Cavaliers...Did UA have it right?

[Celebrim]

So my initial question was wondering if that worked or "made [a common amount of] sense" today/with today's "modern" [meaning 3e-and-later] systems. Did the Cavalier as a separate class work...and does a Paladin, then, work as a subset of the Cav. or vice versa (with the assumption that both are a subset of "Fighter").

I've been engaged in rewritting the 3.0 classes to suit my own vision for what base classes should be like. Some of my guidelines have been:

1) Divorse the concept of each class from any extraneous cultural baggage so that there wouldn't be need to create a different base class for each real world inspired culture.
2) Try to move all the classes so that they come within a tier or two of each other, and particular none are tier 1 or tier 5.
3) Try to make each base class so diverse in its options that you would not expect any two players creating characters of that class to come up with the same concept. Or to put it another way, you could have a party of characters with the same character class, and each character would be distinctive.
4) Remove the need for Prestige Classes

The Cavalier in my opinion would complete fail all the guidelines I've set for myself. Worse, it would detract from the work I've been doing on the Fighter class by overlapping it in concept. I wanted to restore to the Fighter all the honor and breadth associated with the concept of a trained warrior or soldier so that if your core concept was, "A trained warrior." regardless of profession, regardless of social background, regardless of culture, regardless of specialization, it would make sense to implement the class as a fighter. I wanted to end the need for specialized classes for Knight, Samurii, Bushido, Kensai, Gladiator, Martial Artist, Pit Fighter, Cavalier, Warlord, Marshall, Hoplite, or whatever because in my opinion the need for such classes points to the fact that your base classes aren't well designed. The need for subclasses in my opinion points to the fact that your rules aren't particularly 'modern', as we now have plenty of means to diversify our classes without the need to create a new class with a fixed progression of abilities.

Along those lines, the Paladin also fails my guidelines at least in part because it carries too much unnecessary cultural baggage to be considered a base class. I ditched the Paladin class per se, and replaced it with the Champion class - a class derived in part from Green Ronin's Holy/Unholy Warrior classes.

3.X core classes that fail guideline #1: Paladin, Druid, Ranger, Monk, Barbarian, Paladin
3.X core classes that fail guideline #2: Cleric, Wizard, Druid, Fighter, Monk
3.X core classes that fail guideline #3: Druid, Barbarian, Monk
3.X core classes that fail guideline #4: Fighter. Monk. And in some sense, all of them, since almost any concept that involves a hybrid caster and non-caster class had to have a PrC built to accomodate it.

So, in answer to your question, I don't believe Cavelier makes sense in a modern context because:

a) It carries extraneous culture baggage.
b) It is not in my opinion a modern approach to build a separate base class to try to capture a narrow concept, a process that evetually lead to 2e having Cook and Blacksmith as classes.
c) There are techniques in the modern approach for styling your character to have a particular specialty within the base concept. For example, warrior implies mounted warrior is a possibility. Or similarly, warrior ought to imply aristocratic warrior is a possibility.

There are generally recognized to be 3 core classes in D&D - magical, martial, and skill monkey. For reasons of balance and flavor, magical in D&D is generally divided into arcane and divine. This gives us the four traditional core classe: arcane (Wizard), divine (Cleric), martial (Fighter), and skill monkey (Rogue). That's are minimum set, and a good argument could be made that you don't need more than that. Feel free to implement that if it suits you. However, many feel that some or all of the hybrids deserve a base class, for example divine/martial, martial/skill monkey, or arcane/skill monkey. Additionally, some classic classes have become iconic in and of themselves and players are going to expect that they can create characters that are distinctively of that concept without recourse to multiclassing. In 3e for example, the Barbarians rage became so iconic that pretty much anyone is going to expect to find some sort of Raging mostly martial/some skill monkey hybrid that lets them play what is now iconicly 'a barbarian'. Likewise, divine is generally split between Cleric and 'Druid' or arcane is generally split between Wizard and Sorcerer and some extent a need to need to also support arcane variants like Psion. I don't currently have a Monk class, but I'm increasingly feeling this sort of pressure on my rules set from people that (unlike me) feel the Monk is iconic, which may ultimately force me to provide some sort of 'Jedi' hybrid arcane/martial base class without the need to multiclass (Note, I don't need such a thing mechanically, as flurry of blows, stunning touch, etc. can all be handled in other ways.)

