roleplaying requirements beyond someone learning swordplay and magic, which could be entirely casual. I did complain that the cavalier's role play was pre picked, which is entirely different.
Your class should decide what you can do, but not who you are. If that makes sense. If it doesn't, then I have a problem. Classes who decide who you are and are inflexible take away options from the player.
Here's the thing though, why do I have to choose between the options given to me? Wouldn't it have been easier just not to attach the roleplaying mandates to the orders, so that I could be whatever I wanted. Sure, there are 16+3rd party + Homebrew. However, if you had suggestions then I could be anything. I'd have all of those options and more, and mix and match. If I become a beast totem barbarian I'm not told "This is how a beast totem barbarian acts!" If I play a witch I'm not told "This is how a witch who takes this hex or patron acts!" and so on. I have all of the options, and I'm not limited.
Well, your barbarian can't be lawful, which is far more restrictive to roleplaying than the edicts of the orders if your DM has set views about alignment. And your witch's patron might be just as fickle as the order edicts should our DM enjoy using class features to nerf a character.
Again, this is a complaint against pathfinder, even if you don't want to admit it. Some classes are looser with roleplaying restrictions, others are tighter. Your argument against my dazzling duelist blows up your arguments against the cavalier:
I want to play a fighter/mage who focuses on enchantments WITH the magus. But I can't, so the magus clearly is too restrictive, attaching mechanics to roleplaying...
And the complaint that 16+ choices isn't enough freedom is really weak when you also have druids, rangers, paladins, summoners and fighters who can all be mounted warriors too, with or without a corner case code that impacts perhaps 10% of the characters actual abilities.
Stop telling me what my own opinion is. You don't know my opinion until I tell you. You don't get to tell me I'm not admitting my own opinion. You can't read my mind. Its rude and arrogant.
"If your DM" doesn't have any weight when your talking about core rules. If my DM gives fighters a feat every level and lets improved critical stack with keen, fighters aren't overpowered. If my GM says druids don't exist, they still exist in other games. If my GM says all wizards come from wizard college, that doesn't mean all wizards in every game come from wizard college.
I want to play a fighter/mage who focuses on enchantments WITH the magus. But I can't, so the magus clearly is too restrictive, attaching mechanics to roleplaying...
Your the one saying that! Just play a fighter/wizard with eldritch knight or something. There is not a roleplaying attachment in any of those classes, or at least not one nearly as bad as telling you "You protect the weak and your part of an order of knights!"
And the complaint that 16+ choices isn't enough freedom is really weak when you also have druids, rangers, paladins, summoners and fighters who can all be mounted warriors too, with or without a corner case code that impacts perhaps 10% of the characters actual abilities.
So are you saying there's no problem with the class because you can play another one? That's not that great either. Its not a weak complaint either. Does 16+ compare to the number I could have if there just weren't edicts?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Since this is getting a little heated... might I suggest taking a moment to cool off?
My 2P on the orders, I Don't see it as an issue. You have to follow some to rules for some classes. Clearly some people Don't like that classes like that exist, but I Don't believe that invalidates a whole class. Nor is wholly a bad thing when compared to more restrictive to constraints.
Honestly think them being limited with non-flying mount is a way bigger deal than than orders.
Since this is getting a little heated... might I suggest taking a moment to cool off?
My 2P on the orders, I Don't see it as an issue. You have to follow some to rules for some classes. Clearly some people Don't like that classes like that exist, but I Don't believe that invalidates a whole class. Nor is wholly a bad thing when compared to more restrictive to constraints.
Honestly think them being limited with non-flying mount is a way bigger deal than than orders.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Let's see if I can sum up what we've heard so far. (I'm summing up, not stipulating these points or necessarily agreeing with them.)
1) Very few players hate the cavalier, but many disdain the class and regard it as weaker than most other full-BAB classes.
2) The foremost reason for this dislike is the inclusion of a mount mechanic that is mechanically inferior to certain options for other classes.
3) The second reason is a feeling that "granting teamwork feats" isn't much use without a really good teamwork feat to take.
4) The third reason is that there's no supernatural reason for Orders granting special benefits.
4) Some kind of argument about whether horses can learn to walk a tightrope? I don't know, I kinda faded in and out there.
5) Those who dislike the class feel that it's good at what it does best, so it's not utterly useless, but anybody who doesn't want to run a mounted-combat specialist in a campaign which mostly takes place outdoors should avoid it.Did I miss anything?
