The new cavalier	-	Miscellaneous notes	-	Conclusion
Dragon 148	-	Classes	-	Dragon

The cavalier, based on the knights of medieval Europe, has the potential to be a unique and interesting fighter. Unfortunately, the cavalier described in  Unearthed Arcana is complicated to play and overly powerful. Some players say the
class should be eliminated, but the cavalier can be revised to be a unique and viable class. This article redefines the cavalier in AD&D® 1st Edition games.
Cavaliers are warriors with a background of nobility. Their training emphasizes mounted and personal combat as well
as the leadership of military units. They have a strict code of conduct, although nonlawful cavaliers tend to ignore it.
Not all noble warriors are necessarily cavaliers; some are paladins, rangers, or ordinary fighters who come from the
noble classes. Like barbarians, cavaliers cannot be multiclassed characters. In addition, cavaliers cannot be reduced to
fighter status for their actions, as their skills are not linked to alignment.

The new cavalier
The following rules regarding the cavalier are
unchanged from those given in
Unearthed Arcana:

Experience points and HD per level, incl. level titles (UA.15)
Ability to estimate the worth of horses;
Bonuses to lance damage, whether mounted or on foot;
Immunity to fear;
Parrying ability with shield or hand weapons; and
Henchmen restrictions (UA.75)

The following rules from UA for the cavalier are removed from
the class:

Alignment restrictions: Cavaliers may be
of any alignment at 1st level and have the
usu. penalties for switching alignments.
Why would all cavaliers begin their careers
as good-aligned? To USE the WORLD OF GREYHAWK setting
as an example,
the knights of Iuz or the Great Kingdom
would be evil from the START. Also, the idea
of characters switching alignments without penalty,
as given in UA and DRAGON supplements to
that book, should be discouraged.

Zero-level Horseman and Lancer levels:
These are weak and unnecessary; it would
be simpler to require the cavalier to be at
least Upper Middle Class.

+3 hp bonus at 1st level: This is an unfair
advantage that is not logically justified.

Ability to increase STR, CON, and DEX scores:
This is an unfair idea.
The other fighter classes could easily claim
that they also spend every nonadventuring
hour training hard and increasing
their ability scores. Cavaliers are now
subject to all limitations by race && sex
on ability scores.

90% resistance to mind attacks: Of all
the cavalier's powers, this one most unbalances
the class. Once again, a cavalier's training
does not cover this, and the
power should be dropped.

+2 bonus on save vs. illusions: A cavalier
is trained in combat, not magick. If
anything, a cavalier should be more susceptible
to illusions due to a lack of familiarity
with spells. However, if this power is
simply dropped, the cavalier will again be
equal to the other fighter classes in this
regard.

Ability to function at negative HP:
This is another idea that is hard to justify.
Why would this power be linked to alignment?
Cavaliers will be unconscious at 0 to -9 HP
and dead at -10 HP, as with other classes.
Healing is at normal rates.

Charge at all opponents in sight: This is a
foolish and unrealistic notion. Even prideful
historical knights would retreat when
they absolutely couldn't win. Knights are
sometimes reckless, but they are not stupid.
They are trained to lead armies, and
would not immediately charge the enemy.

These rules from UA are modified:

Class type: Cavaliers are now a subclass of
fighter and use the fighter's combat and
saving-throw tables.

Ability score requirements: Cavaliers
must have a min. STR, CON, and CHA of 13.
Cavaliers have no prime requisite and cannot
gain bonus XP.

Social class: Cavaliers must have a min.
social class of 56, as Upper Middle
Class. This roll will determine their starting
money (see UA, page 82,
and "Starting money" section elsewhere
in this article).

Racial limits: Only humans, elves, and
half-elves can be cavaliers. Among elves
and half-elves, only those of gray, high,
and valley elf stock can be cavaliers. Drow
cannot become cavaliers, since horses are
not used underground.

Preferred weapons: Cavaliers prefer to
USE any sort of lance, any sword (except
short and khopesh), scimitar, horseman's
mace, horseman's flail, horseman's pick,
dagger, hand axe, javelin, and bec de corbin.
Elves and half-elves ADD either a short
bow or short composite bow to the list.
These weapons must be taken as weapons
of proficiency before any others can be learned.

