Ok, let's say I want to play a cavalier, but KNOW that I'll not be needing a mount considering the huge amount of dungeon crawling, can I get an archetype that replace any mount-related ability by something else... aside from the Daring Champion in ACG?
Anything related to weapons, like replacing the mount by the paladin's weapon bond?
Yeah... the paladin has the ability to select either a weapon or a mount... but not the cavalier. You could argue that a mount is needed since it's called a "cavalier", but a "knight" doesn't have to be mounted... I think...
Contributor
|
You basically have four first-party options:
The Daring Champion, which you seem to be aware of. :)
The Huntmaster, who gets birds or dogs instead.
The Musketeer, who gets a gun instead. This may be your best bet. Note that there are cavalier options that let you be better at range as well as melee.
And the Catellan, who's a fortified-type warrior that likes using cover and higher ground. He also gets an animal, because apparently we just can't work alone. :/
If these don't work, the Undersized Mount feat is also a thing. :)
Hope this helps. :)
Out of curiosity why do you want to play a Cavalier if you do not want to use the mount? In other words, what is it that you want out of the Cavalier that you do not think you can get elsewhere?
I ask because it is likely possible to get the abilities you want from a different class.
|
Contributor
|
Out of curiosity why do you want to play a Cavalier if you do not want to use the mount? In other words, what is it that you want out of the Cavalier that you do not think you can get elsewhere?
I ask because it is likely possible to get the abilities you want from a different class.
Or the variant multiclass. Cavalier has one of the best for playing the class without having to actually take levels. :)
I'd recommend playing a Small-sized Cavalier because it kind of circumvents the size issue. Gnomes and Halflings make excellent Order of the Sword-cavaliers.
You could also choose to play a Medium-sized cavalier whose Mount functions more like an Animal Companion as in, you simply don't ride it so you don't have the size-issues. It also makes your mount a nice flank buddy. You'll still need some backup plans if you have to cross environmental hazards.
If you really want to be a mountless Knight in shining armor I'd recommend just playing a Fighter or Paladin and choosing your feats and equipment to fit your playing style and character flavour.
I'd embrace the Cavalier's mount personally, I mean it's just one of the class's major plusses.
|
Contributor
|
Ah, but a Samurai is a Cavalier.Sword Saint Samurai.Unavailable to cavaliers, unfortunately. :)
I know. :)
What I was referring to was the fact that it trades out a class feature cavaliers lack, much in the same way ninja can't be roof runners. On checking the printed source, though... it's an ability samurai also lack.
So... that's an issue. :)
Out of curiosity why do you want to play a Cavalier if you do not want to use the mount? In other words, what is it that you want out of the Cavalier that you do not think you can get elsewhere?
I ask because it is likely possible to get the abilities you want from a different class.
My main reason is the fact that riding a mount inside a catacomb, an abandoned temple, a cliffside observatory or a crumbling mine... isn't practical :P Basically, it's to deal with your typical dungeons.
Also, like I stated, the paladin can get either a weapon bond or a mount... but the cavalier doesn't have such an option.
I won't lie - I came here partially just to complain about how we need a cavalier archetype that just replaces the mount, and nothing else. :/
The Cavalier has some features that rely on having a mount, does it not? I'd want them traded out as well.
I won't lie - I came here partially just to complain about how we need a cavalier archetype that just replaces the mount, and nothing else. :/The Cavalier has some features that rely on having a mount, does it not? I'd want them traded out as well.
isn't that pretty much exactly what the Daring Champion does? they lose mount, expert trainer (which makes them better at training/handling their mount), and the mounted charge abilities...
Also, why not daring champion? It does what you're looking for and is a highly functional archetype...
|
If you want to outright replace the mount, you can kiiiind of do it with the Battle Herald prestige class. Just start as a Standard Bearer cavalier, getting an early banner and delaying your mount til level 5. Before that you can just multiclass into something that gives Inspire Courage and then get into BH by level 6.
That way you still have your early Order abilities, and you're even more focused on the buffing and support side of the class. Heck, if you get Bardic Performance from a certain Brawler archetype you can even stay full BAB.
The Daring Champion loses all mount-based abilities. It's perfectly viable to build it strength based as well, if feeling locked into a dexterity build is your hangup.
Out of curiosity why do you want to play a Cavalier if you do not want to use the mount? In other words, what is it that you want out of the Cavalier that you do not think you can get elsewhere?
I ask because it is likely possible to get the abilities you want from a different class.
My main reason is the fact that riding a mount inside a catacomb, an abandoned temple, a cliffside observatory or a crumbling mine... isn't practical :P Basically, it's to deal with your typical dungeons.