I've only scanned the thread, but I think you've covered a lot of concerns.
I like the cavalier, and I'm cool with the teamwork feat part of it.
The mounted part does pigeonhole it and limit its use. Part of the issue is (and apologies if I am repeating something someone else) that it makes a cardinal mistake that Paizo actually FIXED with all other classes: people having oft complained in 3.5 of having to deal with a mount/familiar/animal companion when they didn't necessarily want one, and often liked and wanted more alternate class abilities that replaced them; therefore Paizo made sure that all the classes that offered such things also offered a non-animal companion version (arcane bond, hunter's bond, etc.).
So to then turn around and create a class that absolutely is utterly wrapped around the idea of an animal companion is entirely a backward step.
And I recall Paizo developers arguing "but it's called a cavalier so it ALWAYS has to be mounted cavalry." But of course, they could have called it a "champion" or a "bachelor" or "ralph" or anything else, written it nearly exactly as is, but simply offer an alternative to mount. So instead of "mount" it'd have "champion's bond" and one choice would be the mount and all that entails, and another would be something else--perhaps bolstered armor or some kind of marshalling ability.
Hmmm... maybe this needs to be homebrewed...
But of course, they could have called it a "champion" or a "bachelor" or
Yeah but if they called it "bachelor" then we'd have long threads of people arguing it ruins the class for them 'cause now their character can't marry the hawt Tiefling they met while playing at the con, and the only straitjacket they want to wear is the one the Tiefling has them use when [redacted].
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So to then turn around and create a class that absolutely is utterly wrapped around the idea of an animal companion is entirely a backward step.The Sword Saint Samurai Archetype does away with the Mount. Other such Archetypes may well follow.
Thanks for pointing that out to me. Unfortunately, that is in a Golarion specific book, and thus not available necessarily to everyone who plays Pathfinder RPG. Many games I play in are restricted to RPG-line books only, and I personally do not run games set in Golarion so don't use its resources -- and moreover, it is not in the official Paizo Pathfinder Reference Document (yes, it is on d20pfsrd.org, but that is not the same thing as Paizo's PRD).
And unfortunately, I do not know how many more setting neutral books we'll see that will have archetypes in them.
It does show that they are willing to reconsider the idea. I wish they hadn't made a class that was so very pigeonholed to start with (but I feel that way about a number of the non-core base classes). Again, I like the cavalier, but it could have been easily written to allow more options and still be a thematic honor bound heavy soldier type character class.
Just in case I haven't overlooked it in all those posts: A good way to mitigate problems such as transporting your mounts is the "hosteling" magic armor ability. It's rather cheap and there is no limit as to how often you can use it per day. It's also safer in some situations for your mount to be there - and you do not have to worry about food for it ;-)
So to then turn around and create a class that absolutely is utterly wrapped around the idea of an animal companion is entirely a backward step.
It's not a core class, just a base class. It's designed to address a fairly specific need for martial classes. Mounted combat, specifically having a survivable mount that allows for it. The other goodies were put in to round out the class. People who don't want a mount want those goodies.
It does show that they are willing to reconsider the idea. I wish they hadn't made a class that was so very pigeonholed to start with (but I feel that way about a number of the non-core base classes). Again, I like the cavalier, but it could have been easily written to allow more options and still be a thematic honor bound heavy soldier type character class.
The class was "pigeonholed" for a reason, noted above. It's like saying the Wizard was "pigeonholed" because they can only cast arcane spells. It's what they do.
A lot of classes have a class ability that not everyone is enthralled with. You take the class or not depending on how much you want the other bits. As for archtypes, I think if you are replacing what is arguably, based on the class name, the main ability of the class you would be better off with another (new) base class. An example, using the Wizard again, would be an "archtype" dropping their ability to cast arcane spells. Would it still be a Wizard? How about a Fighter that dropped it's proficiency with martial and simple weapons? Would it be a Fighter. Or should they be something else?
My 2 cp, as always ymmv.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
So to then turn around and create a class that absolutely is utterly wrapped around the idea of an animal companion is entirely a backward step.
It's not a core class, just a base class. It's designed to address a fairly specific need for martial classes. Mounted combat, specifically having a survivable mount that allows for it. The other goodies were put in to round out the class. People who don't want a mount want those goodies.
