Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
ShortQuests -- individual adventure modules! An all-new collection of digest-sized D&D adventures designed to plug in to your game.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Celebrim" data-source="post: 9882779" data-attributes="member: 4937">Some actual discussion of the choices, or "Why is this class not superior to the fighter?"a) Weapon Specialization: We could almost full stop here.  Compared to a weapon specialized fighter they are giving up +3 damage per attack, and they don't get a +3 bonus to hit until 7th level and that only with their primary mounted weapons.  They never get more than a +4 bonus to hit, and again only with their primary mounted weapons when mounted.  They have slight advantages over a specialized fighter in attacks per round with mounted weapons at certain levels, but are behind at other levels.  They don't ever have an end game better than the fighter.b) Slowed Weapon Progression: Like the ranger they are limited to three starting weapon proficiency slots and get better at using weapons (other than their chosen weapons) slower than the Fighter does.  And if they aren't proficient at all they get an additional penalty no other fighter subclass does.c) Zero level start: While the rules allow a DM to let a player start as a 1st level cavalier if they wish, they don't require it and empower the DM to force any prospective cavalier to start with d4 hit points and 1500 XP behind every other class.  This gets them almost as slow of a start as a barbarian.  By the time you are 1st level, the fighter almost 2nd level.  This is meant to pacify DMs that still think the class is too powerful as written.d) Slower leveling progression: It's a sure sign that the person has not thought about AD&D balance seriously that they compare levels to levels.  If class A at 9th level is more powerful than class B at 9th level, in AD&D this says nothing about balance.  The questions are "At a given amount of XP, which class is more powerful".  I've altered the progression so that Cavalier lags fighter in HD for most of their career and certainly in the end game.  Generally speaking, you will be a weaker combatant than a fighter with worse saves, lower hit points, worse THAC0, etc.  You make up for that only when mounted, where you are indeed a beast but not so much better that a comparable XP fighter with a lance (much less a lance specialization) couldn't beat you.  You are never really outshining a fighter as a warrior.e) Chivalry: I've tried to write this up in a way that is hugely constraining without it being anti-social and reduced a little bit the "gotcha" factor of arguments with the GM over what was honorable.  The original write up made it seem like all cavaliers had Wisdom 6 rather than sincere scruples of a recognizably heroic nature.   The important thing is that you can't play this class in pawn stance.  You are forced to inhabit the ideology and make concessions to it or else you are going to be just a bad fighter.So yes, you get some tremendously powerful and impactful abilities.  But it's not obvious that this class is better than a fighter.  Dauntless in particular is incredibly powerful and eventually you will be almost immune to mental control, but you are giving up a lot for that.The real reason to play the class is if you have a lot of 14s and 15s in your physical attributes, in regular AD&D you are always going to suck in combat.  However, with this class by name level if you make it that far, those 14's and 15's will have turned into 16's or maybe even 17's and you will not suck nearly as much.  Plus there is a nice little frontloaded benefit for playing the class if you have decent intelligence but perhaps not good enough to build a M-U.  For some ability score arrays this is a better choice than a fighter.  But if you rolled 18 strength to start, you probably would be just straight up better off taking fighter.Problems with the Write Up: 1) As [USER=29398]@Lanefan[/USER] has noticed, I haven't actually described how to continue as a fighter if you lose the subclass.  I probably should as that will be generally useful for other class write ups.  It happened in part because I suddenly realized that the rules were really vague about what happened in that case and writing it up exactly would be more convoluted than the original rules make it sound despite being a "normal" 1e AD&D mechanic.2) I make a lot of reference to NWPs that are in my head but not presented.  For example, the interaction between Cavalier and their steeds in terms of appraising them has actually got hidden as a general ability available to people with the right NWPs and not something the Cavalier actually lost.3) As written up, Dauntless makes Wisdom a real dump stat for the Cavalier, which is funny but not really the intention.  I have considered several alternatives such as capping the Dauntless benefit at +4 or halfing the benefit so that it's only 1/2 your Cavelier level.  The important thing is that it isn't as front loaded as the original write up.  But I'm not exactly sure where to go with it.4) The write up is vague on what happens to non-cavaliers below 0 hit points.  This is somewhat intended as the rules vary, but how powerful "Hard to Kill" actually is will depend on the rules used at different tables.  I'm still on the fence about their Martyr action.  I'm not sure if it should be immediate death or just they immediately lapse unconscious.  I'm equally unsure about what the best saving throw to stay conscious should be.  I could see an argument for using a SSS check, a CON check, or a different saving throw.5) I would expect some fan of the class to say, "Look what you've done to my boy!"  I admit if anything the class is on the weak side now, though it is probably more powerful than most non-specialized fighters.  I think I need to tone down the XP requirements after 8th level just a tad.</blockquote>

Verification