Anyway, I feel that the modern approach probably demands that there be between 4 and 15 base classes, none of which needs to be the Cavalier any more than we now need Acrobat as its own distinctive class. The cavalier existed because there was no way initially to customize fighters in an old school approach beyond selection of arms, armor and weapon proficiencies. Mostly I think that this was unsatisfying because the old school approach had no way of associating a background or skill set with a character in a way that consistently informed mechanical resolution. Old school was forced to move mechanical resolution into class specific notes in the adventure description, which notably procludes having meaningfu differences in background. Likewise, there was no old school way to define skillfulness beyond a class exclusive list of skills with a percentage chance of success, such as the thief. This in no way addressed a question like, "What is the chance you can bake a cake successfully?", and ultimately lead to silliness like having "Bake a Cake: 35%" and the implication that if you didn't have "Bake a Cake: 35%" in your class description, your chance of success was 0%.

We don't have that problem now. We can customize a character with a specialization and set of associated skills in order to mechanically tie background to process resolution.

 

[Umbran]

But the ensuing/expanding conversation about the need for such a class, in the first place, and various flavors and origins of said classes is a lot more interesting than that.

Well, the problem you hit then is that those extra powers are pretty solidly desirable in any party, but Cavaliers, as such, are not. That mounted combat shtick is nice, but less interesting in urban or dungeon environments. So, sure, you can make a class that has those abilities, but I wouldn't expect or want the cavalier to be the most common way to get at them - they ought to be available in a clerical, social-rogue/bard, or "warlord" basis more generically first.

 

[gamerprinter]

I've already said, all I intend regarding paladins, but regarding the PF cavalier, and more specifically its alternate, the samurai, I find is a better and more interesting class mechanically than cavalier itself, IMO. I like that mounted combat is still part of its schtick, yet charging as a preferred attack is less insinuated, and the Resolve mechanic is great and more useful than many of the cavaliers built-in abilities.

Forget that I'm half Japanese, and develop the Kaidan setting of Japanese horror (PFRPG), as though I do like the Japanese flavor, to me, flavor can be easily replaced using any existing build. The samurai as a mounted warrior and replacement for the niche otherwise filled by cavalier, is, in my mind, more applicable to a wider array of concepts (more versatile) than what I believe to be a limited class in the cavalier. If I were wanting to play a PF cavalier like character, I'd probably choose samurai instead and simply replace his 'kimono' with a 'T-tunic', eschewing all Asian concepts and play it us as a European knight, but with more versatile set of abilities I can use in play.

 

[Tom Strickland]

Some people have commented that in their campaigns players rarely if ever played classes or builds that emphasized mounted combat because it could only infrequently be used effectively. I wanted to mention that I too have pondered upon the issues of investing in mounted combat skills, feats, classes, etc., when dungeon-delving would render such moot. [Is that like the usefulness of "Turn Undead" when undead monsters are scarce depending upon the campaign setting? Enter: feats that use "Turn Undead" to power other abilities.]

Having been primarily a DM it has been less of an issue because any creatures I "play" are mostly custom-made and hand-tuned for an encounter area. That is to say that if I run mounted opponents they appear in an area where that can be leveraged perhaps to the fullest extent.

However, if I put on a player hat, I then consider points (including those made by many others over much time) regarding why I might want to invest in mounted combat and how I might keep it relevant in multiple tactical settings.

