| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Fighters are better than Cavaliers, a proof.~
Archery is the best combat style, both in terms of raw damage and versatility.
Fighters are better at archery than Cavaliers are.
Ergo, Fighters are better than Cavaliers.
QED.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I mean the reality is the cavalier @#$@#% at mounted combat compared to the hunter anyway, hunter companions and their teamwork synergy crap all over what the cavalier does.I ask: "when do you actually get those things?" as a fighter
You respond: Well Hunters are better! || (And you guys are saying I have been disingenuous. It's y'all who refuse to get specific or attempt to back up your claims at all.)
ASIDE: So are paladins, clerics, druids, and even sorcerers. Being good at specifically mounted combat wasn't even the question. It was Cavalier/Fighter in a contest of Heavy Armor mundane man. [Cavaliers do get some nice things that do make them remarkable, but the only other natural AC user they are competing with is the Ranger]
If you couldn't be bothered to read my "essay" (dude it was a forum post not a dissertation) that outlined how fighters are modular and the when and where you pick stand alone pieces of a build vary from campaign to campaign, i cant be bothered to engage you other than to point out that cavaliers aren't even the best at the niche they claim.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I mean, other than fighter having options to make better use of teamwork feats, the ability to choose weapons based on crit modifiers and ignore damage dice, the ability to take hits better, the ability to have a higher initiative, the ability to use any fighting style, better saves if you build that way, more skills.
I mean yeah, ignoring all that the cavalier is totally better.
I bet you can't actually show that build.
Or will you respond with another essay outlining build options and how you think it works out, but my experience/builds say otherwise?
Fighter’s Reflexes AND Armed Bravery are for saves
Focused Weapon is what lets you ignore weapon damage and just about the crit damageFighter’s Tactics gives you free solo tactics
Trained Initiative is initiative
Adaptable Training is an armor training that gives skill points.
cunning, AWTx2, Free AWT, Free AAT
Lets you have 3 of the WT ones and gets 4 skills per level.
Or go weapon master fighter and have all the WT and add Versatile Training to that.
cunning at 1
Fighter’s Reflexes and retrain lv 1 or 2 feat to Versatile Training at 4 Armed Bravery at 5 Focused Weapon at 6 Fighter’s Tactics at 8 and Trained Initiative at 10. And then choose your teamwork feat for lv7
There's a build that got everything in it, 5 skills per level, teamwork feat useable, with better saves and initiative, and not caring about the damage of their weapon.
throw in weapon focus at lv3 and weapon specialization at 9, and gloves of dueling and you have +6 to damage per hit with +5 to hit. Add Knockout Training as a retrain at lv8 and you add another 4 damage per hit for +10 damage per hit with +5 to hit.
a build that is matching damage of challenge, more accuracy than possible with challenge, more skills, better saves, better initiative, making use of teamwork feat and could be using any weapon and have good damage die.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Personally I'm on team 9th level caster (with a peculiar fondness for witches) but going by what I've read on this thread I'd pick fighter over cavalier.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Sorry, one last post.
Rhedyn, you're asking to compare builds in a competition between classes that actually has nothing to do with builds. This is about the class as a whole, which is what your claiming as one is better than the other.
You're trying to prove that a Cavalier is better than fighters at riding mounts and charging. Well, you're right.
What the rest of us is saying is that's all the Cavalier is better at. It's his one trick.
The strength of the fighter is its versatility across many campaigns and many modules. I've played numerous fighters in a number of long running campaigns and every one was different in its build and what it could accomplish.
If I played a Cavalier, I would almost certainly have to play the same build every time in order to overcome the very common issues that pop up in campaigns that severely limit what the Cavalier can do.
The only thing I've ever discovered to be a constant in my fighter builds was a way to boost saves against, or completely negate, mind affecting spells. I mean, fighters aren't the only class who suffer from this, but when I've played them i always try to develop ways to mitigate it.
I can do that through feats, or race, or magic items. It's really really easy. But it is a constant for that class.
Other than that, I have complete freedom in the direction I want to take my fighter. One of my favourites was a dwarven fighter built to hunt mages with the various step up feats and flying boots. He was great in a campaign with lots of magic users and magic using monsters. He also took blindifght because it honestly made invisibility and mirror image just laughable as defenses against him. One magic item and four feats and this guy was a terror in the campaign. He did exactly what your claiming the Cavalier can do, that is target high value objectives and destroy them. He did it easily and still had options to burn on other cool stuff if needed.
