Help me understand the Cavalier.
Tresset
Member, Moderator Posts: 8,268
I have never understood why so many people seem to praise the cavalier as far and away the best paladin kit while saying the other two are relatively worthless. From my perspective the Cavalier doesn't seem all that special compared to the other two... I mean sure It looks decent enough to me, but it just doesn't seem worthy of all the hype it gets. I would like to better understand why everyone likes it so much but first I would like to give everyone some perspective on my opinion.
Note: I would like to look at this strictly from a powergaming perspective and not talk about the role playing merits of this kit. It will soon become apparent that my personal favorite kit is the Inquisitor. Also I would like to ignore the Blackguard (at least for now) since it isn't exactly a paladin per-se (that and I actually get how good they are).
Now for the Cavalier's abilities and why I think they are kinda meh.
+3 To hit and damage vs. Dragons and Demons
While these creatures are easily some of the nastiest you will ever encounter; they are honestly quite rare. There is a grand total of 1 enemy that falls under this category in BG1 (Aec-Letec). Demons and dragons are more common in BG2 of course but I just don't think they are common enough to really consider this a worthwhile advantage; as nice as it may be when you do get to use it. Now the Undead Hunter's +3 to hit and damage vs. undead on the other hand, THAT is a sizable advantage considering how both common and nasty undead can be.
Remove Fear once per day per level
No way you will EVER need this ability that much. Again, it is nice to have when you do need it but it just doesn't set the Cavalier aside from any other class or kit, especially considering that there are probably more ways to fight fear than any other condition. I would MUCH rather have a dispel magic that can absolutely obliterate ALL magic (not just fear effects) AND True Seeing, even if they are castable many times less per day. Heck I would take either the true seeing or the dispel magic ALONE over remove fear.
Immunity to charm, fear, poison, and morale failure
First of all... We hardly need the fear and morale failure immunities if we have a million (Yes, its an exaggeration. Back on topic please.) castings of remove fear each day. Charm immunity is really nice, but the Inquisitor has that too. Poison immunity is actually about the best thing about the class in my eyes and even that becomes unnecessary once you get the Ring of Gaxx or the Poison Proof Periapt (granted there are items for immunity to just about everything else too). I would rather have immunity to Charm and Hold, both of which are totally debilitating and quite common in both games.
20% acid and fire resistance
Another pretty good bonus admittedly. Acid is kinda rare but fire is really common. 20% isn't a whole lot though.
No ranged weapons (other than throwing axes, daggers, and hammers.)
Pretty serious penalty for not much in therms of bonus. I suppose the throwing weapons mitigate this factor a little but it is still a hefty penalty for a bunch of mostly redundant bonuses.
Can cast spells, turn undead, and lay hands; as opposed to your precious inquisitor
I know people are going to bring this up so I will cover it now. Yes, I will admit that those are all pretty darn serious penalties. Lay hands I could certainly live without. It is a good healing spell but not good enough that I will miss it. Casting spells... Well you only get up to level 4 and since EE you get a hefty 8 level penalty to your casting level. I will still admit that this is a pretty terrible penalty, but worth it in my eyes (if only just). Besides, paladins are more about fighting than casting. Turn undead is another big one but I still don't miss it too much. Clerics can do it too.
So that is about it. Sorry about the wall of text here but I did it so that you would know my argument and be able to pick it apart piece by piece and hopefully help me understand what the big deal is with the Cavalier.
Note: I would like to look at this strictly from a powergaming perspective and not talk about the role playing merits of this kit. It will soon become apparent that my personal favorite kit is the Inquisitor. Also I would like to ignore the Blackguard (at least for now) since it isn't exactly a paladin per-se (that and I actually get how good they are).
Now for the Cavalier's abilities and why I think they are kinda meh.