Mounted combat combat bonuses with weapons
of choice: Delete all the UA rules
on this subject. Instead, at 1st level,
the cavalier has three weapon-proficiency
slots. These must be used to gain proficiency
with: a lance (any); a sword (any except
short, khopesh, or two-handed) or
scimitar; and a horseman's weapon (mace,
pick, or flail). These three weapons are
known as the cavalier's weapons of choice.
The cavalier has a +1 bonus to hit w/
these weapons, and a +2 to hit when
mounted. The # of atacks per round
w/ these weapons is:
levels 1-6, 3/2;
7-12, 2;
13+, 5/2.
 
 
 
 

Armor restrictions: Cavaliers will not
use leather armor, studded leather armor,
padded armor, or wooden shields. Other
than this, they are free to wear any type
of armor they choose. In large battles,
they will wewar the heaviest armor available.
While adventuring, they will be more flexible
(e.g., they will not insist on wearing plate
mail in the desert).

Training: From levels 1-9, a cavalier must be
trained by another cavalier at least two
levels higher. The cavalier must pay normal
training fees.

Followers: Cavaliers can gain henchmen
as noted in UA.75.
Material on followers on pages 74-75 is
ignored. To gain men-at-arms and followers,
the cavalier must be of 9th level or
higher, must build a castle or keep, then
must clear an area for 20-50 miles around
the castle. When construction is completed,
the cavalier will gain men-at-arms,
all of zero level with 5-8 HP and the same
alignment as the cavalier. The men will consist of:

20-50 light cavalry (ring mail, shield, three javelins, light lance,
scimitar (saber), light war horses).

10-40 heavy cavalry (chain mail, shield,
broad sword, heavy lance, heavy war horse
in chain barding).

20-50 heavy infantry (splint mail, pike, falchion).

10-40 crossbowmen (ring mail, heavy crossbow, falchion).

In addition, the cavalier will gain all
retainers noted in UA.75 (but replace Horseman and Lancer w/
two Armigers) and four zero-level men
with the following craftsman proficiencies:
animal trainer (horse), armorer, blacksmith, weaponsmith.

Pennon and heraldry: The cavalier is not
required to display a pennon or coat of
arms unless he has built a castle, but a
pennon may be displayed at any time
before then.

Hospitality: The cavalier cannot expect
hospitality from other cavaliers until he
becomes a landholder (i.e., builds a castle).

Proficiency slots: Cavaliers gain one
weapon and one nonweapon proficiency
slot for every three levels beyond the 1st
(4th, 7th, etc.) <>

Starting money: Despite the rules at UA.25 regarding
starting funds. Instead of equipment, the
cavalier receives only a # of GP at
1st level. The amount depends on
the cavalier's social class roll (UA.82):
 

Roll	Funds
56-87	50-200 gp (5d4 x 10)
88-96	90-200 gp ([1d12 + 8} x 10)
97-99	101-200 gp (1d100 + 100)
00	155-200 gp (5d10 + 150)

Miscellaneous notes

Paladins: It is not a good idea to combine
cavalier and paladin powers into a single
character. This creates a character who is
much too strong. Under the variant rules
given here, the paladin is treated according
to the rules in the 1st Edition PH.
A special type of royal paladin is
not needed, since random social class
rolls allow for high-born paladins.

Background: A cavalier is not likely to be
an only child or a first-born (10% chance).
If he was, the PC would be kept at home
as the immediate heir to the family lands
and holdings. If a PC cavalier is an only
child or first-born, it is likely that the
cavalier's parents are dead or have lost
their holdings, forcing the PC into the
insecure life of an adventurer. The DM
and players can create the details.

BATTLESYSTEM supplements: Cavaliers
have a +1" bonus to their command
radius in +addition+ to all other bonuses.
Units led by a cavalier have a +1 bonus
on rally attempts. All these reflect the
cavalier's training in military leadership.

Chivalry and knighthood: The rules on
these subjects are now optional. The PC
cavalier is an independent, free-willed
adventurer. His skills are not dependent
on alignment or service to another; they
are the result of military training. The
cavalier can change his alignment but not
his class. Therefore, a PC cavalier does not
have to be nighted, be in the service of
another, or be devoted to any cause. If the
DM and players desire, these aspects of
chivalry can be added.

