|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
4) The cavalier's roleplay opportunities (yes, to me, that's important)
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...
These two thoughts contradict each other. If you are playing a cavalier to be a CAVALIER, you are allowing your class to flesh things out for you.
The class cavalier like any class is just a collection of mechanics that define what special tricks you can do. The role/profession of being a CAVALIER is not bound to class and can be done by any character regardless of what the character sheet says.
Being a cavalier the profession is all about mounted combat. The class doesn't have to be, but it requires archtypes to make it so.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
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...
2)I listed tons of classes that can also do the tactician ability to help the group.
3)Many of the classes I listed have more Out of Combat abilities than the fighter.4)What Lune is saying is that ANY class has the same roleplay opportunities. You could be a fighter/ranger/monk/rogue/wizard sworn to a lord and "bound to an oath", You'd just not have any mechanics for that. But they all could roleplay the need to follow their oath.
That's why Lune is saying that you don't pick a class for it's "fluff" because anyone can be a "paladin of iomedae" just not everyone can be a Paladin class "paladin of iomedae". This is why you can flesh out your fighter to be a nobleman sword to avenge is family name. or whatever else you'd want. Nothing about being a cavalier forces you to have different roleplaying.
So really you're only getting the order abilities. Now if that's a big enough reason to stick with the class then go for it. If it's not then maybe you should look into the ones I suggested.
ON TOPIC
You've already received your answer. That's just how the rules are. Cavaliers have mounts and only a few archetypes change that. If you're still expecting something please restate what you're looking for, because as far as cavaliers are concerned I feel you've received all you're going to get. Everything else will just be repeating advice at this point.
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).
Overall, both daring cavalier and swashbuckler do little to tie you to dex other than with tangent benefits. Just considering the fact that they highly encourage sword and board means they have great AC, and swash buckler has great reflex. So mostly, it just comes down to initiative and AoOs. These are really, really dex friendly, not dex dependent.
Anyway, since precise strike mostly works to make one handed attacks on par with 2 handed (when you compare early game, and later on the need to use a resource to match what 2 handed str and power attack do naturally), it is not that bad. Maybe grab a short sword/gladius.
But you could certainly just use a 2 handed heavy pick. Just enjoy the archetype as a way to go with relatively light armor (go with a mithral breast plate) and still get good AC without sacrificing mobility. And your touch AC will be fine. And maybe use a bit of the panche you get from killing blows to do a parry/riposte. Compared to a base cavalier that simply does get a mount, you are still coming out ahead.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
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...
Strategist Standard Bearer Cavalier 4 / Sensei Wanderer Monk 1 / Battle Herald [n] gets you basically everything you want.
You get the 2nd level Order ability of your Order
You gain Tactician that grows at a faster rate (lv1, lv5, lv9, lv13, lv17), PLUS an ability at lv4 called Drill Sargeant that lets you grant ANY Teamwork Feat you know to up to 4 other people for 10+[1/2 Cavalier level] MINUTES per day.
You gain Banner at lv1, and get a boost at lv4.
You gain Inspire Courage, Improved Unarmed Strike, and Exotic Weapon Proficiency with the single level dip into Sensei Wanderer Monk, along with 3 strong Saves.
That's just the first five levels.
With Battle Herald you CONTINUE to advance both your Banner and your Tactician ability; you gain the ability to make tactical commands to grant bonuses to attack in certain ways (Pincer Maneuver), bonuses to Saves (Keep Your Heads), or grant things like HD.
Woaw, woaw, woaw, how did that turn sour again? Yikes...
You've already received your answer. That's just how the rules are. Cavaliers have mounts and only a few archetypes change that. If you're still expecting something please restate what you're looking for, because as far as cavaliers are concerned I feel you've received all you're going to get. Everything else will just be repeating advice at this point.
Ok... here is where I come from: back in 3.5 D&D, druids and rangers had to get a companion, sorcerers and wizards had to get a familiar and paladins had to get a mount. In Pathfinder however, these classes now have a choice... which is basically having something else than to care for another creature.