It does show that they are willing to reconsider the idea. I wish they hadn't made a class that was so very pigeonholed to start with (but I feel that way about a number of the non-core base classes). Again, I like the cavalier, but it could have been easily written to allow more options and still be a thematic honor bound heavy soldier type character class.
The class was "pigeonholed" for a reason, noted above. It's like saying the Wizard was "pigeonholed" because they can only cast arcane spells. It's what they do.
A lot of classes have a class ability that not everyone is enthralled with. You take the class or not depending on how much you want the other bits. As for archtypes, I think if you are replacing what is arguably, based on the class name, the main ability of the class you would be better off with another (new) base class. An example, using the Wizard again, would be an "archtype" dropping their ability to cast arcane spells. Would it still be a Wizard? How about a Fighter that dropped it's proficiency with martial and simple weapons? Would it be a Fighter. Or should they be something else?
My 2 cp, as always ymmv.
There were already classes and, later, archetypes that allow various characters to specialize in mounted combat. A paladin with a mount, a ranger with a mount, and the various archetypes of fighter, barbarian, and ranger that focus on mounted combat specifically, etc. etc.
Mounts are not unique to the cavalier and you don't need to play one to do extremely well at mounted combat.
To me, what is attractive and unique about the class is that it is a heavy soldier class that does not cast spells but IS also good at some social and support abilities. Its challenge, tactician, and banner abilities are fairly unique (even if they are not the only way to accomplish the sort of things they do). It is especially attractive to people who like the "knightly" idea of the paladin but want to disassociate the knightlyness/code of honor-ness from the divine champion factors.
And I don't presume to know whether Paizo prioritized mount first, then its other abilities, or vice versa, and my assumption is that all aspects were developed in tandem as part of the whole "knight" package. I just don't think, personally, they went the right way about it. (This opinion is of course of the same value of any other opinion, which is to say, very little.)
I stand by (and elaborate upon) my prior statement that they could have built a class with those specific themes and abilities without requiring a mount (but, importantly and notably, leaving it as an option), and it still would have been a good, solid class that is not quite like any other. The restriction to a mount is not what makes it special or unique, and in fact can detract from the rest of the class concept's excellent and worthy potential.
The class was "pigeonholed" for a reason, noted above. It's like saying the Wizard was "pigeonholed" because they can only cast arcane spells. It's what they do.
Most martials however aren't "pigeonholed" into a particular fighting style, and casting is a very wide variety of things. Even summoner's do more than summon things and alchemist do more than alchemy. No one is saying they want the cavalier to learn to throw fireballs and fly, more so just have more options beyond charging on mount I think.
Sword saint is actually pretty underwhelming in my experience. Iajutsu sounds cool, but it just doesn't work out in my experience. Its also an archetype of an archetype, and very far off from a cavalier.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There were already classes and, later, archetypes that allow various characters to specialize in mounted combat. A paladin with a mount, a ranger with a mount, and the various archetypes of fighter, barbarian, and ranger that focus on mounted combat specifically, etc. etc.Mounts are not unique to the cavalier and you don't need to play one to do extremely well at mounted combat.
Paladin gains the option of a mount at 5th level, Ranger at 4th level. Rangers are at -3 in comparison to Druid on the animal companion. The Paladin is at level at least, even if they wait longer to have the option. Cavaliers get their mount at 1st level and are at level for the stats of their companion. There is a difference. Handing out mounts / pets etc. to archtypes like candy is just cutting into the classes that already have them.
To me, what is attractive and unique about the class is that it is a heavy soldier class that does not cast spells but IS also good at some social and support abilities. Its challenge, tactician, and banner abilities are fairly unique (even if they are not the only way to accomplish the sort of things they do). It is especially attractive to people who like the "knightly" idea of the paladin but want to disassociate the knightlyness/code of honor-ness from the divine champion factors.
Knights and horses. You'd almost think they go together. The other abilities go with the knightly image as well. But none is so iconic as the mount. If the primary aspect of the class had been something besides mounted combat they wouldn't have called it a "Cavalier". It's the classic western trope.
And I don't presume to know whether Paizo prioritized mount first, then its other abilities, or vice versa, and my assumption is that all aspects were developed in tandem as part of the whole "knight" package. I just don't think, personally, they went the right way about it. (This opinion is of course of the same value of any other opinion, which is to say, very little.)