Also, like I stated, the paladin can get either a weapon bond or a mount... but the cavalier doesn't have such an option.
The question he's asking is why are you wanting a cavalier instead of a Barb, fighter, slayer, ranger, brawler, etc... What is it about the cavalier that you still want to play it without the mount? What does it do that these others don't?
|
If you want Tactician, the Tactician Fighter Archetype gets it, and is good. If you want Challenge+Order abilities, Sword Saint Samurai. If you want both, Daring Champion has both, and doesn't need to be dex-based to be successful. Hell, other than a few deeds, you don't even need to use a one-handed piercing weapon, and you can still benefit from those deeds if you wield a one-handed piercing weapon two-handed.
|
|
Ok, let's say I want to play a cavalier, but KNOW that I'll not be needing a mount considering the huge amount of dungeon crawling, can I get an archetype that replace any mount-related ability by something else... aside from the Daring Champion in ACG?
I have a level 5 Huntmaster Cavalier in PFSP. I picked the Dog for a animal companion. With the animal companion sharing challenge damage and the trip on a bite attack. I'm very happy with the way the animal companion and huntmaster work together.
Beast Rider Cavalier with the Undersized Mount feat. You can now ride a dog that fits through hallways, while still using your Charge.
At level 4, you can ride a Cheetah, or a Pig, or a Giant Gecko. At level 7, you can ride a VELOCIRAPTOR (and those things are basically unkillable).
|
|
Ah, but a Samurai is a Cavalier.Sword Saint Samurai.Unavailable to cavaliers, unfortunately. :)I know. :)
What I was referring to was the fact that it trades out a class feature cavaliers lack, much in the same way ninja can't be roof runners. On checking the printed source, though... it's an ability samurai also lack.
So... that's an issue. :)
Fun Fact: Alternate Classes like the Samurai still count as the original class for most effects. The description of alternate classes states that they're actually still just archetypes, but just change so many features typically that they kinda need a full, new write-up. It does, however, mean that, as written, the Cavalier can take the Sword Saint archetype, since it's just archetype-ception.
The cavalier can't take Sword Saint because the archetype replaces mounted archer, an ability the cav doesn't have.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Fun Fact: Alternate Classes like the Samurai still count as the original class for most effects. The description of alternate classes states that they're actually still just archetypes, but just change so many features typically that they kinda need a full, new write-up. It does, however, mean that, as written, the Cavalier can take the Sword Saint archetype, since it's just archetype-ception.Ah, but a Samurai is a Cavalier.Sword Saint Samurai.Unavailable to cavaliers, unfortunately. :)I know. :)
What I was referring to was the fact that it trades out a class feature cavaliers lack, much in the same way ninja can't be roof runners. On checking the printed source, though... it's an ability samurai also lack.
So... that's an issue. :)
Sword-saint replaces a class feature that the cavalier does not have. Thus, the cavalier cannot take it.
*edit*
ninja'd.... samurai'd?
|
Contributor
|
Unless you have access to an errata'd or edited version, I see that it replaces mounted charge. :P (Though I am being intentionally cheeky, here.)
An ability which the cavalier also lacks - they have cavalier's charge. :)
That's why I said it, for those who pointed out the alternate class thing - I know they can take it, if they have the class feature to trade out. That's why ninja can (probably) be scouts, but absolutely cannot be roof runners. :)
Out of curiosity why do you want to play a Cavalier if you do not want to use the mount? In other words, what is it that you want out of the Cavalier that you do not think you can get elsewhere?
I ask because it is likely possible to get the abilities you want from a different class.
My main reason is the fact that riding a mount inside a catacomb, an abandoned temple, a cliffside observatory or a crumbling mine... isn't practical :P Basically, it's to deal with your typical dungeons.
Also, like I stated, the paladin can get either a weapon bond or a mount... but the cavalier doesn't have such an option.
I'm sorry, JiCi, but that doesn't really answer the question. Why do you want to play a Cavalier in the first place?
I expect half of it is just the principle of the thing.
In 3.5, Druids, Paladins, Rangers, Sorcerers, and Wizards HAD to have a pet. They didn't have the option not to. Characters using those classes to best represent what abilities they had were required to babysit another little bag of hitpoints because reasons. I can well imagine that leaving a sour taste in someone's mouth.
Then Pathfinder comes along and, with a five out of five success rate, solves this issue. Do you WANT the pet? Good. Have it. Do you NOT WANT the pet? Good. Here's something else instead. Even the Wizard, who was required to use a bonded item if he didn't pick a pet, was still improved by the process.
And then Pathfinder took this wonderful design principle and threw it in the trash. A step backwards.