The code of chivalry is well detailed in
UA, though it is heavily
slanted toward law and good. SInce cavaliers
can be chaotic, neutral, and evil,
obviously many would ignore various
parts of the code. Chaotic cavaliers would
resist this restrictive set of laws, while evil
ones would hardly render "cheerful service" or
"courtesy." Again, it is the player's
choice to follow the code of chivalry (and
incur all the penalties for doing so).

Conclusion
The purpose of this article is to turn the
cavalier into a viable character. With these
variant rules, the cavalier is a subclass of
fighter equal (but not superior to) to the
paladin || ranger. The revised cavalier is
similar to the original paladin: Both sub-classes
are similar to the fighter in regard
to HP and combat abilities, and each
has a special immunity and unique abilities.
Both also lack weapon specialization,
which puts the fighter back on =equal= footing.

FORUM
I am writing in response to David Howery?s
article, "The Corrected Cavalier" (DRAGON issue
#148). That is a somewhat facetious title since
the AD&D cavalier class was fine long before
Mr. Howery "corrected" it. I will respond to
each of his arguments or changes in order.

First of all, Mr. Howery claims the zero-level
Horseman and Lancer levels are ?weak and
unnecessary.? This restriction was put into the
rules to make the cavalier class a bit weaker,
which Mr. Howery seems to want in the first
place. A cavalier not of the appropriate social
class should have to go through those levels as a
substitute for the training that an upper-class
cavalier has received all of his life. These zero
levels also serve another function: that of keeping
the cavalier field from getting overcrowded.
These levels provide role-playing opportunities,
with the reward of the enhanced abilities of the
cavalier if the Horseman/Lancer survives.

The +3 hp bonus at 1st level is justified if you
figure the possible number of hit points if the
cavalier had proceeded through the zero levels.
To compensate for the difference, a character
starting at 1st level should be awarded these.
Also consider the fact that a cavalier has been
training for the better part of his life, and 3 hp
don?t seem so ?unfair.?

The biggest gripe I have with Mr. Howery?s
article concerns the protection from fear aura
of the cavalier, which he describes as ?a semimagical
power that is completely beyond a cavalier
?s training.? Paining has nothing to do with
it. In any combat situation in which a combatant
displays fearlessness in the face of danger, that
fearlessness is contagious and instills courage in
those allies nearby. A cavalier is the living definition
of fearlessness, and anyone subjected to
that aura should be similarly affected.

The cavalier?s training is pure discipline. This
discipline includes the mind as well as the body,
and when combined with a cavalier?s firm and
singular determination to fight and dominate, it
makes the cavalier?s 90% resistance to mind
attacks easy to justify. In battle it is even easier.
Consider the cavalier?s battle lust as something
approaching insanity. Against an insane character,
mind attacks are similarly useless.

Mr. Howery states that ?a cavalier is trained in
combat, not magic?; thus they should be more,
not less, susceptible to illusions. On the contrary,
the cavalier is trained every day in combat
with that which is real and can be killed.
The discipline of the mind comes into play
again. [The saving-throw bonus vs. all illusions
is] not so much an ability to resist them as it is,
because of a cavalier?s firm base in reality, an
inability to believe.

In the next paragraph, Mr. Howery kills the
idea of cavalier?s functioning at negative hitpoint
totals. Once again, it goes back to the
cavalier?s training. The cavalier is probably in
the best physical condition of any class. Combine
this fact with the aforementioned cavalier
mind-set, and it?s not hard to see how a cavalier
would find the willpower to remain conscious
after reaching or surpassing zero hit points.
However, I do agree with Mr. Howery that this
should not be restricted by alignment.

While I agree that a cavalier will not foolishly
charge into a very obvious defeat, if there is any
chance at all for even a marginal victory or for a
chance to gain great honor, the cavalier will do
just as the book [Unearthed Arcana] says. In any
case, a cavalier will never retreat.

Now we?re into the modifications.

Cavaliers are a class of their own, not a subclass
of fighters, and should remain such. Since
the cavalier already uses the combat and saving
throw tables for fighters, there is no need for
this modification.

The rules concerning social class, horsemanship,
proficiencies, and starting money should
remain as per Unearthed Arcana, because they
were obviously correct to the cavalier class. Mr.
Howery gives no reason or explanation as to
why the changes are made or even needed.