+3 To hit and damage vs. Dragons and Demons
While these creatures are easily some of the nastiest you will ever encounter; they are honestly quite rare. There is a grand total of 1 enemy that falls under this category in BG1 (Aec-Letec). Demons and dragons are more common in BG2 of course but I just don't think they are common enough to really consider this a worthwhile advantage; as nice as it may be when you do get to use it. Now the Undead Hunter's +3 to hit and damage vs. undead on the other hand, THAT is a sizable advantage considering how both common and nasty undead can be.
Remove Fear once per day per level
No way you will EVER need this ability that much. Again, it is nice to have when you do need it but it just doesn't set the Cavalier aside from any other class or kit, especially considering that there are probably more ways to fight fear than any other condition. I would MUCH rather have a dispel magic that can absolutely obliterate ALL magic (not just fear effects) AND True Seeing, even if they are castable many times less per day. Heck I would take either the true seeing or the dispel magic ALONE over remove fear.
Immunity to charm, fear, poison, and morale failure
First of all... We hardly need the fear and morale failure immunities if we have a million (Yes, its an exaggeration. Back on topic please.) castings of remove fear each day. Charm immunity is really nice, but the Inquisitor has that too. Poison immunity is actually about the best thing about the class in my eyes and even that becomes unnecessary once you get the Ring of Gaxx or the Poison Proof Periapt (granted there are items for immunity to just about everything else too). I would rather have immunity to Charm and Hold, both of which are totally debilitating and quite common in both games.
20% acid and fire resistance
Another pretty good bonus admittedly. Acid is kinda rare but fire is really common. 20% isn't a whole lot though.
No ranged weapons (other than throwing axes, daggers, and hammers.)
Pretty serious penalty for not much in therms of bonus. I suppose the throwing weapons mitigate this factor a little but it is still a hefty penalty for a bunch of mostly redundant bonuses.
Can cast spells, turn undead, and lay hands; as opposed to your precious inquisitor
I know people are going to bring this up so I will cover it now. Yes, I will admit that those are all pretty darn serious penalties. Lay hands I could certainly live without. It is a good healing spell but not good enough that I will miss it. Casting spells... Well you only get up to level 4 and since EE you get a hefty 8 level penalty to your casting level. I will still admit that this is a pretty terrible penalty, but worth it in my eyes (if only just). Besides, paladins are more about fighting than casting. Turn undead is another big one but I still don't miss it too much. Clerics can do it too.
So that is about it. Sorry about the wall of text here but I did it so that you would know my argument and be able to pick it apart piece by piece and hopefully help me understand what the big deal is with the Cavalier.
6
Comments
The inquisitor is easily the best, with True Sight being very useful against mages (the most difficult enemies in the game) as well as the powerful dispel magic (again useful against mages).
It's quite useless I'd say, but... This isn't what I have in mind while picking this kit. Now... This is a life-saving spell for BG1, and much more in low levels, with this you can laugh at Tarnesh and many other enemy mages. In BG2 it is useful mostly to save your priests/mages form memorizing this spell. OK, I agree with both Poison and Fear immunities being useless most of the time, but I consider this class as a very easy to play one (I am playing with a friend, who's a noob, and we both have SCS, playing BG:EE, he is doing great with his Cavalier! (and his 96 w/18/87 roll XD) and they are good if another party member is using the Ring of the Gaxx/Poison Proof Periapt (in my game, Keldorn never had poison immunity, Anomen and Mazzy had those items) or your casting of Revome Fear just ran off/you have all your party running but you can cast Remove Fear. Well, as a complete powergamer I exploit existing bugs, as this SETS Fire & Acid resistance to 20%, when you equip the Belt of the Antipode you still have 20% Fire Resistance!!!! And you just need 80% to become immune to fire effects, and a level 3 Priest spell that Paladins can cast is Protection from Fire, which fives 80% Resistance against fire
Acid resistance stills being mostly useless. I think that throwing weapons are the best weapons for fighter classes in BG2 (after crossbow), and Axes have also good variants in late and mid game. I really don't see a very huge penalty but it could harm a little if you want to use a bow. Throwing weapons are boss in BG1 because of their STR bonus, just as @Quartz' half orc :P If you are going to play solo, you're gonna love Turn Undead, but if you solo an inquisitor, it's quite difficult to deal with most undead in BG2.