Because the Cavalier has other stuff a player might want for his character without being saddled with a pet. The Challenge is a big part of the Cavalier's abilities. There's also Tactician, the various Orders, and Banner. The OP might want to play a Cavalier simply to explore the novelty of a martial class that isn't a Fighter. Plenty of reasons to want to play a Cavalier that are independent (or rather, that wish they could be independent) of a freaking pet.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And then Pathfinder took this wonderful design principle and threw it in the trash. A step backwards.Because the Cavalier has other stuff a player might want for his character without being saddled with a pet. The Challenge is a big part of the Cavalier's abilities. There's also Tactician, the various Orders, and Banner. The OP might want to play a Cavalier simply to explore the novelty of a martial class that isn't a Fighter. Plenty of reasons to want to play a Cavalier that are independent (or rather, that wish they could be independent) of a freaking pet.
... except there are several cavalier archetypes that do not have a pet, so not sure where you are going with this. Daring champion works just fine as a mountless archetype.
And of course, there will always be limits on how much of a class is messed around with. For the most part a cavalier is defined by having a mount ('cavalier' literally means horseman). A hyperbole, but complaining about cavaliers not having many mount-free options is a bit like complaining about wizards not having any spell-less archetypes.
The Daring Champion loses all mount-based abilities. It's perfectly viable to build it strength based as well, if feeling locked into a dexterity build is your hangup.To be fair, going Strength means either sacrificing some of its abilities (by not being able to regenerate panache), picking from a very narrow set of weapons (that are the small handful that can natively regenerate panache), or taking the same feats you'd use to go Dex based anyway (by picking Slashing Grace so a longsword is no longer a massive trap).
I just went to double check and I don't really see anything that requires a Daring Champion to use dex. Why couldn't they walk through their adventuring career with a sibat or a heavy pick or any other one handed piercing weapon.
Heck, if you're worried about the crit range, use an Estoc.
I play an unarmed swashbuckler using snake style and I don't think I've ever been at 0 Panache in the 9 levels I've been playing him. I can't imagine the Daring Champion with a pick is in much worse shape than that.
Fun Fact: Alternate Classes like the Samurai still count as the original class for most effects. The description of alternate classes states that they're actually still just archetypes, but just change so many features typically that they kinda need a full, new write-up. It does, however, mean that, as written, the Cavalier can take the Sword Saint archetype, since it's just archetype-ception.Ah, but a Samurai is a Cavalier.Sword Saint Samurai.Unavailable to cavaliers, unfortunately. :)I know. :)
What I was referring to was the fact that it trades out a class feature cavaliers lack, much in the same way ninja can't be roof runners. On checking the printed source, though... it's an ability samurai also lack.
So... that's an issue. :)
Less Fun Fact: Mark is saying that alternate classes are not just archetypes, and that the ACG was wrong for saying that. And that archetyp-ception isn't a thing. here is a thread trying to clarify what an alternate class actually means and how it works with it's original class.
The Narrow Frame is something your mount could take that makes dungeon travel easier.
I'm sorry, JiCi, but that doesn't really answer the question. Why do you want to play a Cavalier in the first place?Out of curiosity why do you want to play a Cavalier if you do not want to use the mount? In other words, what is it that you want out of the Cavalier that you do not think you can get elsewhere?
I ask because it is likely possible to get the abilities you want from a different class.
My main reason is the fact that riding a mount inside a catacomb, an abandoned temple, a cliffside observatory or a crumbling mine... isn't practical :P Basically, it's to deal with your typical dungeons.
Also, like I stated, the paladin can get either a weapon bond or a mount... but the cavalier doesn't have such an option.
The fluff... and the exclusive abilities. I'm usually a Fighter PC who like to explore some fighting styles, but a cavalier has AT LEAST a flavorful reason to be fighting. You have your whole reputation and hierachy and order to back your story and roleplaying opportunities. Also, the challenges are a great way to battle. Finally, the cavalier is made to be a team player, which, like any spellcaster, is valuable to a group.
The fighter has become your typical shoot-first-ask-questions-later or kick-in-the-door style PC with little to no interesting story to create your character and little to no ability that makes you more than your typical sellsword.
While I do not want to turn this into a discussion about the fighter, these are my reasons: I get a better character in and out of combat with the cavalier... or the samurai to a certain extend.
However, considering the huge amount of dungeonneering, I can't go in with a mounted character, even if the mount is Medium. That's why I'm asking for ideas to replace the mount-related abilities by something else. I'll be doing more climbing and crawling than walking.
I have played a cavalier once and it was a disaster because the GM threw us through a portal to a world without horses or camels or gold or you get the idea.
