Cavaliers...Did UA have it right?

[steeldragons]

Can? Sure, you can. But why *should* you?

The cavalier has two shticks that make the class stand out - mounted combat and knighthood/noble title/oaths.

Well, I guess I see the possibilities of characters taking oaths and/or being easily doable without an attached "knighthood/noble title." Being devoted/a member of a specific order doesn't necessarily mean you have to get a knighthood/title, for example. Or even a desire to be a member...I can easily picture a PC who's story is something like: they know of this order in the game world. They know some of the "code/oath" they live by. They want to emulate and hope to become a member some day...when their renown or whatever warrants such an initiation...or even just working up the capital to pay the dues to be a member. This could be a fighter. Could be a cavalier. Neither has to be a/of noble/aristocratic decent or attitude.

If you work without the latter, you're just doing "melee combatant who is good on a horse".

And morale booster, some leadership/inspiring stuff, commander/strategist, diplomatic ability?

Why should this *not* be a branch of being a fighter?

No reason it can't be. I just am not seeing the need for it to be one or the other...I've yet to see why it couldn't be both.

If you put in in the fighter, the player gets a good way to choose how far he or she wants to dip into being a mounted fighter, instead of it being all-or-nothing. Depending on the rest of game design, I don't think you gain a whole lot from pulling just that one aspect of combat out into a separate class.

Well, as noted, it wouldn't be all there is to the separate class.

To analogize - if you're doing that, why aren't you pulling all the wizard school specializations out as separate classes?

Who said I'm not/wouldn't? Heh heh.

 

[the Jester]

How so? I mean, the fact that a Cavalier class was available didn't, to my understanding, make it so having a Fighter character who could fight mounted was somehow inconsequential or inferior.

It sure did! At least in my experience, the package a 1e cavalier got was so overpowered compared to a fighter that it was ridiculous.

The 1e cavalier made mounted fighters obsolete through:

1. Having straight-up superior combat ability (weapon of choice was much better than specialization).

2. Constantly increasing stats.

3. Starting with a far superior set of gear and a mount.

4. Having a bunch of other bonuses that simply made it a better fighter.

and

5. Not requiring enough xp for advancement, given how awesome the class was.

A 1e fighter is strictly inferior to the 1e cavalier. If the cavalier's xp chart was closer to that of a barbarian, maybe there'd have been some parity, but by RAW, the 1e cavalier is one of the worst instances of broken material in the 1e UA- and this is the same book that allowed pcs deep gnomes, duergar and drow with no drawbacks to balance their superior racial abilities.

 

[billd91]

In the 1e Unearthed Arcana, among it's many other shake ups, Paladins were moved from a sub-class of Fighter to falling under the newly presented "Cavalier" class of that manual.

I consider putting the paladin under the cavalier class to be a pretty bad mistake. Conceptually, it might work but giving the paladin the cavalier's powers was a pretty big boost.

The question is, in your view, does it make more sense that Paladin and Cavalier should be their own individual classes?

Or is Cavalier the more "general/broadly applying" archetype: the heavily armored fighter, bound and empowered by their oaths/orders, who excels in mounted combat and battlefield command stuff, and the Paladin is a specific type of that: their oath/orders are specifically religious/divinely-inspired in nature?

Depends on how you approach the game. 1e, as evidenced by Unearthed Arcana, was on an increasingly specialized trajectory. You had basic classes and more specialized subclasses and NPC classes galore. 2e took a step back and generalized - offering differing build packages to customize the basic classes. That demoted the cavalier to a kit but one that was available to fighters and paladins alike. It did, however, kind of push the suitability of kits into a "power kit" territory compared to weak kits (amazon, I'm looking at you), which was kind of a mess.

3e kind of split the difference by allowing feats to do most of the work but still coming up with a specialized knight class in PH2.

Personally, I can see a point to having different classes when you can have a substantially different mechanical structure that are hard to bolt on with the existing structures. Barbarians get the rage structure, fighters the customizability of styles, paladins the smite/channeling, rangers the skills, and knights/cavaliers the challenges. I don't think I would particularly worry about class/subclass structure, though. I think that's a bit passe these days.

 

[Celebrim]

Again, I don't see the cav "taking that" away from the fighter. Just the game giving us more than one type of character who can fill that role.

In practice it doesn't work that way though.

A spellcasting class is easily retrofitted by just adding spells. Since spellcasting classes have lots of spell slots, you can easily configure them to any new concept you want once the spells are available.