The spellcasting abilities form paladins aren't so good but they are worth mentioning as a bonus, casting Armor of Faith gives you (at max level) 15% physical damage resistance, which is pretty good for a level 1 spell. You can also cast Resist Fire/Cold and Protection from Fire, Death Ward and several more spells, which your cleric can also cast, but some are caster-only (and your cleric does not have unlimited spells per day). It's OK, I like walls of text because I can reply with more walls
And now you are making me realize that this Paladin kit *also* sucks, the Blackguard is very OP so, like you did, I keep it away form my conversation.
Edit: and a bonus Blackguards don't get: They can wield Carsomy; which is better than Ir'reykeval (because everything is so biased against evil).
Immunity to fear helps in at least a few early encounters in BG1/BGEE.
The loss of lay on hands is not that big of a deal. I mean its potentially the third most powerful healing spell in BGEE (if you count cure critical wounds - though why someone would take that perplexes me). Still, you only get one of them so I don't view it to be too big of a loss.
On the surface the loss of missile weapons is significant but honestly you get access to three potential archers at the start of BGEE (Imoen, Kivan, and Khalid). There is also Garrick of course. So yea its a loss but its not one that I personally view to be too big of a negative.
In BG2 you get Carsomyr, which in at least some ways counters one of the bigger benefits of being able to use a bow (arrows of dispelling). It still is a loss but with access to DUHM I think you are better fighting up close anyways.
Overall its just a kit that is very good for new players. Actually the paladin can get 25% resistances with Armor of Faith. He just needs to be level 28 to get that.
The cavalier him/herself needs the immunity to horror, so he/she can withstand the spell when it is cast on him/her, and then free the others who have failed their saves against the spell.
Cavalier was the first class I ever played in BG2. It's the only time I rolled a Paladin. I got sucked in by all of the immunities. In the end, they were nice, and the downsides didn't much matter, but I abandoned the run as I found roleplaying a LG character to be quite boring.
Edit: Remove fear is actually very handy, and one of the things that drove me back to playing Bards.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nathan_Hale
All the paladin kits have significant strengths and weaknesses, so that there isn't really a standout "best" kit IMO. In fact, I would actually argue that the vanilla paladin is the best suited for BG1 (due to its versatility) and the undead hunter is the best suited for BG2 (due to immunity to level drain, and the fact that lay on hands isn't as necessary in BG2).
First of all, the Inquisitor is highly praised in many online guides, conversations and stuff. Is considered by many to be a VERY, painful (to enemies) class, with its true sight, more efficient dispel effect, and pretty decent melee performance. Is also a candidate for being the best paladin kit, according to many players. Even the recruitable npc is highly praised.
Then, the undead hunter! More esteemed than the inquisitor itself, his immunity to level drain is always appreciated and in demand (even though a certain, mid 2 game item gives you this among other effects), is always happy to carry around because the second game is crammed full of undead (and many powerful ones, mind you), and all in all, it is one of the most well designed, specialized (against a certain type of enemy), kits/classes!
The cavalier is good. Many beginners like him, because he starts off by having it pretty easy (all this resistances without equipment and stuff). Demons and dragons are rare, though, and by the time you encounter them, the cavalier's small bonuses almost mean nothing. Also, when you later get the ring of Gax, he gains immunity to poison anyway, rendering his starting ability to resist it virtually useless, wasting your chance of possessing another, more useful ability, of a more useful kit/class. You counter his lack of ranged weaponry by specializing in axes, and buying azureedge as soon as the vendor lists it. Or warhammers, but the aforementioned axe is a good remedy against undead, or so i have been reading. Daggers would be unstylish for a paladin, let alone shameful, tiny, and useless (many of them cannot be used by good guys, and they deal petty damage).