I find that people usually want them because their concept isn't as holy as a paladin or as skill starved as a fighter. Challenge is a lot like smite evil without the baggage, in that it lets you nova for boss fights in a way fighters can't.
To my thinking cavalier is to aristocrat what rogue is to expert, a better PC version of the class.
Going by RAW you are going to end up with a gun, a different pet or panache if you get rid of your mount (not counting samurai) to compensate you. I would probably go for the bird companion or the gun, unless I set out to make D'Artangian on purpose.
I'm sorry, JiCi, but that doesn't really answer the question. Why do you want to play a Cavalier in the first place?Out of curiosity why do you want to play a Cavalier if you do not want to use the mount? In other words, what is it that you want out of the Cavalier that you do not think you can get elsewhere?
I ask because it is likely possible to get the abilities you want from a different class.
My main reason is the fact that riding a mount inside a catacomb, an abandoned temple, a cliffside observatory or a crumbling mine... isn't practical :P Basically, it's to deal with your typical dungeons.
Also, like I stated, the paladin can get either a weapon bond or a mount... but the cavalier doesn't have such an option.
The fluff... and the exclusive abilities. I'm usually a Fighter PC who like to explore some fighting styles, but a cavalier has AT LEAST a flavorful reason to be fighting. You have your whole reputation and hierachy and order to back your story and roleplaying opportunities. Also, the challenges are a great way to battle. Finally, the cavalier is made to be a team player, which, like any spellcaster, is valuable to a group.
The fighter has become your typical shoot-first-ask-questions-later or kick-in-the-door style PC with little to no interesting story to create your character and little to no ability that makes you more than your typical sellsword.
While I do not want to turn this into a discussion about the fighter, these are my reasons: I get a better character in and out of combat with the cavalier... or the samurai to a certain extend.
However, considering the huge amount of dungeonneering, I can't go in with a mounted character, even if the mount is Medium. That's why I'm asking for ideas to replace the mount-related abilities by something else. I'll be doing more climbing and crawling than walking.
I agree with you, but I still don't see why you can't accomplish this with the Daring Champion; one feat to use an estoc with strength is still going to be more efficient than two to get dex-to-damage.
I agree with you, but I still don't see why you can't accomplish this with the Daring Champion; one feat to use an estoc with strength is still going to be more efficient than two to get dex-to-damage.
Because the Daring Champion... was the only archetype I could find for a mount-less cavalier, so I wanted to ask you guys what else is there out there for that.
I agree with you, but I still don't see why you can't accomplish this with the Daring Champion; one feat to use an estoc with strength is still going to be more efficient than two to get dex-to-damage.Because the Daring Champion... was the only archetype I could find for a mount-less cavalier, so I wanted to ask you guys what else is there out there for that.
Drill Sergeant fighter archetype.
Divine Commander warpriest.Exemplar brawler
Vanguard slayer
Holy Tactician paladin
Holy Guide paladin
All of these gain the tactician ability. and most don't have mounts either.
It sounds like the Order is what JiCi wants out of the Cavalier, which those archetypes can't provide.
Weird there isn't an archetype that gives an Order.
It sounds like the Order is what JiCi wants out of the Cavalier, which those archetypes can't provide.
Weird there isn't an archetype that gives an Order.
Huh... aside from the Order of the Sword, which is mount-related, all other Orders can be used by archetypes.
To have quickly read the archetypes, none of them has abilities that replaces the challenges and/or the orders.
It sounds like the Order is what JiCi wants out of the Cavalier, which those archetypes can't provide.
Weird there isn't an archetype that gives an Order.
Huh... aside from the Order of the Sword, which is mount-related, all other Orders can be used by archetypes.
To have quickly read the archetypes, none of them has abilities that replaces the challenges and/or the orders.
They were saying that all of the classes I listed didn't have the Order class ability or the challenge, that that those two things are the reason you're wanting to play the cavalier instead of any of the classes I listed.
|
I wouldn't focus on this so much really. Cavalier works just fine on foot from my experiences with the class. It's an animal companion and a small bonus when charging on it that you wouldn't be using all the time.
Core abilities have little to nothing to do with being mounted. Almost all the order abilities, the challenges, tactician, etc all work just fine.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
You can safely take Strategist Standard Bearer Cavalier up to lv4 without even a HINT of a Mount, have a Banner at +2! (yay, Humans!), and have both Tactician and an ability that's BETTER than Tactician (aw, yiss).
Take Wanderer Sensei Monk for a level, grinning ear-to-ear as you've just gained Exotic Weapon Proficiency (Falcata) for freakin' FREE, and then pop on into Battle Herald.
