D&D General What ever happened to the Cavalier?

[Vaalingrade]

It's remarkable how the concept has held on despite the stereotype that the horse will die quickly.

 

[DEFCON 1]

It's really the same issue that Sorcerers have regarding many of their metamagics. When you only get 2 of them, rarely will you see someone take one that is only useful in the rarest of circumstances (say Distant Spell). If you only are going to need to extend the reach of a spell like once or twice a campaign (because your ranges are fine otherwise)... who is going to take that metamagic as one of their permanent options over others that can be used every fight?

Which is why I most certainly believe that every Sorcerer should have every metamagic at their disposal-- so that in the single situation in the campaign where Subtle Spell was actually useful to them... they could make their spell silent (while not hamstringing themselves the rest of the game.) Sure, if you want to put a cost on it to have it available make it 1 Sorcerer Point higher that what it normally would cost if you had selected it... but at least make it available to be used.

This goes for Battlemaster Maneuvers while we're at it too. If spellcasters can have like a dozen spell options at hand each day at Level 5 to cast all manner of spells in all manner of situations... Sorcerers and Battlemasters can have more than just 3 options for themselves (while hoping against hope this was the day Extended Spell or Evasive Footwork actually proved to be useful.)

 

[Umbran]

It's remarkable how the concept has held on despite the stereotype that the horse will die quickly.

Horses in D&D are given stats that make them sensible mounts for the general populace and fairly mundane armies. So a warhorse is a CR 1/2 creature, and they will die whenever something to challenge higher level characters show up. Less a stereotype and more a statistical reality.

There's another reality - map size. A warhorse has double the movement rate of a typical character on foot. If you scale the map for characters on foot, the horse just becomes a "go anywhere on the map" tool. If you scale the map for mounted characters, anyone unhorsed may well be just out of the fight.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

I just fixed mounted combat for my games the other day. I was making the characters for my players, because they are new to 5e, and because I have been enjoying doing it. It got me obsessed with making sure that 1) everything the character can do is spelled-out rules-wise & 2) It all fits on one page (with not-small font!).

With that in mind, I was trying to fit the ranger's horse on (and then the fighter picked up one too, after defeating a villain mounted on a warhorse). So... two characters with horses. So I started with the whole warhorse monster statblock. I was tying to cram it into a corner, when it occurred to me that I could just move stuff to the PC. I left the mount's AC, HP, and Ability Scores in a little box and I moved its speed, charge, and hooves attacks under the PC's options. So it looked like this:

Speed: 30 ft. (Mounted) 60 ft.
Charge. (mounted) If you move at least 20 ft. straight toward a creature & hit them with your horse’s hooves, they must make a dc14 STR save or be knocked prone.

Actions:
Longsword +5 for 1d8+3 slashing damage.
Hooves (mounted) +6 for 2d6+4 bludgeoning damage.

etc.

So now the horses' attacks are just part of the PC's suite of features. And they'll actually use them. They "ready" those features by mounting their horse, the same way you ready your sword by drawing it.

 

[LuisCarlos17f]

There was a knight class in 3.5, Player handbook 2. There is also a cavalier-knight class in Pathfinder, and the "orders" as subclasses. In certain way there was a knight class in Dragonlance.

In 5Ed is possible, but it needs its own identity, and options for subclasses. It can't be only a paladin without divine spells or a rider wearing heavy armor.

Other point is players who love a monster as mount. What about the dragonsteed from 3.5 Dragon Magic?

 

[bedir than]

If the game wants people to have better mechanical options for characters on mounts or sailing vessels... every game mechanic (such as Feats) needs to have as part of its description how the Feat is used/expanded/changed) while on the backs of animals or on ships. So if a player selects it, they know the Feat will be useful in every type of situation.

This isn't the expectation for wilderness play, or aerial play, or underwater play. Why would it be the expectation for mounted or on-the-seas play?

 

[MGibster]

It's remarkable how the concept has held on despite the stereotype that the horse will die quickly.

I think it's because the concepts of knights in shining armor, jousting, etc., etc. are solidly embedded in our culture even outside of fantasy.

There's another reality - map size. A warhorse has double the movement rate of a typical character on foot. If you scale the map for characters on foot, the horse just becomes a "go anywhere on the map" tool. If you scale the map for mounted characters, anyone unhorsed may well be just out of the fight.

I concur with the opinion of my esteemed colleage Dr. Umbran. The rules reflect the more common situations PCs find themselves in which are in areas where mounted combat isn't a good option. The only time I ever saw a lot of mounted combat was when haflings and gnomes were running around on large dogs in 3rd edition.

 

[Thomas Shey]

It's remarkable how the concept has held on despite the stereotype that the horse will die quickly.

Its one of those things that is endemic in the fiction that inspires people but the mechanical choices in D&D have never made it work well. In RuneQuest, a barded horse (and it didn't necessarily need to be heavy barding) was often harder to kill than the PC on his back (and in the case of warhorses, for a long time more dangerous) but it doesn't take long in most editions of D&D for a horse to be immensely more brittle than the person riding it.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Horses in D&D are given stats that make them sensible mounts for the general populace and fairly mundane armies. So a warhorse is a CR 1/2 creature, and they will die whenever something to challenge higher level characters show up. Less a stereotype and more a statistical reality.

There's another reality - map size. A warhorse has double the movement rate of a typical character on foot. If you scale the map for characters on foot, the horse just becomes a "go anywhere on the map" tool. If you scale the map for mounted characters, anyone unhorsed may well be just out of the fight.

I'd say the latter is only true if ranged attackers don't really have a purpose. If you really want it to be intrinsically melee centric, then you're right, but I'd certainly not hesitate to start combats in some environments at such ranges that closing isn't going to be a one or even two round operation.

 

[Thomas Shey]

This isn't the expectation for wilderness play, or aerial play, or underwater play. Why would it be the expectation for mounted or on-the-seas play?

I think its defensible that it should apply to wilderness play to some degree.

As to why--because specialized abilities rarely get taken when you have an extremely limited amount of resource to spend on them, unless you know they're going to be used regularly. Which you rarely do.