Until 3e came along, there was no way to retrofit non-spellcasting classes to expand their purview. The impetus to create something like the Cavalier is precisely that the existing classes didn't seem to do the job because something like Fighter just wasn't configurable the way that a spellcaster was. When 3.X came along, the tools to retrofit martial classes were there in the form of feats, but feats _seemed_ so easy to design (how could anything so short be hard?) that we got a flood of poor implementations that soured people on them. To make matters worse, the original rules gave mundane classes far less feats and skills than it gave spellcasters spells. And so designers continued to follow the easier path of inventing whole new classes to implement whatever fighters or rogues or whatever couldn't implement. But in doing so, they silo'd those abilities as class abilities, available only if you multiclassed.

I thought I was following right up til that last sentence. But I lost it...More spells for casters and more caster classes with expanding abilities. Got it. More martial/non-magic-using classes (though I would posit significantly less than caster/magic-using classes) creates...less expanding abilities?

Yes. Because each mundane class ends up with a narrow shard of mundane abilities it is claiming for itself. You can share spells easily, but you can't easily share and acquire classes. You can sort of dabble around in multiple classes with similar themes if the designer makes the mistake of front loading them, but that itself creates a mess. Whatever ends up as a class ability, doesn't end up as a feat (or a skill), which means the fighter loses access to them. If the fighter gains the class abilities of another class in the form of transporting those class abilities to feats, one of two things becomes clear. Either a) the new classes are strictly superior fighters in as much as they are fighters with a greater number of bonus feats (imagine a scenario with an archer class, hoplite class, juggernaut class, axman class, cavalier class, etc) or b) the original class is now redundant because you can implement the exact some character with the exact same abilities as a fighter. In practice, this prevent migration of class abilities into feats. And in 3.X, in practice it meant that most new fighter replacement classes really were strictly superior fighters with a larger number of skills and bonuses feats (but a more fixed progression), further depricating the fighter (and leading to power creep, although this was in part being driven by spellcasters in the lead).

I'm not sure if I agree...But this opinion of "having some of the same things as a Fighter" equates to "taking stuff away from the Fighter" seems to be very popular. I find it...interesting and unusual to my sensibilities.

Again, if you could build it as a fighter, I doubt anyone would ever think to create the alternate class.

 

[Gadget]

I could see a more generic "Knight" class being implemented in place of the Cavalier and the paladin being moved under that. This class could focus on more on oaths and orders and less on horsemanship. I think there is design space to fit in a lot of Warlord type abilities that might coincide with some of the old cavalier bonii, IIRC. You could take or leave some nobility/aristocrat baggage. The knight class has a lot looser defined, particularly in modern english, than cavalier.

 

[gamerprinter]

While both the cavalier and paladin are initially inspired by the European knight and Charlemagne's paladins, so the OP's consideration that thematically they fit together, either as both being 'subclasses' of fighter or a paladin as a subclass of cavalier. I get the connection in that reference.

However, if we remove our Euro-fantasy blinders and look at the class concepts only. The cavalier is a mounted warrior which fits any culture that has the facility of putting warriors on horseback. Many cultures do. While many traditional/conceptual builds of a mongol warrior is usually viewed as barbarian, I could easily see a Mongol warrior cavalier build. This is just one example of mounted warrior not under the traditional knight, but still fits cavalier, thematically. On the other hand, a paladin is a holy warrior. There is no requirement for a holy warrior to ride a horse as part of the theme. Anyone can ride a horse, but there's not a necessity that a paladin needs to have special attributes for a mount specialization.

For example, in my Kaidan setting of Japanese horror (PFRPG), there is a paladin archetype called the yamabushi. Yamabushi are ascetic warrior priests that follow the path of Shugendo, practicing dangerous rites like fire-walking, hanging oneself over the edge of a cliff, extended periods of meditation on mountains enduring the weather and isolation, or in mountain caves. While yamabushi can ride horses, they have no special affinity towards mounted vs. unmounted combat, and charging attacks thematically just don't fit. Yamabushi normally cannot wear heavy armor - the setting (as in feudal Japan) restricts heavy armor to samurai only. Because a yamabushi spends extensive time in mountainous wilderness regions in isolation, some woodland related skills are part of his skillset. Because the nobles in charge of Kaidan are all undead, and because yamabushi were historically outcast from society and considered practitioners of a banned religion, pitting the yamabushi vs. an evil and undead government as paladins seemed appropriate.