Another fighter I played was an archer. My gods could he lay the smack down. The big issue he had was against the various defenses casters have to negate missile attacks, but honestly I overcame those 90% of the time with better initiative. He was almost always first in combat and could lay down a barrage of fire at over 120 feet that would pretty much guarantee his chosen target was dead.
I played yet another fighter who was all about movement denial and reach weapons. He was fun, but I fond that play style too reactive and not proactive enough. It worked really well, but I tend to be a player who prefers aggressive defenses over passive defense.
Now, that's just three of the fighters I've played in campaigns that ran well into the teens for class levels. Hugely different builds easily catered to the theme and challenges of the adventure path at the time.
Also, here's a point for all these build comparisons. You don't actually have to deal out obscene damage to destroy the majority of targets in a fight. If your build can pump out 140 damage in a round (arbitrary number for comparative purpose only) when the enemy only needs 80 damage to destroy....well you're wasting potential. The feats and effort you spent pushing your damage into that area when, say, 100 damage would be sufficient, means you're no longer flexible enough. It's why all these "my builds do this much damage compared to yours" threads are such a waste of time.
In this game, only just beating the bench mark is just as effective as beating it by a squillion points. The enemy is dead in both cases.
|
Alright, I made a build just for you Rheydon. Rules for the build were 9th level, 20 point buy, starts at WBL, and can spend no more than 50% of wealth on any one item.
I embraced the stereotype of Big Dumb Fighter and dumped all mental stats to 7 and didn't worry about saving throws as well, since we seem to be talking mostly about hit bonuses/damage output
Anyways, here's Larry the Archer
Larry - level 9 Weapon Master Fighter
Race: Human, Dual Talent (+2 Dex/Str)
Ability Score: 22 Str, 22 Dex, 14 Con, Int/Wis/Cha 7
Feats: Exotic Weapon Proficiency Orc Hornbow, Deadly Aim, Manyshot, Improved Initiative, Advanced Weapon Training (Trained Initiative)
Bonus Feats: Point-blank shot, Rapid shot, Precise Shot, Weapon Focus, Weapon Specialization
Gear: Belt of Physical Might +2 (Str/Dex), Bracers of Archery (lesser), Efficient Quiver, +1 Mithral Breastplate.
Weapon: +2 Adaptive Orc Hornbow: +17/+17/+12 for 4d6+38 (Manyshot), and 2d6+19 on the remaining 2 shots.
Initiative Bonus: +12
Honestly itd be a TON of work, but for mechanical theorycrafting purposes avg damage in a round to one round an average threat by CR would be a useful tool. Especially in emphasizing how you actually DONT need to ramp everything to the max in order to be scarily effective in this game.
If you couldn't be bothered to read my "essay" (dude it was a forum post not a dissertation) that outlined how fighters are modular and the when and where you pick stand alone pieces of a build vary from campaign to campaign, i cant be bothered to engage you other than to point out that cavaliers aren't even the best at the niche they claim.I mean the reality is the cavalier @#$@#% at mounted combat compared to the hunter anyway, hunter companions and their teamwork synergy crap all over what the cavalier does.I ask: "when do you actually get those things?" as a fighter
You respond: Well Hunters are better! || (And you guys are saying I have been disingenuous. It's y'all who refuse to get specific or attempt to back up your claims at all.)
ASIDE: So are paladins, clerics, druids, and even sorcerers. Being good at specifically mounted combat wasn't even the question. It was Cavalier/Fighter in a contest of Heavy Armor mundane man. [Cavaliers do get some nice things that do make them remarkable, but the only other natural AC user they are competing with is the Ranger]
Did I imply that I didn't read it? No I didn't. I said it wasn't convincing and that I needed an actual build.
But you won't give one. Instead you have decided that anyone who does not bow to your brilliance must just be willfully ignorant.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Nah ive decided to budget how much i bash my head against the walls of people who've already dug their heels in on their position. I have enough of that in the vital/mightystrike/cleave thread. You've got half a dozen people here telling you you're wrong, and offering like 75% of the work you need to do to see it. Revisit your hypothesis.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Honestly itd be a TON of work, but for mechanical theorycrafting purposes avg damage in a round to one round an average threat by CR would be a useful tool. Especially in emphasizing how you actually DONT need to ramp everything to the max in order to be scarily effective in this game.
It's the same as to hit modifiers. I've seen soooooo many builds where maxing out the + to hit was like massive feat and gear investment. Where in all honesty, the majority of fights youre well and truly overshooting the AC and probably killing the thing in the first two hits any way. That money and feat investment could easily go elsewhere for more versatility.