If they had called it "captain" or "commander" I'd say they chose some other aspect first. I'd say they did a good job. I might have preferred a style option of some type for Fighters for different types of combat (mounted, Archer, etc.) but this works pretty well.
I stand by (and elaborate upon) my prior statement that they could have built a class with those specific themes and abilities without requiring a mount (but, importantly and notably, leaving it as an option), and it still would have been a good, solid class that is not quite like any other. The restriction to a mount is not what makes it special or unique, and in fact can detract from the rest of the class concept's excellent and worthy potential.
I designed a prestige class I called "Captain". It was for characters who went into a command role. It didn't have mounted combat or challenge of course. But it did have tactical feats, and a "rally" / morale ability similar to banner. I'm modifying it to mesh with the new rules / feats etc. A duelist type character could well have a challenge ability. For that matter I am modifying the Cavalier for elves as a mounted archer archtype, but swapping out the charge bonuses for mounted archery still leaves the mount orientation. I can find other ways for characters to gain those other abilities without major surgery on the Cavalier. Again, ymmv.
The class was "pigeonholed" for a reason, noted above. It's like saying the Wizard was "pigeonholed" because they can only cast arcane spells. It's what they do.
Most martials however aren't "pigeonholed" into a particular fighting style, and casting is a very wide variety of things. Even summoner's do more than summon things and alchemist do more than alchemy. No one is saying they want the cavalier to learn to throw fireballs and fly, more so just have more options beyond charging on mount I think.
Sword saint is actually pretty underwhelming in my experience. Iajutsu sounds cool, but it just doesn't work out in my experience. Its also an archetype of an archetype, and very far off from a cavalier.
I'd say martials are all pigeon holed. Just not as tightly as a Cavalier. Which makes perfect sense, there are only so many ways to kill people. Mounted and foot are the two immediate divisions that come to mind. Mounted for Cavaliers of course :) Melee and archery are the next. There should be a mounted archer archtype imo (that's a mouthful). Followed by dividing melee into sword and board or two weapon. Then there is the armor question. I can see a Cavalier having melee or mounted archery as choices. And there is no reason that the melee option couldn't involve sword and board or two weapon (either could involve a (as in one) lance). I can see variation in armor proficiency as well. I just don't see the Cavalier dropping the namesake ability -- mounted combat. If you want to dump the mount, use another class. This is just my opinion, everybody is welcome to theirs btw. I'm not trying to be "dogmatic" or annoying.
How exactly are the other characters stuck with one style? A fighter can choose between any option, as can the barbarian, and the ranger, and the inquisitor. You didn't really explain how.
This is just my opinion, everybody is welcome to theirs btw. I'm not trying to be "dogmatic" or annoying.
Not a problem, though the "then don't play a cavalier" is a bit much to me. Everyone's entitled to an opinion, particularly on a thread that is all about opinion's.
How exactly are the other characters stuck with one style? A fighter can choose between any option, as can the barbarian, and the ranger, and the inquisitor. You didn't really explain how.
This is just my opinion, everybody is welcome to theirs btw. I'm not trying to be "dogmatic" or annoying.
Not a problem, though the "then don't play a cavalier" is a bit much to me. Everyone's entitled to an opinion, particularly on a thread that is all about opinion's.
Not stuck with just one style, but I don't consider "mounted" as just one style. I was pointing out that all martial characters are limited to a relative handful of styles.
I have played a long time (since 1974). I can remember when there were no feats, no skills and "customization" was pretty much down to choice of class and luck of the die rolls. There is, obviously, a heck of a lot more customization available now but I'm more comfortable with classes having limited options than most newer gamers. If I wanted something different, I'd look at other classes before I worried about how limited any given one is. That's just me though. As I said, my opinion, ymmv :)
Having said that, I'm happier with some options btw. I do think there can be too many options within a single class though. You can get to the point where the advantage of a class based system is lost, or at least watered down, in a sea of options. I don't think we are quite there yet :)
Still, some people think there are too many base classes, I'm more likely to think there are too many feats / archtypes (given that they stack).
They get 4+ skill points, I imagine, because they are intended to max out Ride, while distributing the rest of their ranks between fighter-ly skills and face skills like Diplomacy.