In this light, one can see how a holy warrior could apply to a different culture and at the same time, in no way seem appropriate for concept of knight. Paladin doesn't necessarily have to fit the mounted warrior mold. So by this description, I think I've shown that paladin should not be a subset of knight or cavalier, that they should indeed be two different class builds having nothing to do with each other. Under the traditional Euro-fantasy concept a cavalier and paladin seem associated, but as soon as you look at other cultures (non-Europeans ones), the association fails altogether.

There is no obvious connection between paladin and cavalier, unless you limit what the concept means to European familiarity - and there's no reason for that.

 

[Umbran]

And morale booster, some leadership/inspiring stuff, commander/strategist, diplomatic ability?

Well, none of those are part of the original Cavalier that appeared in Unearthed Arcana. In fact, the Cavalier needed 15 in Strength, Dex, and Con, a 10 in Intelligence and Wisdom, but had no Charisma minimum. The paladin as a subclass needed a 17 Charisma, but not the cavalier itself. He was really just a combatant with a focus for fighting on a mount, who would expect service from those of lower social status, and needed to obey oaths and his superiors.

As for being a commander and strategist, the writeup notes that cavaliers are nearly impossible to control in combat, and that they'll charge with little thought to safety or tactics, with an explicit list of target priorities. Sounds like cavaliers are *NOT* particularly thoughtful about strategy. Sorry.

Thinking about that, I recall that as another big reason why nobody n my group played one. Not being able to play smart was seen as a problem.

 

[Tom Strickland]

I've been recently listening to the librivox.org audio narrations of "Men of Iron" (1891, set in 15th century) and "Le Morte d'Arthur" (1485, set in late 5th century) while programming. There are several more I will be enjoying.

Such literary works from and/or about the far past would seem to be as illustrative as any of "archetypes" involving knights and knighthood. There has been much creative license in modern films (e.g. Excalibur, First Knight, King Arthur, etc.) and as to whether those better capture or redefine any "archetypes" I will not hazard a guess.

Some noteworthy, fictional points in my opinion:

Men of Iron

• Training for combat began while young
• It was a special, sometimes granted privilege when not a right
• Rituals such as becoming a "Knight of the Bath" and being knighted by the king rather than a representative carried tremendous importance
• The ritual of the attaching of riding spurs and the bestowal of arms was held in great honor and significance
• Decorum challenged one to be a "good" (or "goodly") knight, but vicious, merciless knights still commanded power and respect
• The bestowal of a fine horse was a tremendous boon, but the slaying of one in combat--purposeful or otherwise--was considered a terrible affront

Le Morte d'Arthur

• Knights seemed to joust at every opportunity with anyone else armed--dressing their shields and spears in readiness
• They traveled around with helms and would battle sometimes for hours before asking each others' names--and then sometimes desist because of horror at battling a friend or member for/against the Round Table, or else swear combat to the death because of some personal or other previous affront; this is to say they seemingly didn't recognize each other when not already famous and wearing standard identifiers
• Sometimes it was considered a "worshipful" feat to defeat a powerful opponent; moreover, some paragon knights were famous for defeating 10 or even a score of enemy knights single-handedly; Lancelot defeated 500 knights at one tournament when pledging his castle and possessions to the victor
• Knights when defeated sometimes begged for mercy and it was granted; otherwise, when to the death purposefully for some affront or out of viciousness, the helm was loosed and removed, then the head was cut off by the victor
• Getting terribly wounded and practically bleeding to death happened frequently for even "great" knights
• Great prowess in combat was associated with being a "good" knight and was often associated with being honorable ["Might makes right"]
• It was generally known who were the most powerful knights in an area (or "the whole world"): Lancelot, Trystram, Percival, etc.
• Knights would disguise themselves for different reasons while questing and in tournaments, and consequently "friends" were sometimes found to be fighting with each other
• Supernatural benefits could result from faith, but was rarely mentioned in huge sections of the work: one notable example being Percival praying and then a maiden with the Sangreal coming by--only visible to the virtuous soul--and fully healing him and another knight who had wounded each other to certain death (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holy_Grail)

Regarding D&D

I have played different official and 3rd party rules in 1st-3rd editions regarding knights and paladins.

To the question at hand using the above context:

My current thoughts are that a knight can easily be its own full 20-level class (or whatever). It could also be a kit or build of a fighter that emphasized horsemanship. Beyond that, I think there is much leeway regarding whether codes need to be followed, and whether there need be a lawful alignment component if that is used. Preferences for arms and armor in the rules may not be necessary--the knights in an era seemed to just prefer the best offense, defense and tactics available. "Armor as damage reduction" would fit right in. Additionally, "standard" rules and feats for damage multipliers with the lance and charging also capture a flavor.

