D&D General What ever happened to the Cavalier?

[Incenjucar]

Could always introduce a possessing symbiotic spirit that can inhabit a normal animal to grant it abilities while leaving it "natural".

 

[Bedrockgames]

Eric the Cavalier

 

[billd91]

2E was rather famous for a 'if we include a bunch of options and focus on the flavor, people will use them in spite of us not changing the underlying game system that disincentivizes such'. The Complete Fighter's supplement had rapiers and sabres cutlasses and belaying pins and martial arts -- but you were still going to be up against undead and golems and demons that needed +1 weapons to hit and the same magic item table that made longsword the right choice. The Complete Thieves' supplement had dog pepper and hand warming lamps and tar paper that added 1-5% (or just removed penalties DMs hadn't known to be subtracting until these were introduced) to thieving skills --which didn't change that the best way to play a successful thief was to convince your DM that now was not the time to make a check. And so on (pacifist priest options, spell-less campaigns, stone and bone-wielding neolithic options -- all without really examining how this would work in the D&D frame). I don't remember the horse traits table (was it in Complete Paladin, I think I stopped collecting by then), but a big old table of horse traits without any rules changes to make them more playable seems very on-brand for 2e.

In a way, 2e was really open and unassuming about the kind of game people were participating in. It really felt like "Oh, here's something that you might be able to use. We don't know. Hope you like it."
I think one other thing in favor of the kind of options 2e incorporated was that there was relatively little a player could do to progressively customize their character once their adventuring career was started. You may not have been able to pick feats to increase your ability along a chosen path like in 3e and later... but you also didn't have as much opportunity cost staring you in the face if you started incorporating options to increase your mounted combat abilities. One drawback of the 3e feat structure - as you developed along a particular channel, you really felt you had to focus on it or you felt like you were diluting your build too much.
I do feel that 5e as shifted back toward the feel of 2e in this respect as well. Some feats feel important to take, but I've been finding it doesn't take long to feel I've taken the must-haves and can start picking up the "Oh, this could be fun" options.

 

[Bill Zebub]

The sidekick rules work for levelling up horses.

And if you have a problem with levelled up horses, you should have a problem with levelled up humans too.

Next thing you know, the monsters are going to want to level up. It's a slippery slope.

 

[Thomas Shey]

The sidekick rules work for levelling up horses.

And if you have a problem with levelled up horses, you should have a problem with levelled up humans too.

If you think there aren't people who'd be okay with one than not the other, look around for a while.

 

[Willie the Duck]

In the game, many fantasy NPC races train different fantasy beast to act has mount. I dont get why the humanoids played by the PCs are forced to use real-life horses if those horses are useless to the adventurers.
Drows have their monitor lizards mounts, Duergar have their steeders, Eberron's halflings have their dinosaurs and they all are quite adapted to the dungeonneering needs of their riders. In SKT, you have orcs riding on axebeaks' back!
All of those are better mounts for adventurers than a regular old horse.

For the same reason that D&D worlds have open-topped castles* despite ubiquitous flying monsters -- at some level, people are coming to the game to play a 'the medieval world, but with magic' and knights on horses are part of that imagery. Mind you, plenty of people also are okay with riding dinosaurs or dire ostriches (or dragons), but if you cut out the people wanting to ride horses, you're clipping a sizable portion of your potential people-interested-in-this-game-tangent (which already probably isn't represented because there isn't enough hue and cry for it).
*usually with a couple ballista on towers, just to show that the author thought of this

In Pathfinder 2E, the Cavalier's mount grows in power and the Cavalier can use a reaction to make an attacker strike the Cavalier instead of the mount. Doesn't solve the problem of having a character built for not being in dungeons in a game about being dungeons, though.

Probably proceeding from D&D 3e which had the same for paladins (and druids/rangers with their animal companions). There clearly are ways to do this -- 5e giving 13th level+ paladins* Find Greater Steed is another option. It's a huge balancing issue to make pets not be either so fragile they are glorified opt-in escort missions or so powerful they are an effective second character, but it can be done.
*and 10th level+ valor bards with a magical secrets slot to burn

The second issue is undoubtedly the larger problem. Building a character around a playstyle that might not be a huge part of the game (or is just completely hamstrung in a not-infrequent gaming situation) is something you can do (3e, again, had it what with mounted combat classes and feat chains and specific-element-focused mages and so on), but I can also see the reason not to do so for any core character options. Certainly building out elaborate subsystems might be a hill too steep.

