Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="steeldragons" data-source="post: 6279650" data-attributes="member: 92511">Yeah. #2 was always a big one. "I'm great on a horse? So what?!"From what i've seen of the PF cav, they have good in and out of combat stuff that doesn't depend on being mounted, though they are good on a horse as well (and a couple of things work better or only if they are mounted). As [MENTION=4937]Celebrim[/MENTION] mentioned earlier, the mounted aspect of the 1e cav wasn't necessarily their "defining" feature (though I think they did, automatically, get a horse to start play...which no one else could). The automatic "rich guy/aristocrat" thing didn't help.Just to touch on another point, I do think a cavalier class can easily be done with no automatic wealth/noble title. I think, over time, we...well "many" or at least I...tend to see "the mounted warrior guy" as the most obvious differentiating thing for the class nowadays...and in a game where most (or the bulk of many) adventures are going on indoors or underground, that doesn't help make it a strongly desirable character type. But it seems there's a lot for the class to offer...which, yes, might/could be overlap with a Fighter (or Paladin) character, but with separate skills/abilities built in that a Fighter would have to choose/take a different way [than being built in to the class].Put another way...I think a case can be made for "All Fighters can be played as Cavaliers. But not all Cavaliers can be played as Fighters."...and/or vice versa?...but both/separate classes can work in the same game space/world.</blockquote>

Verification