Mr. Howery?s argument against drow cavaliers
is absurd (?Drow cannot become cavaliers, since
horses are not used underground.?). Even if a
drow was raised most of his life underground,
as a member of the upper class he would have
ample opportunity to ride many beasts, not
necessarily horses. The skill is transferable?
thus the rule that drow must be sponsored so
they can receive the proper training. Who?s to
say, however, that a drow was born underground?
And how many of those drow adventurers
still live underground? There are many
opportunities for a character that is a drow to
become a cavalier.

As to armor, a cavalier?s armor is, as Unearthed
Arcana states, a ?badge of station.? Thus
a cavalier will wear nothing but the best armor,
no matter where that cavalier may be. If a
cavalier cannot endure hardship, he should
hand in his weapons and retire.

There is no reason to change training rules or
follower tables, as they are quite adequate the
way they are.

The cavalier should be able to expect hospitality
from any like-aligned cavalier, being that a
cavalier is a noble from another kingdom.
Restricting hospitality to those cavaliers who
own castles is off the wall. Also, a cavalier does
serve a lord; he is not self-serving. Just as a
paladin serves his god with all his heart, so does
a cavalier serve his liege.

Mr. Howery creates a cavalier class with a
balance similar to the original, but it is much
less original and fun. If one cannot live with the
power of a cavalier, or the problems that one
must endure to remain a living cavalier, one
should play a fighter.

Daniel J. Stephans II
Winona MN
(Dragon #152)
 

I am writing in response to David Howery?s
article, "The Corrected Cavalier," that appeared
in issue #148. I believe this article?for the most
part?deprived the cavalier of all his uniqueness
and credibility. In the AD&D game, in which
wizards and dragons run rampant, cavaliers
should be the stuff of legends. Look at St.
George, King Arthur, and Sir Lancelot du Lake
and the other Knights of the Round Table. It is
obvious that Mr. Howery is seeking to bring the
cavalier down to a more balanced level, essentially
becoming an ordinary fighter.

The alignment restrictions I agree with totally,
but I would add that a lawful cavalier should be
a rarity due to the reckless and chaotic behavior
associated with the cavalier?s desire for combat.
The zero-level Horseman and Lancer levels are
necessary. Why? Because you can?t transform a
squire into an above-average jouster overnight.
The +3 hp bonus at 1st level is justifiable.
Cavaliers are supposed to be the toughest people
around. Isn?t it logical that ?tough? would
equate to ?more hit points? in AD&D game
terms? The ability to increase strength, dexterity,
and constitution scores may seem unfair, but
look at how a cavalier must accomplish his
levels; he must be trained by another cavalier at
least two levels higher than himself. This training
comes from an established hero, a knight
who is highly skilled and a superb warrior. Any
Joe Schmuck can be a fighter, but a cavalier has
many more requirements to meet in order to
become a knight (e.g., higher ability scores,
social class status, and racial limitations.)

The protection from fear aura should not be
allowed; that is unfair. However, the cavalier
himself should be immune to fear, regardless of
its origin. I think this because knights shouldn?t
have to back away from a fight or have to
surrender unwillingly. ?Cavalier? is not synonymous
with ?coward?; the two words are antonyms.
This is the same reason why a cavalier
should be 90% resistant to mind attacks. Picture
this: A brave and bold knight, known throughout
the land for his heroics, engages a mummy
in combat; he fails his save and goes running
home, a whimpering and sniveling coward, to
face his people.

The +2 bonus to saves vs. illusions is very
important to the cavalier?s sense of pride. How
would you feel if you attacked something that
wasn?t real? Though the cavalier knows nothing
of magic, he is trained for reality. He knows the
effects a crucial blow from his long sword
would have on an ogre and how that ogre
should react to the blow. An illusionist controlling
an illusory ogre might not know this. Furthermore,
that illusionist may be unfamiliar
with the fatigue associated with five rounds of
melee combat. Therein lies the reason for the
bonus to his saves vs. illusions. The cavalier is
accustomed to sweat, blood, pain, and exhaustion,
especially if he is a veteran of some war.

The ability to function at negative hit points is
easy to justify. Cavaliers are excellent warriors,
used to sparring with fellow knights or engaged
in lethal combat with some foe. Shouldn?t that
mean that they are less susceptible to the damage
they might have sustained from being hit,
bruised, beaten, and bloodied for most of their
lives? Mr. Howery is right about this power
being linked to alignment. It should be open to
all alignments. Healing rates should be at normal
rates.