I don't hate cavaliers, but i don't fancy them either. When i need a paladin, i always pick up the inquisitor, myself.
immunities : very nice in BG1. not significant in BG2
elemental resistance : nice to have but not significant
no range weapon : quite an heavy drawback in BG1 (you can still use throwing axes) but not significant in BG2.
Overall i would say that in BG2, the cavalier is very close to a vanilla paladin with minor added bonus.
The undead hunter actually acts exactly the same.
Compared to an inquisitor, the really nice thing is the ability to cast spells, mainly because of armor of faith and DUHM.
Overall it depends on which kind of ennemy your are fighting :
- against physical attackers the cavalier/undead hunters have the edge thanks to their spells
- against undead, undead hunter is the best. Cavalier is a close second.
- against casters, the inquisitor is way better than the others.
if you look at it from a trilogy stand point :
- BG1 cavalier has the best immunities (poison/fear/charm = 70% of the nasty effect in BG1) True sight/dispell are not needed. Cavalier is the best
- BG2 true sight / dispell make very easy some normally difficult fights. Inquisitor is the best
- TOB : with carsomyr, any paladin is very strong against mages. TOB fights tend to rely a lot on heavy physical attackers against which a cavalier is better suited. Cavalier is the best
Overall for solo play i think cavalier is better but it does not bring much to a group (who cares if you can cast a few 1-4 cleric spell when any cleric can cast dozens of them). For group play, an inquisitor is the way to go (but keldorn is there already...)
A Cavalier feels like and plays like a Paladin. Spells, Turn Undead, Lay on Hands, you've got all the usual class features and a few nice extras. Mechanically Inquisitors are probably stronger overall due to encounter design that throws huge numbers of high-level casters at you from BG2 onward. Inquisitors don't play like Paladins though, having traded out so many of the class features for unique tricks.
Also, if you're playing with SCS's improved demons installed, you will find that the +3 to hit roll helps a lot, especially on the third level of Watcher's Keep where strong offense is your best defense.
Undead hunters are great, too, but I don't like the lack of charm immunity. I guess they decided to leave that one out for balancing reasons, but, since the whole class is supposed to be the "Van Helsing" class, built to fight vampires, I think it should have charm immunity, since charm/mind control is one of the vampire's most frequent tricks.
Also, I've never gotten the impression that there is any "consensus" that cavalier is the "best" kit. The majority of posts I read arguing for one kit as the "best" argue for the inquisitor.
In PNP 2E, the Cavalier generates a continuous "Protection from Fear - 10' radius", the BG implementation is a little odd, I imagine its mostly a matter of what was easiest to make work.
The missile weapon restriction is of no consequence to me, I always have one or two melee specialists who don't bother with missile weapons anyway. The PNP restriction did allow them to use spear or javelin as a thrown weapon, but no other missiles. In my own PNP games I apply that restriction to all Paladins (I only have one Paladin appropriate "religion", so all kits are more alike than different. The Realms are different in that regard).
From a pure power gaming perspective I think all three Paladin kits are pretty equal.
Personally, I think the Inquisitor is cheesy. That Dispel is an overkill and makes mage battles trivial.
The Cavalier doesn't take anything important and gives plenty of immunities and resistances to stuff very common in BG1 and bonuses to stuff very common in BG2 and ToB.
It's a very balanced class that is useful from the very beginning of BG1 to the very end of BG2 and ToB.
Also what kind of Paladin or knight uses ranged weapons? That's cowardly and there's no honor in that.
You basically cannot go wrong with a Cavalier. While with an Inqusitor you can mess things up really badly.
All things aside though, The Inquisitor is the best Paladin class and one of the best classes in the game period. Not many can claim their class abilities needs to be QUARTERED to become anything close to balanced.
I've played all three classes, and rarely with the Cavalier or the Undead Hunter did I ever feel like they were anything more than another meat shield. Even when those characters were fighting their respective favoured enemies, I never had any wow factor. The Inquisitor, on the other hand, has always been an indespensible tool in my arsenal.
Maybe that's just me philosophizing.