I see the cavalier with a similar ability... which DOESN'T have an option by default. Is there an option to replace the mount? I don't know, so that's why I asked the boards for. Did we list out every single archetype a cavalier can take to replace a mount? I don't know because Paizo spread this info across myriads of sources. I hope that we listed everything, but if we didn't, let's keep on looking.
I kinda get that a cavalier is supposed to be mounted, but... wasn't the paladin supposed to be like that in 3e? Now he can be mounted, or not. The cavalier? No choice there by default...
A mount is a powerful ally... except when space can't be used at your advantage. In dungeons, that's gonna happen a lot. So basically, the paladin has an option to trade the mount for a weapon bond, while the cavalier cannot and can get screwed at any given time due to not being able to ride his mount.
Oh, nice Order of the Sword ability you got there! Too bad you can't use it because you cannot ride your horse right now... That's what I want to avoid. That's why I asked if there are archetypes to replace the mount by something else.
Kudos for those who listed archetypes that do replace the mount, that's what I've been asking for.
Oh, before I forget, the Sword Saint archetype for samurais, often regarded as a cavalier sub-archetype, replaces the mount by the Iaijutsu abilities.
Woaw, woaw, woaw, how did that turn sour again? Yikes...
You've already received your answer. That's just how the rules are. Cavaliers have mounts and only a few archetypes change that. If you're still expecting something please restate what you're looking for, because as far as cavaliers are concerned I feel you've received all you're going to get. Everything else will just be repeating advice at this point.Ok... here is where I come from: back in 3.5 D&D, druids and rangers had to get a companion, sorcerers and wizards had to get a familiar and paladins had to get a mount. In Pathfinder however, these classes now have a choice... which is basically having something else than to care for another creature.
I see the cavalier with a similar ability... which DOESN'T have an option by default. Is there an option to replace the mount? I don't know, so that's why I asked the boards for. Did we list out every single archetype a cavalier can take to replace a mount? I don't know because Paizo spread this info across myriads of sources. I hope that we listed everything, but if we didn't, let's keep on looking.
I kinda get that a cavalier is supposed to be mounted, but... wasn't the paladin supposed to be like that in 3e? Now he can be mounted, or not. The cavalier? No choice there by default...
A mount is a powerful ally... except when space can't be used at your advantage. In dungeons, that's gonna happen a lot. So basically, the paladin has an option to trade the mount for a weapon bond, while the cavalier cannot and can get screwed at any given time due to not being able to ride his mount.
Oh, nice Order of the Sword ability you got there! Too bad you can't use it because you cannot ride your horse right now... That's what I want to avoid. That's why I asked if there are archetypes to replace the mount by something else.
Kudos for those who listed archetypes that do replace the mount, that's what I've been asking for.
Here, let me introduce you to http://www.archivesofnethys.com/ especially this page
Or this site http://www.d20pfsrd.com/ again specifically this page
These have every archetype for the classes.
Also, as a general guideline on these forums, If your post has a clear answer you'll have your answer, or basically your answer, within the first 5 or so posts. Basically everything after that is a tangent or repeating.
Ok, you're harping on that way too much or you're overthinking about it to the extreme...
It is funny, because I think that is exactly what YOU are doing.
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)
First of all, saying "I'll say it again" isn't really being truthful, is it? If you look back at every time I asked this question you did not answer it until now. The closest you got was saying "The fluff... and the exclusive abilities." In my last post I was pointing out, as Imbicatus and Chess Pwn (thanx, guys) have reiterated, that the "fluff" is something that you can apply to any character regardless of class. And as far as the "exclusive abilities" goes... well, right now I think we are all wondering which abilities you believe are "exclusive". Also, that answer was pretty vague and still left us guessing what it was you were referring to.