It's another reason I find Fighters so versatile. They already have built in mods to increase the + to hit so they can very easily shop elsewhere for cool things to use.
I mean, other than fighter having options to make better use of teamwork feats, the ability to choose weapons based on crit modifiers and ignore damage dice, the ability to take hits better, the ability to have a higher initiative, the ability to use any fighting style, better saves if you build that way, more skills.
I mean yeah, ignoring all that the cavalier is totally better.
I bet you can't actually show that build.
Or will you respond with another essay outlining build options and how you think it works out, but my experience/builds say otherwise?
Fighter’s Reflexes AND Armed Bravery are for saves
Focused Weapon is what lets you ignore weapon damage and just about the crit damage
Fighter’s Tactics gives you free solo tactics
Trained Initiative is initiativeAdaptable Training is an armor training that gives skill points.
cunning, AWTx2, Free AWT, Free AAT
Lets you have 3 of the WT ones and gets 4 skills per level.Or go weapon master fighter and have all the WT and add Versatile Training to that.
cunning at 1
Fighter’s Reflexes and retrain lv 1 or 2 feat to Versatile Training at 4 Armed Bravery at 5 Focused Weapon at 6 Fighter’s Tactics at 8 and Trained Initiative at 10. And then choose your teamwork feat for lv7
There's a build that got everything in it, 5 skills per level, teamwork feat useable, with better saves and initiative, and not caring about the damage of their weapon.throw in weapon focus at lv3 and weapon specialization at 9, and gloves of dueling and you have +6 to damage per hit with +5 to hit. Add Knockout Training as a retrain at lv8 and you add another 4 damage per hit for +10 damage per hit with +5 to hit.
a build that is matching damage of challenge, more accuracy than possible with challenge, more skills, better saves, better initiative, making use of teamwork feat and could be using any weapon and have good damage die.
It's like pulling teeth...
Oh hey! Retraining old feats for weapon training and armor training you now qualify for. I did not think of that. It's almost like actual builds are better than just yelling at people about how disingenuous they are being. Even still, you are limited by feat maximums. Weapon master gets around that, but you give up WAY to much for that.
You also stop at 10, and I have mainly been talking about mid to high levels. Hell, the banner I go on an on about doesn't become a real save booster until level 14. But whatever.
Let's try to order that
1. Cunning, ->Knockout training
2. ->Versatile Training
3. Weapon focus
4. Fighter Reflexes
5. Armed Bravery
6. Focused Weapon
7. Teamwork Feat
8. Fighter's Tactics
9. Weapon specialization
10. Trained Initiative
Well you trained out power attack. I'll assume you will trade out cunning for that so you do better damage.
Fighter v Cavalier while challenging but with no mount:
+damage
=benefit from a teamwork feat
-allies benefiting from teamwork feat or banner bonuses to charge/fear
+saves
-AC
+HP (favored class bonus)
-skills (restricted list and no bonuses like the cavalier gets, become an "=" if you retain cunning but damage becomes "-" as you give up either weapon spec, knockout training, or power attack)
- Order specific (In this case controlling the battlefield with stem the tide)
I do not think Fighter man comes out completely ahead here, but the point is arguable and more clear with actual builds. Than just declaring rightness and insulting all who disagree with you as others have done.
EDIT: I missed the AC bonus. Fighter-man comes out ahead in general combat with little utility, but numbers is what the party needs here the most. This fighter narrowly outpaces a Cavalier without his mount but while challenging.
You're trying to prove that a Cavalier is better than fighters at riding mounts and charging. Well, you're right.
1. I read your whole post.
2. You basis of argument is wrong.
I have been arguing total team contribution from skills, downtime, to combat. One poster said the fighter could be a better charger and I said that took WAY too many feats to really work. I never claimed the fighter was bad because it was worse at mounted combat. The mount is just a big bonus to the Cavalier's overall contribution.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It only gets worse for the cavalier at higher level yknow.
*posts actual build as requested and has been ignored thus far*
Impatient much?
Alright, I made a build just for you Rheydon. Rules for the build were 9th level, 20 point buy, starts at WBL, and can spend no more than 50% of wealth on any one item.