Charging at all opponents in sight is definitely
a foolish idea. Cavaliers may be gutsy and brave,
but they are not stupid. Would a 3rd-level
cavalier charge a type III demon? There is a
correction to be made here in the article, however:
Cavaliers are always reckless. It?s their
nature. After many dungeon adventures, perhaps
a certain cavalier would tone down his
reckless nature. Maybe he had run into too
many pit traps earlier in his career, and now he
checks floors for stability where he thinks there
is reason to do so.

Cavaliers should not be a subclass of anything.
They are separate because this is a highly skilled
profession. Mounted combat is a cavalier?s
specialty; he is born to the saddle. All the rules
from Unearthed Arcana on this should stick.

Most of the other changes made to the class I
can live with, except for the note on paladins.
Paladins are the epitome of knighthood, the
purest and most noble cavaliers. ?Sub?-class
seems to make this class appear less important
than the cavalier; it is the other way around.
But it is accurate as far as gaming terminology is
concerned.

Knights are what AD&D game heroes should
be. You must take into consideration the aspect
of pure fantasy. Any poor peasant boy playing
in the cobblestone streets of some large city
might happen to see a muscular and grim-faced
knight ride by, decked out in a shiny suit of
plate mail, sitting atop the largest horse the boy
has ever seen. This sight might inspire the boy
to become a swordsman of some type later in
his life, in order to become a great hero like that
knight. Perhaps he would only receive a
weapon-specialized fighter status due to his
social class, but being a knight would always be
his dream.

So, one can easily see why the cavalier class
should remain unchanged (save for a few
things) and stay as powerful as it is. Taking some
of the class?s powers takes away from its reputation.
Cavaliers should be looked upon as the
medieval, superpatriotic, gung-ho Marines. They
are meant to be the finest warriors of the land
because they are men who dedicate their lives
to a military lifestyle. A cavalier knows swords,
armor, shields, heraldry, strategy, pride, glory,
courtesy, and service to either a cause, person,
or an order of knighthood. Above all else,
though, the cavalier knows how to fight! That is
what he lives for and dies (gloriously) for.

Jeff Cliber
Emmitsburg MD
(Dragon #152)
 

This is in response to Daniel J. Stephan?s and
Jeff Cliber?s criticism of my article ?The Corrected
Cavalier,? in their ?Forum? letters (issue
#152). I?d like to explain some of the reasons
behind my suggestions.

Dropping the 0-level cavaliers: It?s true that
squires are not turned into knights overnight.
But this is true of all PCs. All are assumed to
have gone through ?basic training.? The cavalier
should not be treated differently, since it only
creates a very weak fighter.

Dropping the +3 hp bonus and ability to stay
conscious at negative hit points: I?m still not
convinced that the cavalier should have any
ability to take more damage than any other
fighter. Both Daniel and Jeff argue that the
cavalier is the most physically fit person in the
world. I disagree. In terms of physical fitness
and clinging to life, the barbarian should be
above all fantasy classes. The rigorous life of a
medieval knight was nothing compared to the
harsh life of a Mongol, and the Mongols proved
it by slaughtering the Teutonic knights at
Liegnitz. Viking berserkers and Apache warriors
outdid the knight in stoically facing pain.
The cavalier?s combat skills should be slightly
different from, but not superior to, the other
fighter classes.

Dropping the protection from fear radius:
Daniel argues that the cavalier?s fearlessness in
battle will inspire his comrades, rendering them
immune to fear. If this is true, why is this power
limited to those of only good alignment and
within 10? instead of all within sight of the
cavalier? And why is this power limited to
cavaliers? The other fighters can be fearless and
reckless, too, but they don?t inspire others. In
any case, this dubious morale trick would have
no bearing in cases of magical fear, which
attacks all characters directly. As noted in my
article, I have no objection to the cavalier himself
being immune to fear. It is an ability of
limited usefulness, like the paladin?s immunity to
disease. Thus Jeff?s example of a cavalier fleeing
from a mummy would not happen, even if using
my revised cavalier.

Dropping the 90% resistance to mind attacks
and the +2 save vs. illusions: Both Daniel and
Jeff argue strongly to keep these abilities in the
class. I?m not convinced by their arguments,
since those arguments are based solely on
combat training. This isn?t enough to grant
these kind of powers. A barbarian would know
more about how things react when hit with a
weapon since he is likely a skilled hunter, but he
gains no bonuses for it. I?ve had experience in
running cavaliers, both as a player and as a DM,
since the class first appeared in DRAGON Magazine
and after the Unearthed Arcana revision. I
found that these bonuses unbalance the cavalier
more than any other single ability.