Secondly, as Chess Pwn pointed out this has been answered for you already. He also provided some links that it seems like you must not have been familiar with before. The last chart on this page shows you which Cavalier archetypes replace mount. It also shows you which are Paizo created and which are 3rd party published.
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...
Despite the fact that multiple people have pointed out the fact that there are ways to still be mounted while in dungeons you seem pretty stuck on not wanting a mount. That is fine. However, when you say that you want to play a Cavalier in large part because of fluff but not use a mount ...well, that confuses us. It seems like you are declaring some of their class abilities as fluff centric and others not. I wonder how you are deciding this? It really starts to seem like a convenient way of not answering the question of which mechanics you want to keep from Cavalier and which you could do without.
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...
*sigh* You know, I am really trying to remain helpful to you, Jici, but that post is coming close to a personal attack. I do not think you know me well enough to state that I only care about raw numbers on a character. However, I can tell from that that rather short sighted statement that it seems like you belong to the group of people who believe that power gaming (aka making an effective character) and roleplaying are mutually exclusive. That opinion is based on fallacy and I can tell you there are several people on these boards who enjoy both equally, myself included.
When I make a character I typically think of a concept and then I go find rules and mechanics that help to bring that concept to life. I do this not just to make a character effective but also to make that image I have in my head come to life with the abilities that such a concept should have. Many people here do the same thing.
So, when you ask why wouldn't you pick a class for fluff reasons? Well, I think that has already been answered for you.
To try to understand where we are coming from when we are trying to help you: we are not going to be helpful in answering fluff questions? The reason is because you can fluff your character however you want regardless of what the name of the class is that you pick. I think you already know this because despite wanting to play a "Cavalier" you do not wish to have or use a mount. You could do that without modifying the base Cavalier and just never use your mount. But you want other abilities in place of your mount. This is when we have to ask the question of which abilities are you looking for in this character and which abilities do you not want. It really does boil down to you asking a question that is rooted in mechanics, you see.
The sooner any poster realizes that the best route to getting the abilities that they want out of a character may not be the first class, feat or ability they thought of the sooner we are able to get to actually providing useful, helpful feedback. We are not looking to talk you out of playing a Cavalier. We are trying to understand what you want the character to do so that we can provide you with feedback that fits your desires.
Let me try to ask some probing questions here that might help us give you more directly helpful feedback:
1. What role do you want this character to fulfill in your party?
2. Have you considered what tactics you would like your character to employ in combat?
3. What type of weapon are you considering using? 1-handed, 2-handed, two weapon fighting, sword and board, polearm/reach weapon?
4. Are skills important to your concept? Which ones?
5. Is bolstering your party a large part of your concept?
6. Do you have any compunctions about which race you would like to play?
7. What resources are allowed? Is this a PFS game or home game?
| 2 people 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.
Where I was going with that was just a general complaint that even archetypes that replace a Mount are only "halfway-fixes". What do I mean by that?
Almost without exception, every Paladin can take any archetype no matter whether they picked a mount for their Divine Bond. There are a few archetypes that specify the Paladin HAS to pick a mount (Shining Knight) or has to NOT pick a mount (Divine Defender, a few others), but the usual rule is that they don't care.
The most helpful aspect of how the Paladin is written is that both the mount and the otger option are written as a single ability: Divine Bond. An archetype doesn't have to specify mount or not-mount, it's written into the ability from the get-go (because, again, Paizo knew what they were doing way back when they wrote the Core Rulebook and made every class with a pet have it as an option).
Something like the Daring Champion, on the other hand, requires that you not just replace the mount in order to not have a mount, but a number of other abilities that then cut you off from other archetypes. I.e., Daring Champion replaces Mount, but has the side effect of also replacing Cavalier's Charge, Expert Trainer, Mighty Charge, or Supreme Charge. So no Gendarme, no Honor Guard, no Luring Cavalier, no Musketeer, no Standard Bearer, and no Strategist. And that's just Ultimate Combat.