I embraced the stereotype of Big Dumb Fighter and dumped all mental stats to 7 and didn't worry about saving throws as well, since we seem to be talking mostly about hit bonuses/damage output
Anyways, here's Larry the Archer
Larry - level 9 Weapon Master Fighter
Race: Human, Dual Talent (+2 Dex/Str)
Ability Score: 22 Str, 22 Dex, 14 Con, Int/Wis/Cha 7
Feats: Exotic Weapon Proficiency Orc Hornbow, Deadly Aim, Manyshot, Improved Initiative, Advanced Weapon Training (Trained Initiative)
Bonus Feats: Point-blank shot, Rapid shot, Precise Shot, Weapon Focus, Weapon Specialization
Gear: Belt of Physical Might +2 (Str/Dex), Bracers of Archery (lesser), Efficient Quiver, +1 Mithral Breastplate.
Weapon: +2 Adaptive Orc Hornbow: +17/+17/+12 for 4d6+38 (Manyshot), and 2d6+19 on the remaining 2 shots.
Initiative Bonus: +12
You made an archer. Great.
Do you not read the thread? We're talking about comprehensive character contribution and sometimes specific claims.
What is this suppose to answer?
Your Damage and initiative is high, but you skills and saves are garbage. You are a threat to the party with that combo.
It only gets worse for the cavalier at higher level yknow.
Fighter v Cavalier without his mount but still challenging the target?
Well you actually have to prove that, since I really don't believe you are going to get 20 points of WT and feat damage bonuses (sans power attack). And then we have to talk about how high level enemies may not even take non lethal damage.
But you are only here to snark and declare that anyone who disagrees with you as stubborn and not worth your time.
I mean, I posted about 40 minutes ago and you've since responded to several others. So no, I wouldn't call it being impatient. Just making an observation.
It's almost like I went in order of who posted what...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It only gets worse for the cavalier at higher level yknow.Fighter v Cavalier without his mount but still challenging the target?
Well you actually have to prove that, since I really don't believe you are going to get 20 points of WT and feat damage bonuses (sans power attack). And then we have to talk about how high level enemies may not even take non lethal damage.
But you are only here to snark and declare that anyone who disagrees with you as stubborn and not worth your time.
By level 16 a fighter with an impact greatsword and spirited charge can do 9d6 +58 damage. Using only 8 of his 18 feats and none of his free advanced weapon/armor training options. He has 10 feats and 2 free AWT and 3 AAT options he can choose for save boosts, utility, what have you.
Half-Elf Fighter.
Stats: 14,16(+2),12, 12, 13
Feats:
Lvl1: Weapon Finesse, Power Attack
Lvl2: Improved Bravery
Lvl3: Courage in a Bottle
Lvl4: Unhindering Shield
Lvl5: Trained Grace
Lvl6: Inspiring Bravery
Lvl7: Weapon Focus
Lvl8: Greater Weapon Focus
Lvl9: Armor Specialization, Warrior Spirit
Use an Elven Curved Blade, boost dex, let the static damage do it's work and have fun with all around good saves/aura against mind-affecting. (Touch) AC is really, really good, initiative will be top notch, and you could forgo warrior spirit for even better switch hitting with archery.
Edit: You could also just be human with EWP for the skill point and change stats a bit for some chr to be a back up face.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You're trying to prove that a Cavalier is better than fighters at riding mounts and charging. Well, you're right.
1. I read your whole post.
2. You basis of argument is wrong.
I have been arguing total team contribution from skills, downtime, to combat. One poster said the fighter could be a better charger and I said that took WAY too many feats to really work. I never claimed the fighter was bad because it was worse at mounted combat. The mount is just a big bonus to the Cavalier's overall contribution.
No, the basis of my argument is fine.
The fighter can do all of the stuff you're saying a Cavalier can do through feats. Feats are their class ability after all.
Even better, they can do all that through clever use of skill application. Because just like to hit and damage statistics, there comes a point where the skill checks cap out well before the ability to spend points in them does. There also comes a point where penalty in a stat is negated by points spent in a skill. And again, there are sooooooo many options now for build alternatives, and class options, and race options etc that you can so easily build a fighter that's just as versatile out of combat as in combat. In fact, a number of those options have already been pointed out in this very thread.
Cavalier is restricted to its role. Fighter is open to many roles. The fighter is the any mans class. The Cavalier is the specific mans class.
So again, this comes down to play style preference. If you're happy to play pretty much the same character every campaign, then the Cavalier is fine.
If you want to play the same class but be able to mix up whatbthat class does each campaign, play the fighter. (In terms of combat at least, obviously casters also have that very high versatility.)
The Cavalier is not better than the fighter by any stretch of the imaginatiOn. It's just different. I'm not even saying it's worse. I'm saying it's just boring after the first campaign you play one, because it's going to be almost identical next campaign in order for it to be effective as often as possible.