Appeal

- Mounted combat is appealing for numerous reasons in reality and fiction. Several movies have demonstrated the power, mobility and effectiveness of (pre-gun) cavalry units: Braveheart, Gladiator, The Return of the King (LotR) [Rohirrim charges at Helm's Deep and also before the gates of Minas Tirith], etc. Some real-world battles in certain historical periods were at a minimum decisively won by effective cavalry tactics.

- In myths and legends, the idea of the centaur--a blending of man and horse--was told of in interesting ways.

- In D&D (focus on 3.x), riding a horse gave you access to (non-exhaustive list): 2-5x movement of usually 35-50 ft. in a round while heavily armored and still allowing for one or more PC attacks if not also a single natural attack by the mount; increased damage due to momentum; increased damage multipliers due to specialized weapons; feats that increased the damage and/or multipliers when charging or performing other special actions; the mount might perform its own multiple (special and normal) attacks while meleeing; the mount served as an intentional or inadvertent target which spared the rider; skills could allow the avoiding of some blows that would have otherwise struck the mount; the mount might enjoy the benefit of class features or otherwise be boosted by spells and magic items; etc.

Considerations for Cramped Quarters

[Note: In further listening to Le Morte d'Arthur there is a scene where Lancelot is bidden to enter an underground area and battle a dragon--he did so on foot with his sword.]

As I reflect upon hundreds of encounter areas I have DM'd over the years, less than 5% were forced to be in quarters too tight for large creatures to fight. A strategic retreat or relocation might have been necessary, but there were no massive 5' mazes.

Also, I would like to note that in my current campaign a druid with his large bear animal companion has had zero difficulties with his "class feature" in any setting they have enjoyed. Expanding, the challenge of bringing a mount is akin to bringing some types of companions or cohorts, or even just primarily running a PC creature of larger than medium size.

Thoughts that come to mind on how to mitigate challenges to mounted combat:

- Large mounts can squeeze through medium areas.

- Mounts can be swapped in different locales (underground lizard-riding?!) and many if not all associated benefits applied for a given build.

- Mount and/or rider could be (temporarily) altered by magic in various ways (size reduction, gaseous form, etc.). [How about a dragon mount at high levels which might also be able to polymorph for tight quarters conventional travel?]

Summary

I am reminded of movies where horses clattered into indoor settings like "Lady Hawk". Many of my custom and module-provided underground areas have spacious encounter areas where nothing whatsoever prevents mounted combat if a mount is so present.

Considering the inspirational entertainment and role-play value of mounted combat, I would work hard to find (rules-based) "allowable" means to leverage a mounted-combat character build in most available settings in "fantasy medieval" campaigns when I was in such a mood!

[Post Scriptum: Note that on-foot encounters in "knight" settings often transitioned by agreement to mounted encounters--that is why that fiction "works". Lawful enemies might frequently agree to such formal "duels" including being loaned commensurate equipment to make things more "fair".

Post Post Scriptum: I had also wanted to note how interesting it was to me to read of the repeated events in Arthurian legend when knights charged and struck each other with such force that one or both were thrown to the ground--including sometimes the powerful warhorse mounts with them. That is some serious force in game terms. Also note that the real-world Destrier breed is now extinct and it was more massive than large horses we might currently know such as draft and Clydesdales.]

 

[gamerprinter]

While I can agree that mounted combat games can be fun and have a great amount of literary and film examples for the horseman inspiration. In D&D, however, that really works best at low level. Once casters can fly, mount specialist characters will want flying mounts, and not that there's anything wrong with that, but how do you transition of a primarily normal mount (horse or otherwise), to a flying mount. Giving a flying mount to a low level character is OP, its problematic on both sides.

I don't think a long campaign or adventure path (1st - 15th+) would survive the increased power levels of PCs without seeming contrived. The horseman or mounted knight has a firm grasp in our psyche and romantic literary context, but horses are difficult to remain effective or survivable in most higher level games.

I'm not saying somebody couldn't make it work, but it would have to be extremely innovative and niche.