What they should've done is written up a list of not-pet abilities, but without formatting them as an archetype. Instead, they should have been written in the same manner as, for example, the Danger Sense ability of the Unchained Barbarian and Rogue.
"Danger Sense (Ex): ... This ability counts as trap sense for the purpose of any feat or class prerequisite, and can be replaced by any archetype class feature that replaces trap sense. ..."
Is it Trap Sense? No. For the purposes of other archetypes, does it matter? Happily, no.
The Daring Champion, on the other hand, does replace the Mount and other abilities that don't help a not-pet character, but only by closing themselves off to a number of other archetypes that, had the abilities of the Daring Champion not been written as an archetype and instead with language similar to the Danger Sense ability I quoted above, they would be able to take.
So, it's a fix, but only a halfway-fix.
And as for the Cavalier being called the "Cavalier", meaning "horseman", first of all, I never pay attention to class names. Second of all, I'd like you to explain what part of the name "Shining Knight" (an archetype for the Paladin that HAS to have a mount) means "has to have a mount". Is it the "Shining" part or the "Knight" part?
...
Regardless, I agree that the thread has probably run its course and all the helpful advice that could be given has been given. Outside the realm of possible houserules, that is.
|
So your complaint is that the core class doesn't have a choice not to take a mount built in?
I could perhaps understand that, if the Cavalier did not have other class features involving having a mount. The only way I can see it working is is you remove these other class features, replace it with something more neutral in mechanic and then offer an alternate class feature that offers a mount or another option.
All in all, it would require quite the rewrite and many have expressed the thought that it would go against the fluff. A cavalier without a mount isn't a cavalier since it has built into the fluff being a mounted warrior.
So your complaint is that the core class doesn't have a choice not to take a mount built in?
I could perhaps understand that, if the Cavalier did not have other class features involving having a mount. The only way I can see it working is is you remove these other class features, replace it with something more neutral in mechanic and then offer an alternate class feature that offers a mount or another option.
All in all, it would require quite the rewrite and many have expressed the thought that it would go against the fluff. A cavalier without a mount isn't a cavalier since it has built into the fluff being a mounted warrior.
Well, if you compare it to all the other classes with animal companions built in (druid, ranger, paladin), they all give you an alternative (domain, giving allies your favored bonus, weapon enhancement). Of course, you are also right that mounts are far more baked into the cavalier class as a whole.
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...
I'm somewhat unsure, when you've been presented with other options in this thread and denied them, as to what exactly you're looking for.
To that end, I would suppose, you're looking for a Cavalier that has:
a) Challenge
b) Banner
c) Tactician
d) An Order
Since these features seem to be the cornerstone of the Cavalier sans mount.
To that end I'd like to suggest that, utilizing the new Unchained Book, you try a Dragoon Fighter (VMC Cavalier).
In this way you still gain Challenge, Tactician and an Order through the VMC while Dragoon supplies the Banner. Yes there's still some class features that push you towards a mount BUT these are much more limited as compared to an equivalent level Cavalier with Skilled Rider (Mounted Combat + Skill Focus: Ride) at level 1 and Leaping Lance at level 15 being the only two options. You even get an improved Weapon Training feature and the ability to threaten with a Lance at Reach and Adjacent.
None of Druid/Ranger/Paladin have any other class features that modify the companion.
The closest comparison is the Hunter, which has several class features dependent on the companion and no option to replace it.
Sure there is- you can get animal focus to constantly apply to you if your animal companion is dead. Very few of the nonflavor abilities (speak with master, one with the wild) are completely tied to the animal companion (the teamwork feats, for example, work perfectly well when used with a party member)
Heck, the primal companion hunter archetype is the best example of the choice, and it is flexible- your animal companion gets eidolon evos...and if it dies, you get all those sweet, sweet evos for yourself (just looking at the ability score increase and natural armor evos, it is fairly much a match for inquisitor, and it has a lot more uses per day since minutes/level=uses/level for most fights)
Hmm. Do you take third party?