Half-Elf Fighter.
Stats: 14,16(+2),12, 12, 13
Feats:
Lvl1: Weapon Finesse, Power Attack
Lvl2: Improved Bravery
Lvl3: Courage in a Bottle
Lvl4: Unhindering Shield
Lvl5: Trained Grace
Lvl6: Inspiring Bravery
Lvl7: Weapon Focus
Lvl8: Greater Weapon Focus
Lvl9: Armor Specialization, Warrior SpiritUse an Elven Curved Blade, boost dex, let the static damage do it's work and have fun with all around good saves/aura against mind-affecting. (Touch) AC is really, really good, initiative will be top notch, and you could forgo warrior spirit for even better switch hitting with archery.
Edit: You could also just be human with EWP for the skill point and change stats a bit for some chr to be a back up face.
Which claim are you trying to make? What conditions are you comparing yourself to the cavalier? No mount, No Challenge, Mount and Challenge, just mount, or just total party contribution?
Also what does this build look like out to 20? I've been pretty content with fighter's 1-9. It's after than that things start sucking for me.
You're trying to prove that a Cavalier is better than fighters at riding mounts and charging. Well, you're right.
1. I read your whole post.
2. You basis of argument is wrong.
I have been arguing total team contribution from skills, downtime, to combat. One poster said the fighter could be a better charger and I said that took WAY too many feats to really work. I never claimed the fighter was bad because it was worse at mounted combat. The mount is just a big bonus to the Cavalier's overall contribution.
No, the basis of my argument is fine.
The fighter can do all of the stuff you're saying a Cavalier can do through feats. Feats are their class ability after all.
Even better, they can do all that through clever use of skill application. Because just like to hit and damage statistics, there comes a point where the skill checks cap out well before the ability to spend points in them does. There also comes a point where penalty in a stat is negated by points spent in a skill. And again, there are sooooooo many options now for build alternatives, and class options, and race options etc that you can so easily build a fighter that's just as versatile out of combat as in combat. In fact, a number of those options have already been pointed out in this very thread.
Cavalier is restricted to its role. Fighter is open to many roles. The fighter is the any mans class. The Cavalier is the specific mans class.
So again, this comes down to play style preference. If you're happy to play pretty much the same character every campaign, then the Cavalier is fine.
If you want to play the same class but be able to mix up whatbthat class does each campaign, play the fighter. (In terms of combat at least, obviously casters also have that very high versatility.)
The Cavalier is not better than the fighter by any stretch of the imaginatiOn. It's just different. I'm not even saying it's worse. I'm saying it's just boring after the first campaign you play...
Do you have any builds to back up your point?
We are deep enough in the thread that actual examples are needed. When I don't humbly swallow "words of wisdom", I am being called disingenuous and stubborn.
Are you going to back up your claims that Fighters are equal party contributors from 1-20 (point of thread) or will you just get mad that I don't believe what you are saying on faith alone?
By level 16 a fighter with an impact greatsword and spirited charge can do 9d6 +58 damage. Using only 8 of his 18 feats and none of his free advanced weapon/armor training options. He has 10 feats and 2 free AWT and 3 AAT options he can choose for save boosts, utility, what have you.
Well I just finished building a level 17 cavalier with automatic bonus progression for a campaign that I am in.
On a charge it does +39 to hit for 3d8+72 damage and the mount pounces for +31/+30/+30 to hit for 1d6+21/1d6+20/1d6+20
If he is challenging the target, the lance will deal 3d8+114 damage.
At level 16, the only difference should be a -1 to-hit and a -1 to challenge damage (-3 on charge).
Ok no. You don't get to use optional rules like Automatic Progression Bonus as evidence when we're talking about the normal game.
The advantage should go towards the WBL builder, since those numbers are without gear just the auto bonuses. Which is generally worse than someone in full gear.
Use it as a point of reference or don't. I am only asking for builds not fully geared character sheets.
So yeah I think fighters do very well. I've no complaint. I do exactly what I want. Keep a person focused on me, ignore manybof their attacks and punish them for attempting to focus elsewhere with a build that crits often and for a lot of damage, with many free attacks.
Can you post your build order and what you are planning to get in the future?
What does you fighter do during downtime, social events, or exploration?
Whenever I see mounted characters in actual play, they are pretty much always small characters on medium mounts. They fit indoors with very little trouble.
edit: or small characters on dire bats
How do you get a dire bat?
| 9 people marked this as a favorite. |
Paladin good? Sure, but their code of conduct is literally unplayable.
