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: 6678032" data-attributes="member: 92511">Couple of thoughts/answers to more stuff here...Muchos gracias! Happy to hear it.Right. For my mind (and I suppose you would categorize this under, as you say, "Design Goals"), to justify the "cavalier" as a mounted warrior archetype, they have to/should cover more than "knight in shining armor" and need to, legitimately, cover several "good on a horse/mount warrior" types. With the Background framework of 5e (which I often forget to consider and, unlike MCing or feats, is NOT optional!), I feel leaving the aristocratic story elements out of the class features works perfectly. The material [in the cavalier] is there for you to PLAY it in that direction if that is the character you want...but you don't HAVE to/can play other mounted warriors of other -not aristocrat/noble/"chivalric knight-in-title"- types. I was afraid people would think this, but was unaware of any other class/subclass that gets to ADD an ability prof./save to their repertoire. And my "old school" spidey senses always tingles when you start adding/giving "more stuff" without removing/balancing [within the class/subclass] that be receiving "less" of something else...and an ability swap is, was to my mind, a 1:1 no-brainer.   That's what I was thinking. But, if you don't think it would be OPed, easily abusable, or set a dangerous precedent for other character/class creations, I'm not against adding it as a third save prof. It's the flavor I'm going for.Perhaps a bit...but then, most of the paladin's wheelhouse is in the cavalier's...just without magic/divine power. So, in that way, as a mundane feature that is left to the player's control - the cavalier can choose to be inspiring/help his companions or not/be selfish, as opposed to the "always on aura" of a paladin...that's a significant enough difference, in my wheelhouse <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" />It is and does. In my ranger rewrite, I gave them a later feature that up'ed the CR to 1, I think. I checked, and know that 1/2 gets them the warhorse (which is obviously the primary choice/most popular archetype), but it would deny smaller folks creatures like Tigers or Lions or Dire Wolves. This does, however, bring up the point that I don't believe I specified (in thinking of taking on the additional kinds of mounts and their ability...Griffons and Pegusi are CR 2....a unicorn is CR 5....dragons, of course, can go much higher. So, starting at CR 1/2 and then, at the later mount/bond powers thing, needs to be up'd to "any CR" and any size? Is that a bit OPed?I mean, common sense/storyline-speaking there's no reason a halfling cavalier couldn't climb up on a large or huge creature and "ride it"...but I have a little trouble with realistically [as far as fantasy story "realism" goes] control it and gain the mounted benefits from/with it.But, for simplicity's sake, I think I'll just have to accept/turn a blind eye to the ridiculousness of some possibilities and let tables play as they play.Agreed. Needs another once over.I think so. Is that redundant...or OPed...or incidental/underPed?That's the idea. Maybe a warhorse, hippcomapus, and bronze dragon. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" />THanks. I'm pretty much with you on this. I, personally, am no great fan of the "forced movement" stuff of the past, and I know/notice that it is missing from most fighter abilities. The battlemaster maneuvers that can effect/force movement all require the spending of a superiority dice and then allows a save (usually to Strength). I think the save let's it, at least not be auto...but it does feel/sound a bit like "magic" and that I definitely don't want. Unfortunately, I looked at a few other games/systems that had a "knightly challenge" mechanic and this was pretty much the only choice...I'm really just stymied on how else to do it...unless we model it directly after a BM maneuver and do, like, having to "spend" something before the save...I really just don't know...Ummm...I was a thinking it would be "up to" 50/50...as the player wants (so 60/40 or 80/20 or whatever, if the mount isn't very injured/doesn't need the full 50. Doesn't the fighter gets 100% + 50% for the mount seem overpowered? You're essentially making all of their HD 50% more/higher than any other characters.I am indeed. If we can say the Paladin is [or was, up to now], essentially, the "Wisdom Fighter" (though yes, I know they were required to have high Cha's from their creation, but their divine magic/clerical abilities put a definite flavor emphasis on Wisdom), the Barbarian is the "Constitution Fighter", and the Ranger [arguably] is the "Intelligence or Dexterity Fighter", then the Cavalier ...to my mind...has always been the "Charisma Fighter." In 5e terms, that would translate to Champion = the Str. subclass, BM = the Wis. subclass, EK = the Int. subclass...so Cav. can be the Cha. subclass.</blockquote>

Verification