So what are your guys opinions on the cavalier? I mean, you see threads about barbarians, fighters, and pallies all the time and they are all always brought up regarding the goos and the bad regarding martial strength but you never hear anything about cavalier.
So what do u guys think about them?
I've played a samurai to good effect. Making straight-forward feat choices (2H katana, emphasis on crits) you can make an effective martial character with a lot of tactical flexibility. Trying to build a medium cavalier or samurai around charging is a trap, in my opinion, unless the game is set in terrain favorable to cavalry.
Right now I'm playing a Aasimar Huntsman Cavalier in Serpent Skull and I'm having a lot of fun with it. We're about 7th level so far and the class is working nicely. (Rest of the group is Holy Light Paladin, Inquisitor, Oracle and a Fire Mage/Sorcerer)
It gives some interesting options I don't have quite the staying power of the Pally but I've got some good control and a lot of helpful tricks. Huntsman swaps out the horse for a pack of Dogs and Birds. I've got 2 dogs and 1 bird right now and I've put a lot into them. I've effectively got more attacks than anyone else in the group, although if we are up against something tough I often command the animals to use Aid another. The Pack Challenge can be brutal since all of the animals get my Challenge bonus. As an Aasimar I get access to a feat that makes them all Celetial as well so the Dogs get Damage Reduction and Smite (Bird isn't high enough level, mostly I just have it Aid another)
Once per day I can be Awesome (Challenge + Dogs Smite + Tactics)
three or four times per day I can be Great (Challenge + Tactics)
the rest of the time helpful and average. (just me and the Dogs doing normal damage)
So far I'm finding the Cavalier is about picking your Moments. When those Moments come you unload and tear something apart. The rest of the time I play support to the Pally or the Inquisitor using the Dogs and Bird to limit what our enemies can do or to aid the others. I have to remember that the Dogs get a Free trip more though.
Eh, to me they just feel too disjointed. They've got the challenge ability, which is kind of a less good smite, they've got the Banner and teamwork abilities, which sort of helps them in a support role (except banner is only ok, and there are only a couple Teamwork feats that are really all that good), and they've got mounted combat. Cut them down to one or two of those, and focus heavier on it, and they could be a decent martial, but as it stands, challenge is just sub-par Smite, the support stuff is not nearly as good as you could get from other classes, and mounted combat stuff is blanked by fighting indoors.
How I'd redo the class is to actually split it in two. On one class cut back on the reliance on mounted combat, to almost a non-factor. Pump the support elements to essentially get somewhere between the Martial of 3.5 and the Warlord of 4e. There are a few ways to go about this, but I'd basically want this half to perform the same sort of 'force multiplier' effect as the bard, but also have a more martial-focused base. The other half could easily be rolled into a Ranger or Fighter archetype, which gains mounted combat abilities.
I have seen them used to great effect. When they get the opportunity, their charges are hellacious, with challenges thrown in for candy. This is no different than say, smite or SA. The rest of the time, if built well, they make a decent combatant and can be a great team player.
You will see many posters getting hung up on the "but mounts!" aspect. Read one of these posts, then move beyond it and never read another. It has nothing more to contribute.
When building a ranger, speak with your DM about theme and enemies. When building a LG fighter, speak with your party about theme and alignments. When building a cavalier, ask if is primarily an indoor adventure...and then make a small cavalier.