Not in any game I have been in. And if the DM did make my paladin unplayable, I would look for a different DM.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So yeah I think fighters do very well. I've no complaint. I do exactly what I want. Keep a person focused on me, ignore manybof their attacks and punish them for attempting to focus elsewhere with a build that crits often and for a lot of damage, with many free attacks.
Can you post your build order and what you are planning to get in the future?
What does you fighter do during downtime, social events, or exploration?
Mine usually use their max ranks in diplomacy or intimidate and/or craft (with master craftsman and craft arms/armor)
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
From what I've seen either class can be useful, but they're far easier to mess up than any kind of spellcaster. A badly made mounted fighter is just... embarrassing. I expect a badly made unmounted cavalier would be the same.
Comparing specific builds without agreeing in advance what is to be compared is never going to decide anything. Get some ground rules in place, then build and compare.
Paladins are banned at my table due to inevitable arguments. Unrelated to the argument here though really.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Comparing specific builds without agreeing in advance what is to be compared is never going to decide anything. Get some ground rules in place, then build and compare.
I think the thing is though, that unlike the fighter, a cavalier can be ruled out at the beginning of quite a few campaigns just based on the elevator pitch on that campaign. A sailing campaign, a subterranean campaign, or an urban campaign where you're going to do a lot of fighting in alleys, ballrooms, warehouses, and sewers? You're not going to want a mount, full stop.
There is no campaign where you can absolutely rule out a fighter as a useful member of a team based on the premise of the campaign. That's why this isn't really apples and oranges.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm not mad you don't believe me Rhedyn. I honestly don't care if you believe me.
At this point I've seen about 15 posters explain to you why we don't feel the same way as you but all you do is demand a build. It's obvious that builds aren't even necessary for what we're suggesting.
A number folks have put in builds and you've ignored them or changed your goal posts and build rules.
I even outlined three characters I've played into the level 18 to 20 range. I honestly can't be bothered to go back and build three characters I played a few years ago to assuage your ego.
The points been made, and agreed upon by a large number of players.
But, since you like builds so much. Please build three cavaliers for different campaigns to show how they can be variable enough to be interesting to play more than one campaign.
Who knows, maybe you'll convince someone. When someone makes a claim, the burden of proof is on them.
Also, probably best to stick with the standard rules, none of this auto progression shenanigans.
|
For me, one of the biggest points in the Cavalier's favor is that it doesn't take half a dozen splatbooks to make a decent one. It's not uncommon for tables I'm in to enforce a 3 book limit on character building since Paizo's softcovers don't follow the same balance standards as their hardcovers, and most "Fighters are good" builds involve someone needing the Armor Master's Handbook, Weapon Master's Handbook, Ultimate Intrigue, and the Advanced Class Guide and/or Ultimate Combat. Plus the CRB, of course. That's a lot of sourcebooks to get one class up to playable, especially when a lot of the Cavalier builds it's being compared to take 3 books or less, including the CRB.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I've not seen the "3 book limit" thing in practice, but I usually play with the same group of people. To me that seems to tilt the playing field towards things that were powerful from the outset, rather than things which were initially weak but got a lot better through new options getting printed.
I mean, if I was going to play in a game where I'm harshly limited in the books I can draw from, I'm going to play something where basically everything relevant to the class is in a small handful of books (like the Occultist or the Kineticist, say) if not something that was unreasonably powerful from the get go (Wizard, Barbarian, etc.)
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yup, I don't think a "book limit" houserule is a valid argument for one over the other in general as it's exactly that, a houserule.
With that in effect, I'd just end up playing a Wizard in most games as all they need is the CRB, whereas for any martial class I generally use several books.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
For me, one of the biggest points in the Cavalier's favor is that it doesn't take half a dozen splatbooks to make a decent one. It's not uncommon for tables I'm in to enforce a 3 book limit on character building since Paizo's softcovers don't follow the same balance standards as their hardcovers, and most "Fighters are good" builds involve someone needing the Armor Master's Handbook, Weapon Master's Handbook, Ultimate Intrigue, and the Advanced Class Guide and/or Ultimate Combat. Plus the CRB, of course. That's a lot of sourcebooks to get one class up to playable, especially when a lot of the Cavalier builds it's being compared to take 3 books or less, including the CRB.
Introducing a house rule to try and make a point isn't particularly valid.
Paizo puts their acceptable use rules on the PRD right here on their own webpage. If you can access feats etc from that, then it's valid and no need for this splat book limit.