 

[Celebrim]

While I can agree that mounted combat games can be fun and have a great amount of literary and film examples for the horseman inspiration. In D&D, however, that really works best at low level. Once casters can fly, mount specialist characters will want flying mounts, and not that there's anything wrong with that, but how do you transition of a primarily normal mount (horse or otherwise), to a flying mount. Giving a flying mount to a low level character is OP, its problematic on both sides.

I'm mostly in agreement with you, except that standard flying mounts are not particularly problematic in the hands of low level PC's and a handicap for higher level PC's. They generally aren't any more effective than horses, save than when they are paralyzed/killed/etc., the rider has much farther to fall.

The horseman or mounted knight has a firm grasp in our psyche and romantic literary context, but horses are difficult to remain effective or survivable in most higher level games.

I suppose it depends on the horse. As you move out of the gritty into the heroic, your chosen mount has to evolve along with you. In most stories, the hero's mount is an extraordinary NPC in its own right. If you move up into 'The Batman' territory or Superman territory, the mount has to be capable enough to be part of the story too. There is no reason to imagine that a fantasy world with 20th level heroes, doesn't have '20th level' horses as well. If the DM isn't as willing to make those as available as +5 swords, then it is the DM that has chosen to have a game with no mounts.

 

[billd91]

Well, the problem you hit then is that those extra powers are pretty solidly desirable in any party, but Cavaliers, as such, are not. That mounted combat shtick is nice, but less interesting in urban or dungeon environments. So, sure, you can make a class that has those abilities, but I wouldn't expect or want the cavalier to be the most common way to get at them - they ought to be available in a clerical, social-rogue/bard, or "warlord" basis more generically first.

Meh. Depends on the kind of game you want to play. If you're more interested in the knightly court-style campaign or relatively mundane warfare campaign a la Game of Thrones, the mounted cavalier's a great choice. The cavalier tool may be less useful than a more flexible and generic fighter, but he's still pretty good to have in the toolkit for some jobs.

 

[Umbran]

Meh. Depends on the kind of game you want to play. If you're more interested in the knightly court-style campaign or relatively mundane warfare campaign a la Game of Thrones, the mounted cavalier's a great choice. The cavalier tool may be less useful than a more flexible and generic fighter, but he's still pretty good to have in the toolkit for some jobs.

Perhaps I wasn't clear. I don't actually care if the cavalier exists, in general. I'm saying that the cavalier is rather specific in its style, so that no really important functions should be found in the cavalier first and foremost. Sure, if you want knightly court-style games, the cavalier is fine. No argument. But the leadership and social functions should not be only found in that class, but should be found in some class or classes that are more generic and flexible in their style, or available to anyone if the GM is using an appropriate rules add-on (the "knights and pseudo-feudal power structure" module, or something).

 

[Starfox]

...the leadership and social functions should not be only found in that class, but should be found in some class or classes that are more generic and flexible in their style, or available to anyone if the GM is using an appropriate rules add-on

You are talking about the parts of the Pathfinder cavalier that are like the 4E warlord here, I presume?

If you are, I agree. It is actually quite simple to do in Pathfinder - just swap "mount" for the fighter's "armor training" and you're done. There is very little upper class about the Pathfinder Cavalier outside of certain orders, so just tweaking the orders can handle the rest.

 

[gamerprinter]

Perhaps I wasn't clear. I don't actually care if the cavalier exists, in general. I'm saying that the cavalier is rather specific in its style, so that no really important functions should be found in the cavalier first and foremost. Sure, if you want knightly court-style games, the cavalier is fine. No argument. But the leadership and social functions should not be only found in that class, but should be found in some class or classes that are more generic and flexible in their style, or available to anyone if the GM is using an appropriate rules add-on (the "knights and pseudo-feudal power structure" module, or something).

Perhaps something like a "knight" template that could be applied to any class to give it leadership and social functions...