Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Starfox" data-source="post: 6280626" data-attributes="member: 2303">The issue has to be approached a little differently in different games.In 1E (AD&D), they were different classes. The cavalier was more akin to a fighter, but quite powerful. Technically the paladin might have been made a cavalier subclass, but that had no practical effect.In 2E, it could probably be a (very extensive) kit. But since 2E had no cavalier, I suppose cavalier could have been a paladin kit instead. Maybe there was a late cavalier in 2E that came up after I stopped buying new books.In 3.5 there was a Knight class with some similarities to the cavalier. I kind of liked it, but it was a shy design, from one of the later books when the designers were so afraid of making things overpowered it actually ended up weak. In particular, the class abilities had too many specific hit dice limitations. In Pathfinder, if there was no Paladin class and I was to make one from scratch, I'd probably make it a cavalier archetype. But as there is a paladin class already, it's moot. Pathfinder powered up both the paladin and the knight/cavalier significantly, making them quite different form the (also up-powered) fighter. (Power comparisons are to 3.5.)In 5E, both probably are (and should be) sub-classes of the fighter, because of how 5E is designed.</blockquote>