Now d20pfsrd is a slightly different matter (in my opinion). They publish everything, even stuff that is actually Golarian specific. However, due to copywriter infringement, they don't put in all the fluff that is used to often limit the new thing in the Golarian setting.
Blood Money is an example. It's a spell overly abused by folks who use d20. It's not even available on Paizos PRD. It only appears in use by one group of mages in a dungeon trapped in time during one AP and there are no spell books in that dungeon that are lootable with that spell in it. So.....like super limited in its intention.
But the d20 site just makes it free for all.
So honestly, three splat books limit is a BS rule. But hey, it's your table.
|
|
Yup, I don't think a "book limit" houserule is a valid argument for one over the other in general as it's exactly that, a houserule.
With that in effect, I'd just end up playing a Wizard in most games as all they need is the CRB, whereas for any martial class I generally use several books.
It's still relevant as to what you're really talking about. The Fighter's not strong. The Fighter is crap. Almost any other class using just the book it's printed in plus the CRB (if applicable) is a better character overall.
What the Fighter has is so many band-aids that you can end up with something functional, if you know how to find the band-aids and either own them all or are playing in a venue where ownership of the books isn't required. If it takes 6 books to build a decent character out of a class, there's obviously something wrong with that class.
So the Fighter isn't "good"; in fact, the evidence clearly points to the fact that it's so incredibly bad they didn't just need one book, like Unchained, to fix it, they needed two softcovers and a hardcover just to get it up to snuff. I can spend $10 to make a decent Cavalier, or $32 to make a decent Fighter. I also don't need any experience with the game to know which book I need for the Cavalier, while a new player might not even know that the books they need to make their Fighter worthwhile exist.
Introducing a house rule to try and make a point isn't particularly valid.Paizo puts their acceptable use rules on the PRD right here on their own webpage. If you can access feats etc from that, then it's valid and no need for this splat book limit.
Now d20pfsrd is a slightly different matter (in my opinion). They publish everything, even stuff that is actually Golarian specific. However, due to copywriter infringement, they don't put in all the fluff that is used to often limit the new thing in the Golarian setting.
Blood Money is an example. It's a spell overly abused by folks who use d20. It's not even available on Paizos PRD. It only appears in use by one group of mages in a dungeon trapped in time during one AP and there are no spell books in that dungeon that are lootable with that spell in it. So.....like super limited in its intention.
But the d20 site just makes it free for all.
So honestly, three splat books limit is a BS rule. But hey, it's your table.
None of the splat books you need for the Fighter are available on the PRD, and d20pfsrd is an unofficial 3pp source that modifies feats to conform with their licensing agreement, so it's very valid.
Also, people who play with that 3 book rule include Owen KC Stephens and other members of the Paizo design team who have commented on the fact that the game really doesn't intend for you to have unlimited access to every book ever printed during character creation.
So, yeah, even the people making the books aren't of the opinion that you should just use all of them, but much more importantly, none of the options that people are calling out as making the Fighter "good" are even available on the PRD. No Ultimate Intrigue, no Armor Master's Handbook, and no Weapon Master's Handbook. That's $32 plus tax for legitimate access to the resources needed to build a good Fighter, while you can build a good cavalier building nothing but the PRD. That matters.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yup, I don't think a "book limit" houserule is a valid argument for one over the other in general as it's exactly that, a houserule.
With that in effect, I'd just end up playing a Wizard in most games as all they need is the CRB, whereas for any martial class I generally use several books.
It's still relevant as to what you're really talking about. The Fighter's not strong. The Fighter is crap. Almost any other class using just the book it's printed in plus the CRB (if applicable) is a better character overall.
What the Fighter has is so many band-aids that you can end up with something functional, if you know how to find the band-aids and either own them all or are playing in a venue where ownership of the books isn't required. If it takes 6 books to build a decent character out of a class, there's obviously something wrong with that class.
So the Fighter isn't "good"; in fact, the evidence clearly points to the fact that it's so incredibly bad they didn't just need one book, like Unchained, to fix it, they needed two softcovers and a hardcover just to get it up to snuff. I can spend $10 to make a decent Cavalier, or $32 to make a decent Fighter. I also don't need any experience with the game to know which book I need for the Cavalier, while a new player might not even know that the books they need to make their Fighter worthwhile exist.
Now there's a valid point (the book part, not necessarily the fighter is crap bit).