This, this or this seems like it might be your kind of thing. They replace mount, cavalier's charge, expert trainer, mighty charge and supreme charge.
Otherwise, can't help you. You could do a fighter, if you want, although they do get worse skills. The skill list/pts on a full base attack & heavy armor class is actually a major thing that makes the cavalier hard to do with another class.
Paladin is pretty close, but has that divine flavor you might not want. Cavalier makes a good 'knight' or 'aristocrat' class, neither of which need to be mounted all the time.
To try to understand where we are coming from when we are trying to help you: we are not going to be helpful in answering fluff questions? The reason is because you can fluff your character however you want regardless of what the name of the class is that you pick. I think you already know this because despite wanting to play a "Cavalier" you do not wish to have or use a mount. You could do that without modifying the base Cavalier and just never use your mount. But you want other abilities in place of your mount. This is when we have to ask the question of which abilities are you looking for in this character and which abilities do you not want. It really does boil down to you asking a question that is rooted in mechanics, you see.
Ok, I believe I can give you a definitive answer here:
1) Yes, I want a mount-less cavalier for mecanical/rule reasons and for better utilitarian reasons. That was the reason why I asked.2) I have a serious issue with the idea for NOT using class features simply because I don't want to. At this point, might as well LOOK for something to replace a "useless" feature by a "useful" one.
3) As people stated, some of the other classes that grant companions, mounts, familiars and even eidolons have either an option within the feature or archetypes that replace such features by something else. I didn't notice that for the Cavalier aside from ONE archetype, the Daring Champion, on my first read. I know about the Archives, but that didn't catch my eyes.
4) I'll be looking through the suggested archetypes and then judge by myself which one will better suit me and my group. I'm not gonna do that blindly and regret it later...
5) Finally, "fluff", for me, is what I use to shape my character roleplay-wise and I use the given class features to help me that. Playing a mounted cavalier will not be the same as playing a mount-less one, trust me...
Let me try to ask some probing questions here that might help us give you more directly helpful feedback:
1. What role do you want this character to fulfill in your party?
2. Have you considered what tactics you would like your character to employ in combat?
3. What type of weapon are you considering using? 1-handed, 2-handed, two weapon fighting, sword and board, polearm/reach weapon?
4. Are skills important to your concept? Which ones?
5. Is bolstering your party a large part of your concept?
6. Do you have any compunctions about which race you would like to play?
7. What resources are allowed? Is this a PFS game or home game?
1) Combat and team player, as the cavalier has several team-bostering abilities. I actually suck at micro-managing, so... spells aren't my forte.
2) Mostly buff first and charge into combat after. Not gonna be reckless though...3) The suggested archetypes will "decide" my arsenal. For instance, if I pick Musketeer, I'll focus on firearms and thus ranged combat. If I end up picking Daring Champion, I'll go with an estoc and hit-and-run tactics. I'm adaptable.
4) Hard to say really, I'll go for the basic ones for adventuring and possibly for interaction, regardless of the archetype chosen.
5) Let's just say that the more helpful I can be to my teammates, the better. Sure, a cleric or wizard can do just that, but hey, my abilities can substitute their spells sometimes.
6) No... although I usually go with humans since the extra feat and skill points are welcomed in any class.
7) Not yet, but any Paizo book is allowed.
Hope that helps :)
Sounds like an Exemplar Brawler would do a better job for what you're looking for.
No spells
No Mount
Competent in melee
Buffs team with Performance
Buffs team by sharing Teamwork Feats
|
Why WOULDN'T I pick a class for fluff reasons?
Well the simple fact that your character defines itself and not the character classes that they take. Your class defines some of the abilities of the character but little to none of what it is fluff wise.
If the idea you have is to be a knight with a code of ethics, the game could care less if you took levels of cavalier, rogue or even wizard. Mechanically cavalier certainly could encourage some of the concepts given the pre-existing orders but it does nothing to denote any kind of knighthood status. The game has no Knighthood feat with the prerequisite of Cavalier 1 that anyone in the world must have to be considered a Knight for example.