Accordingly, I would then consider a Paladin to be a prestige class for a fighter or knight class with prerequisites, restrictions and benefits including: alignment, codes of chivalry/honor, quests, general and also unique divine blessings and capabilities contingent upon continued "worthiness". In fiction, a Paladin may well be overpowered--being a good or great fighter plus evidencing supernatural boons and capabilities. In gaming terms, there would be appropriate offsets to maintain "balance".


Additional References (that I could find relatively quickly and which are probably less well known compared to the WotC titles):

Legends of Excalibur (RPGObjects) [beautiful thematic formatting and art]
A Question of Honor: A Guidebook to Knights (Alea Publishing Group)
Noble Knights (Avalanche Press)
The Cavalier's Handbook (Green Ronin Publishing)
Classes of Legend: The Cavaliers (Lion's Den Press)
Charge! (Living Imagination)
Forgotten Heroes - Paladin (Malladin's Gate Press)
Power Classes: Knight (Mongoose Publishing)
The Quintessential Paladin (Mongoose Publishing)
Crusades of Valour (Mongoose Publishing)
101 Legendary Treasures of Medieval Europe (Ronin Arts)
Love and War (Penumbra)

 

[Tom Strickland]

...remove our Euro-fantasy blinders...
There is no obvious connection between paladin and cavalier, unless you limit what the concept means to European familiarity - and there's no reason for that.

I really enjoy and respect oriental mythology and history including in gaming--and I have practiced Far East martial arts my whole life.

I found the quote to be mildly offensive.

I like the 3.x Oriental Adventures sourcebook and have played Iaijutsu characters among others. A Yamabushi general or prestige class would be a welcome suggestion. I also enjoy reading about kits, builds and prestige classes that capture a "Euro-fantasy" (and historical) flavor.

Please do not disparage that.

 

[gamerprinter]

I really enjoy and respect oriental mythology and history including in gaming--and I have practiced Far East martial arts my whole life.

I found the quote to be mildly offensive.

I like the 3.x Oriental Adventures sourcebook and have played Iaijutsu characters among others. A Yamabushi general or prestige class would be a welcome suggestion. I also enjoy reading about kits, builds and prestige classes that capture a "Euro-fantasy" (and historical) flavor.

Please do not disparage that.

My post wasn't meant to be disparaging nor offensive, rather hopefully enlightening on a wider picture of what is cavalier and what is paladin. If you read most of the posts in this thread, the idea of cavalier and paladin as a mounted knight is almost exclusive in this discussion - and that is what makes the idea of somehow combining the two (or not) the main thread of this discussion (which is what the comment "Euro-fantasy blinders" refers to). I was only offering a wider concept on the essence of each class and how applying those to different cultures the connection is less obvious, if not altogether separate concepts.

To me, as long as a given character is lawful good, follows a specific code and ethos providing for the good of living beings, and excells at fighting undead and evil outsiders, this fits the concept of paladin. This doesn't have to include some guy in full plate armor, mounted on a horse, resembling a European knight, although it certainly can, and fits one archetypal concept of paladin - its not the only one, however. That was my only point.

I've certainly played and enjoyed playing the traditional knight inspired paladin in most games I've ever played as a paladin. But as a GM and game designer I like to change things up to fit other concepts in my created worlds. If paladins were exclusively designed to fit a mounted and armored knight only, then I'd agree that combining cavaliers and paladins makes sense. Since I don't see paladins as only fitting that single archetype, than perhaps keeping them as two separate classes, makes more sense. That's all I'm saying.

If you enjoy 3x/PF material regarding Oriental Adventures styled characters and setting then you ought to check out both Way of the Samurai (PFRPG) and Way of the Yakuza, both from Rite Publishing and both designed to support the Kaidan setting of Japanese horror, however, the mechanics and fluff work well for any Asian based PF campaign - even low fantasy settings. We are still working on our GMs guide to the Kaidan setting which will include new classes and archetypes for divine classes, arcane spellcasters and much more.

I've had some judo training, as a kid, but nothing significant nor ongoing, however, as a 1st generation Japanese American with relatives I keep in regular contact, having been to Japan twice, and long time fan of Japanese history, religion and folklore (as well as a lifetime D&Der/PF gamer), I have a special connection to oriental RPG games and settings from a different perspective.