I suspect a new player is going to be displeased with the Cavalier though, since they're also not likely to understand how limited it is going to be for large quantities of the game until it gets to quite high levels and can start trying to mitigate those limitations.
But your point about resource intensity is still pretty valid.
Youre very wrong about not being able to make a valid, fun and useful fighter using just the PRD though.
In fact, I've played valid, fun and useful fighters since Pathfinder first launched and the only books were the CRB. Sure some classes had far more options, but that didn't make the fighter any less useful.
|
|
Yup, I don't think a "book limit" houserule is a valid argument for one over the other in general as it's exactly that, a houserule.
With that in effect, I'd just end up playing a Wizard in most games as all they need is the CRB, whereas for any martial class I generally use several books.
It's still relevant as to what you're really talking about. The Fighter's not strong. The Fighter is crap. Almost any other class using just the book it's printed in plus the CRB (if applicable) is a better character overall.
What the Fighter has is so many band-aids that you can end up with something functional, if you know how to find the band-aids and either own them all or are playing in a venue where ownership of the books isn't required. If it takes 6 books to build a decent character out of a class, there's obviously something wrong with that class.
So the Fighter isn't "good"; in fact, the evidence clearly points to the fact that it's so incredibly bad they didn't just need one book, like Unchained, to fix it, they needed two softcovers and a hardcover just to get it up to snuff. I can spend $10 to make a decent Cavalier, or $32 to make a decent Fighter. I also don't need any experience with the game to know which book I need for the Cavalier, while a new player might not even know that the books they need to make their Fighter worthwhile exist.
Now there's a valid point (the book part, not necessarily the fighter is crap bit).
I suspect a new player is going to be displeased with the Cavalier though, since they're also not likely to understand how limited it is going to be for large quantities of the game until it gets to quite high levels and can start trying to mitigate those limitations.
But your point about resource intensity is still pretty valid.
I'm inclined to disagree with the premise that the Cavalier is going to be limited for large quantities of the game, but I'm going to chalk that up to "table variation" rather than argue about it. Suffice that I've run through 3 APs as a cavalier and never felt particularly limited at any point in the game.
What I will speak to though is new player reception. I've run multiple gaming venues and GM 2-4 sessions a week with 3 different groups (2 atm due to deployments and work/class schedules), and I've had enough new players try Fighters and Cavaliers that my experience, however anecdotal, is that the Cavalier is generally much more satisfying for new players than the Fighter. Just trying to explain how to build a good Fighter or showing someone a guide can be enough to turn them off to the class. Most newer players who've enjoyed Fighters in the tables I've run or attended didn't build their own, and frequently start looking at other classes as soon as they realize how intensive building a good Fighter really is.
Comparing specific builds without agreeing in advance what is to be compared is never going to decide anything. Get some ground rules in place, then build and compare.I think the thing is though, that unlike the fighter, a cavalier can be ruled out at the beginning of quite a few campaigns just based on the elevator pitch on that campaign. A sailing campaign, a subterranean campaign, or an urban campaign where you're going to do a lot of fighting in alleys, ballrooms, warehouses, and sewers? You're not going to want a mount, full stop.
There is no campaign where you can absolutely rule out a fighter as a useful member of a team based on the premise of the campaign. That's why this isn't really apples and oranges.
There's useful unmounted cavalier archetypes. Daring champion, constable, disciple of the pike, maybe huntmaster. The disciple's flavour text might be difficult in some campaigns but the others could fit into any of your examples.
BTW, for those who want access to character options etc. which haven't had Golarion-specific flavour removed, try archivesofnethys.com - I don't think you could call it 'illegitimate' in any sense.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Nothing wrong with anecdotes Ssalarn. It's all I'm going off in terms of my experiences too.
And I'm going to agree with table variance on the Cavalier. I saw it played exactly once, for a very short time until the player asked to swap to another class.
We only play published adventures though. Maybe that makes a difference (they tend to be heavy on the dungeon side of things).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There's useful unmounted cavalier archetypes. Daring champion, constable, disciple of the pike, maybe huntmaster. The disciple's flavour text might be difficult in some campaigns but the others could fit into any of your examples.
Sure, though the OP's basic premise of the thread is "A Cavalier is better than a Fighter because when you have a griffin and a charge lined up you can do more damage" so they're obviously not thinking of non-mounted Cavaliers there. When you take the Cavalier away from its gimmick, you might do better with something else.
I mean, if I wanted to play a non-Swashbuckler Swasbuckler, I kind of like the Virtuous Bravo more than the Champion, and a lot of classes make better archers than the Luring Cavalier.