I just identified a significant issue I have with the Cavalier. By being tied to the Mount mechanic, it actually interferes with the class concept. Mount makes it awkward/inefficient to look at other viable mounted combat options. If you want to train a griffin, if you want to use magic items to create a mount, ride a construct, use Leadership to gain a mount cohort... your regular Mount ends up staying at home, sitting around on the couch and munching on oats. The class structure fairly encourages you to find ways to polymorph your mount into other things. It reminds me of the video game Fate, where you collect special fish to turn your animal companion into various powerful/useful forms. Or A Boy and His Blog.
The class was "pigeonholed" for a reason, noted above. It's like saying the Wizard was "pigeonholed" because they can only cast arcane spells. It's what they do.Most martials however aren't "pigeonholed" into a particular fighting style, and casting is a very wide variety of things. Even summoner's do more than summon things and alchemist do more than alchemy. No one is saying they want the cavalier to learn to throw fireballs and fly, more so just have more options beyond charging on mount I think.
Sword saint is actually pretty underwhelming in my experience. Iajutsu sounds cool, but it just doesn't work out in my experience. Its also an archetype of an archetype, and very far off from a cavalier.
Luring cavaliers are mounted archers, beast riders and huntmasters can focus on teamwork melee or an archer/meatshield tandem, sword saints are melee focused and the gendarme beastmaster has enough feats to be a combat manuever specialist.
Which fighting styles are you missing out on here?
Not trying to tell you what to think, but it seems like you've decided that cavaliers are only good at charging. You're ignoring, or at least are disregarding because perhaps you feel they are too weak, the many archetypes that have been provided to make a heavy fighter with a pet in contrast to the ranger/druid. I'm sorry if you feel I'm putting words in your mouth, but this is the impression you are giving me.
A cavalier charge build is a thing of beauty, but having a pet and party buffs opens up a variety of tactical options beyond that that can make the cav an effective controller, even if you are forced to be a member of a knightly order or are forced to take the knight errant package.
They get 4+ skill points, I imagine, because they are intended to max out Ride, while distributing the rest of their ranks between fighter-ly skills and face skills like Diplomacy.
Ride DCs are so low (inappropriately IMO) that they don't need to max it out, but they can certainly flesh out other field and face skills easily.
I just identified a significant issue I have with the Cavalier. By being tied to the Mount mechanic, it actually interferes with the class concept. Mount makes it awkward/inefficient to look at other viable mounted combat options. If you want to train a griffin, if you want to use magic items to create a mount, ride a construct, use Leadership to gain a mount cohort... your regular Mount ends up staying at home, sitting around on the couch and munching on oats. The class structure fairly encourages you to find ways to polymorph your mount into other things. It reminds me of the video game Fate, where you collect special fish to turn your animal companion into various powerful/useful forms. Or A Boy and His Blog.
That's a very good point.
Which fighting styles are you missing out on here?
Two weapon fighting, Sword and Board, two handed fighting, maneuver master, Unarmed/styles, Archery, reach, Crossbow archery. There are quiet a few combat styles, but most martials tend to go with two handed. I always liked the cool tricks you could do with some of the other builds, but straight damage tends to fall on two handed and power attack. Most of the styles have their own issues of course, and the cavaliers static modifiers come from charging and particularly with a lance and mounted.
Not trying to tell you what to think, but it seems like you've decided that cavaliers are only good at charging. You're ignoring, or at least are disregarding because perhaps you feel they are too weak, the many archetypes that have been provided to make a heavy fighter with a pet in contrast to the ranger/druid. I'm sorry if you feel I'm putting words in your mouth, but this is the impression you are giving me.
I know they can do other things, but their class isn't really built around them with the exception of a few orders and archetypes(though the nilla' class definitely has its focus.)
I would like it if it was more of a beast master gig, but the class itself is restricted to a horse and even houndsmaster is restricted to particular pets(bird/dog). As a mounted cavalier your really stuck with a horse. As a beastrider you do lose access to quiet a few archetypes(though not all of them important.) Gendarme itself is built to be a mounted terror in its own text, and its bonus feats have a focus on mounted combat.
My main beef with the class is definitely that it feels restrictive. A few of these archetypes feel like they give me something I should've had in the first place, in particular beast rider. If they'd build orders more like rage powers or mysteries with lots of choice and without mandates I might like it more.
I wonder if it is a coincidence that the people who "feel" some classes are too restrictive seem to be the same people who "feel" that only a few options "work"...