In a way, 2e was really open and unassuming about the kind of game people were participating in. It really felt like "Oh, here's something that you might be able to use. We don't know. Hope you like it."
I think one other thing in favor of the kind of options 2e incorporated was that there was relatively little a player could do to progressively customize their character once their adventuring career was started. You may not have been able to pick feats to increase your ability along a chosen path like in 3e and later... but you also didn't have as much opportunity cost staring you in the face if you started incorporating options to increase your mounted combat abilities. One drawback of the 3e feat structure - as you developed along a particular channel, you really felt you had to focus on it or you felt like you were diluting your build too much.
I do feel that 5e as shifted back toward the feel of 2e in this respect as well. Some feats feel important to take, but I've been finding it doesn't take long to feel I've taken the must-haves and can start picking up the "Oh, this could be fun" options.

Early-mid 2E (or late-1E after it was realized people by in large didn't use the training costs for level) would be a perfect time for a lot of this. The devs hadn't latched wholly onto sunk cost build components (feats in 3e, or build points in late 2e) as a primary customization method, and people generally had more money than uses for it. Sinking time and effort and maybe some weapon/non-weapon proficiencies (riding NWP, lance specialization, maybe a mounted fighting style) would be perfectly reasonable and mid-cost expenditure, and then you could roll-play the finding the right steed, buying barding, maybe even tracking down a magic lance. It all could have worked, except that horses still would fall to even the smallest of dragon breaths/the first 'gotcha' trap, and the first ladder (although figuring your way past that could be good fun).

 

[Stormonu]

I'd like to point out that at various times during D&D:HAT, the characters were riding horses to and fro. And so many fantasy movies have had scenes with mounted combat (Willow, LotR, etc.) that it really ought to be a staple of D&D.

 

[Willie the Duck]

I'd like to point out that at various times during D&D:HAT, the characters were riding horses to and fro. And so many fantasy movies have had scenes with mounted combat (Willow, LotR, etc.) that it really ought to be a staple of D&D.

Well, that's kinda what I meant with my point about the imagery people came into the game to play, and what so many people meant by a perfectly good fantasy trope ruined by the specific implementation.

It's worth noting how each of these* handle the parts that D&D (the game) has issues with. In D&D:HAT, the horses just kind of appear, aren't there for the one dungeon-delve, and show up as needed. In LotR, the heroes have to give up their mounts (including Bill) to go dungeon-crawling, and spend a significant chunk of the movies walking because of it (Aragorn, Gimli and Legolas getting resupplied during the Rohan arc, but Sam and Frodo walking the rest of the length of the adventure map on foot). In both cases, dungeons provide an impediment to using horses (and if Sam or Boromir or Xenk have a mounted combat feat, it is wasted), with either handwavium or specific story-beats establishing how to get people back on horses afterwards. If D&D had something like that (and some versions do; all of them if you count figurines of wondrous power), there might be more horse usage (although again, D&D has more breath weapons and 'everyone take X damage' traps than either movie).
*sadly it's been too long since I've seen Willow for me to include here for comment.

For the same reason that D&D worlds have open-topped castles* despite ubiquitous flying monsters -- at some level, people are coming to the game to play a 'the medieval world, but with magic' and knights on horses are part of that imagery. Mind you, plenty of people also are okay with riding dinosaurs or dire ostriches (or dragons), but if you cut out the people wanting to ride horses, you're clipping a sizable portion of your potential people-interested-in-this-game-tangent (which already probably isn't represented because there isn't enough hue and cry for it).
*usually with a couple ballista on towers, just to show that the author thought of this

 

[James Gasik]

Eric the Cavalier

That dude was a Noble Warrior at best. He wouldn't know which end of a lance to point at a charging enemy, let alone how to ride a horse.

 

[James Gasik]

Whenever I bring up the castle design, I get told "flying enemies aren't that common, lol". I often wonder what game some people are playing.