The Answer to "I want a Cavalier without a Mount" is basically the Battle Herald all the live-long day.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The fluff... and the exclusive abilities. I'm usually a Fighter PC who like to explore some fighting styles, but a cavalier has AT LEAST a flavorful reason to be fighting. You have your whole reputation and hierachy and order to back your story and roleplaying opportunities. Also, the challenges are a great way to battle. Finally, the cavalier is made to be a team player, which, like any spellcaster, is valuable to a group.
The fighter has become your typical shoot-first-ask-questions-later or kick-in-the-door style PC with little to no interesting story to create your character and little to no ability that makes you more than your typical sellsword.
While I do not want to turn this into a discussion about the fighter, these are my reasons: I get a better character in and out of combat with the cavalier... or the samurai to a certain extend.
However, considering the huge amount of dungeonneering, I can't go in with a mounted character, even if the mount is Medium. That's why I'm asking for ideas to replace the mount-related abilities by something else. I'll be doing more climbing and crawling than walking.
You see, I do not actually buy that you are taking the class for fluff reasons. This is mostly due to your desire to throw out more than half of the fluff. So, I would ask you again what reasons you want to go with this class but I kind of tire of asking that question as I do not feel that I will get a straight answer.
I think the issue is that we do not see eye-to eye on this topic. I have never believed that taking ANY class due to fluff was a valid reason to take a class. Ever. Want to know why? Because I do not believe in being force fed the fluff that is written in the book. I can fluff my character however I like to. There is no one who can stop me. Furthermore, I have had personal conversations with several designers and I can tell you that even if they could force you to they wouldn't want to. They believe that these decisions about a character firmly should rest in a player's hands.
You see, "Cavalier" and "Fighters" are just names of classes that we can use to conveniently refer to a set of rules we are using to design a character that we want to play. The designer's job is to throw together these toolboxes that we can use to design the type of character we want to play. Fluff is something you come up with yourself and apply to the character as you see fit.
You want your Breaker Barbarian with the Trap Breaker feat to have a steampunk style? Go for it. Do you need the rules to match up with that? No. Why? Its fluff! Do you want your Cavalier to not be a knight in shining armor type and be more of a drunken murder hobo that happens to have a horse for a friend? Awesome, do it. Do you need rules to back you up? Nope, its fluff. You add it as you like. Like salt and pepper. You don't want the mount anymore because it doesn't fit your fluff? Take a archtype that doesn't give the mount.
Where this falls apart at though is if you are saying you want to go with a Cavalier because you like the "fluff". The mount is more than half of the Cavalier's "fluff". Unless by fluff you are just talking about the way you want the character to act, look and feel. If it is the latter, well... then that isn't Cavalier. That is how YOU make the character look, act and feel. You could do the same thing with a Fighter, a Ranger or a Barbarian. The fluff is up to you.
Now... if we return to the question that I have asked repeatedly:
Why do you want to play a CAVALIER? Like, what mechanics do you want out of the class?
Because if there are no mechanical reasons that you want to go with the class and you do not want to use the mount then I am better that there are a lot better ways to meet the character concept that you have in mind rather than going with a mount focused class.
If you do not answer this question then we are severely limited in the assistance that we can provide.
As an aside lads and ladies the Castellan Archetype from the Melee Tactics Toolbox replaces your mount with a Guard animal from the Ranger Animal Companion list.
It's a lot more defensive orientated than the normal Cavalier but what can you do.
Now... if we return to the question that I have asked repeatedly:
Why do you want to play a CAVALIER? Like, what mechanics do you want out of the class?Because if there are no mechanical reasons that you want to go with the class and you do not want to use the mount then I am better that there are a lot better ways to meet the character concept that you have in mind rather than going with a mount focused class.
Ok, you're harping on that way too much or you're overthinking about it to the extreme...
I'll say it again:
1) The Order's abilities
2) The abilities related to helping the group
3) The idea that a cavalier isn't just a Lego-built fighter who STILL can't serve a purpose in a game session
4) The cavalier's roleplay opportunities (yes, to me, that's important)
Now... to go back on topic:
1) The paladin can ALREADY get an ability to replace a mount.
2) The cavalier cannot initially get an ability to replace a mount, unless archetypes are taken into account
3) A mount is NOT ideal for dungeoneering... regardless of how you look at it. Fine, if you have a wide-open space campaign, but yeah... good luck even predicting this...
Why WOULDN'T I pick a class for fluff reasons? D&D isn't a video game where everything about your PC is fleshed out for you y'know. THAT's important to consider when creating a character. Maybe you don't care and only see into abilities and how much damage you can deal a round, but I go further than that...