Huh, who said that? Mounted combat itself has some critisms, but I don't see people saying "Only two handed fighting ever works ever! Everything else is moot!" or something along those lines.
Two weapon fighting, Sword and Board, two handed fighting, maneuver master, Unarmed/styles, Archery, reach, Crossbow archery. There are quiet a few combat styles, but most martials tend to go with two handed. I always liked the cool tricks you could do with some of the other builds, but straight damage tends to fall on two handed and power attack. Most of the styles have their own issues of course, and the cavaliers static modifiers come from charging and particularly with a lance and mounted.
There a multitude of archetypes that do away with the charge bonuses in favour of pack animals, range damage or party buffs. 5 at least. And the cav has as many combat feats as a barbarian, if not more with the gendarme, so he can build those trees as well as they can. Plus they get a pet.
I know they can do other things, but their class isn't really built around them with the exception of a few orders and archetypes(though the nilla' class definitely has its focus.)
I would like it if it was more of a beast master gig, but the class itself is restricted to a horse and even houndsmaster is restricted to particular pets(bird/dog). As a mounted cavalier your really stuck with a horse. As a beastrider you do lose access to quiet a few archetypes(though not all of them important.) Gendarme itself is built to be a mounted terror in its own text, and its bonus feats have a focus on mounted combat.
My main beef with the class is definitely that it feels restrictive. A few of these archetypes feel like they give me something I should've had in the first place, in particular beast rider. If they'd build orders more like rage powers or mysteries with lots of choice and without mandates I might like it more.
Gendarme may be described as a mounted terror, but many of the feats are actually better suited for a mobile combat manuever specialist.
I am in agreement that the cavalier deserves a better companion list, but RAW allows GM fiat in the suitable companions choice. When I DM, I let a lot fly, pun fully intended, when the cav picks his companion. I think it's silly that a druid can be an eagle knight but not a cavalier.
When I GMed Curse of the Crimson Throne and converted to Pathfinder, I remade the Gray Maidens as Cavaliers instead of Fighters, because Order of the Lion was incredibly appropriate for them. It also made them vastly weaker, because they were giving up feats for mounted abilities they would never be able to use. Challenge proved a weak boost to their power--the AC penalty made them die faster. The most interesting thing to do would have been to give every Maiden in a group a separate teamwork feat to share with the group, but most teamwork feats, especially the entry level ones available to low-level cavaliers, are terrible.
Samurai, with its emphasis on persistence and resistance, would actually be a much better class for them mechanically if the serial numbers could be filed off.
When I GMed Curse of the Crimson Throne and converted to Pathfinder, I remade the Gray Maidens as Cavaliers instead of Fighters, because Order of the Lion was incredibly appropriate for them. It also made them vastly weaker, because they were giving up feats for mounted abilities they would never be able to use. Challenge proved a weak boost to their power--the AC penalty made them die faster. The most interesting thing to do would have been to give every Maiden in a group a separate teamwork feat to share with the group, but most teamwork feats, especially the entry level ones available to low-level cavaliers, are terrible.
Samurai, with its emphasis on persistence and resistance, would actually be a much better class for them mechanically if the serial numbers could be filed off.
Did you give them their mounts? Or did you nerf the class feature that provides meatshields, mobility, higher ground bonuses, action economy and potential flanking bonuses?
Because if they didn't have their mounts, and if you didn't synergize their teamwork feats, no wonder they were worse than fighters. Giving them shield wall alone would help to negate those AC penalties you refer to.
Also, why can't you file the serial numbers off a samurai? Grey Maiden Samurai sound perfectly suitable.
Ride DCs are so low (inappropriately IMO) that they don't need to max it out, but they can certainly flesh out other field and face skills easily.
If you only care about the standard skill DCs, sure (same goes for Swim).
If you care about Mounted Combat, and beating enemies' attack roll, you want every bonus you can get.
Also, why can't you file the serial numbers off a samurai? Grey Maiden Samurai sound perfectly suitable.
Probably would be, depending on what you were going for. Not if you want the tactician ability however, which is what was used in the example. Samurai trades out all of the charge abilities and for resolve and tactician for weapon expertise. Probably wouldn't be an awful house rule to change weapon expertise to any weapon, but by RAW you can't even give it to other eastern weapons like the Nodachi, nor western weapons if your playing a character who isn't from a place with katanas.
Samurai aren't cavalier in every respect.