Your choice in character class of course can (and should!) support the creation of the type of character you wish to play but the system your describing aligns more with older editions of a different game where a Wizard was Wizard and didn't have the ability to be customized as they could be in Pathfinder through skills, feats, traits, archetypes, prestige classes, multiclassing and so forth. Given how far a character's mechanics can be customized there isn't any reason to assume if one doesn't use one particular ability somehow they are entitled to something else.
You're right that these types of things aren't like a video game, but you're actually implying that somehow a class decision is fleshing out your PC when it isn't in reality.
From your list mechanically Cavaliers, Samurai, Paladins, and several others support #1. #2 is simply being a proactive player and could be done innumerable ways using class abilities, feats, mundane equipment and the basic rules of the game. Tactician, any type of spellcasting, bardic songs, aid another checks, creative use of ropes, etc. #3 is just the annoying habit of people to rank things based upon random metrics and doesn't really have anything to do with anything. #4 likewise has nothing at all to do with anything. Writing Cavalier on a character sheet does nothing to compared to being proactive and instigating the roleplaying yourself.
Insain Dragoon has a good suggestion of something that does mechanically what you want.
Ok... here is where I come from: back in 3.5 D&D, druids and rangers had to get a companion, sorcerers and wizards had to get a familiar and paladins had to get a mount.
Not really. Nothing forced you to summon an animal companion or familiar. You didn't get anything in exchange if you didn't, but you didn't have to, any more than Wizards were required to create scrolls. I knew several spellcasters that didn't summon familiars because the DM was known to target them and didn't want to deal with the consequences of familiar death.
I see the cavalier with a similar ability... which DOESN'T have an option by default.
Then don't use it. Nothing makes your cavalier bring his horse everywhere, or even have a horse at all.
|
|
Sighs, if you want to simply replaces the mount but keep mostly everything else the only other suggestion I can give that has not been offered is looking into this third-party supplement.
----------------------------------
101 Simple Archetypes by Rite Publishing
It's a book filled with what are essentially mini archetypes where it swaps certain class features for other class features from another class or makes other miner changes mechanically.
You want to play a magus that's a bit more combat heavy, you can do that. If you want to play a magud that’s a bit more magic heavy, you can also do that. A paladin with judgements, an inquisitor with mercies, a witch that casts from wisdom with a more divine flavor, a magus that casts from the bard spell list, a monk with sneak attack, exc.
It’s been awhile since I’ve had a look at the book but it should have what you may be seeking.
|
|
Also, how about this for an alternative:
---------------------
Foot Tactics (Ex)
Any cavalier class ability (including order abilities) that normally requires the cavalier to be mounted, can be performed on foot.
This replaces the Mount ability.
Armor Training (Ex)
Starting at 4th level, a foot knight learns to be more maneuverable while wearing armor. Whenever he is wearing armor, he reduces the armor check penalty by 1 (to a minimum of 0) and increases the maximum Dexterity bonus allowed by his armor by 1. Every five levels thereafter (9th, 14th), these bonuses increase by +1 each time, to a maximum –3 reduction of the armor check penalty and a +3 increase of the maximum Dexterity bonus allowed.
In addition, a foot knight can also move at his normal speed while wearing medium armor. At 9th level, a foot knight can move at his normal speed while wearing heavy armor.
This replaces the Expert Trainer ability cavaliers get at 4th level.
I believe the Honour Guar archetype might be what you're looking for, it still has the mount but you can just sell it. The nice thing is it replaces the charge abilities with powers that help you protect and buff your allies. The mount is not needed to use any of these powers and if you focus on an aid another build you can buff your allies AC by quite a bit within the first few levels and also have the tactician and order abilities. I ran through all of curse of the crimson throne as this archetype after selling my mount as soon as possible and never did i find myself feeling like i needed the mount for any reason.