Class type: It is ridiculous to call the cavalier
anything but a fighter. They both use the same
combat tables, saving throws, hit dice, strength
bonuses, constitution bonuses, and magical
items. Their skills are all combat related. Cavaliers
are closer to the original fighter than the
ranger or paladin, who have several noncombat
skills. Jeff objects to the word ?subclass,? implying
it means ?lesser.? Okay, call them ?fighter
variants? or something similar. Why dither over
semantics?

Starting money: I recommend this change,
since one lucky roll would give a 1st-level cavalier
full plate armor, a heavy war horse, and
weapons, with a minimum of 130 gp. It is ridiculous
for a starting character to have so much,
not to mention unbalancing.

Proficiencies: I recommend that the Wilderness
Survival Guide’s land-based riding proficiency
replace the Unearthed Arcana‘s cavalier
skills, since it is more detailed. The changes to
the weapons rules were to make sure that the
cavalier takes knightly weapons (lance, sword,
horseman?s weapon) and to simplify the
mounted bonus. Actually, on thinking further
on the subject, I?d now recommend removing
the weapons of choice bonuses completely. This
would allow the fighter, who can specialize, to
stay equal in power to the cavalier, who would
be limited to nonspecialized attacks.

Armor: Daniel argues that the cavalier must
absolutely always wear the heaviest armor
available, out of pride. Okay, send that man in
plate armor to the desert. Following the WSG
rules, after one or two fights, the cavalier will
be down with heat stroke. Better yet, send him
to a humid jungle, where his gear will rust
away. If the cavalier isn?t allowed a little flexibility,
the DM cannot run adventures for cavaliers
in warm areas.

Service: I don?t agree that all PC cavaliers
must be in service to a liege. This limits the PC?s
background and freedom of action, and thus
limits role-playing. If the player and DM agree,
the PC can be a knight of the realm, but he
should have the option of being a free-willed
adventurer, a knight errant free to do heroic
acts or dastardly deeds, as alignment dictates.

Recklessness and retreating: Being highborn
and militaristic, cavaliers are often the leaders
of armies. As such, they must not be required to
charge headlong at every enemy. They also
must be allowed to retreat if necessary to save
their troops from being slaughtered. There are
many historical examples to justify this. When
adventuring on their own, however, cavaliers
can be required to be more reckless.

Race: I concede that drow could be cavaliers,
if raised aboveground. A drow would still have
problems with sunlight and prejudice.

Followers: This change was done to prevent
the cavalier from being saddled with followers
at low level. Without a castle, the cavalier has
no place to house his troops and has no real
need of them. The table was drawn up to simplify
the process.

Increasing ability scores: I recommend dropping
this ability because it isn?t justified. Any
other fighter could claim to be training continually
to raise his scores. For all other classes,
raising ability scores comes rarely and never
cheaply; allowing the cavalier to do so destroys
this whole concept.

Paladins: As was done in the AD&D 2nd
Edition game, the cavalier?s powers should be
kept separate from the paladin?s. Requiring the
paladin to be a cavalier limits the paladin?s
background; he cannot rise from the poor,
downtrodden peasants as a champion. Also, the
combination of powers is too strong for one PC.

Most of all, my revision of the cavalier was
done to keep the class?s power equal to the
others; players resent it when one of them has a
superpowerful dominant PC. The ideal party is
made up of PCs with strengths and weaknesses,
so each is dependent on the others. The cavalier
has too many strengths and damn few weaknesses.
It has been argued that my revision
makes the class ?less fun.? Looking at those
arguments, I find many of them thin and
stretching logic to justify the cavalier?s inflated
power. ?Less fun? here really seems to mean
?less powerful.? Sure, it?s great fun for the
player whose 1st-level cavalier has full plate
armor, 17 hp, a heavy war horse, 180 gp, immunity
to fear, and near-immunity to mind attacks
and illusions. It?s not much fun for the other
players whose PCs are trudging along behind
the cavalier, with poor armor and a handful of
gold, wishing they had more to do.

David Howery
Dillon MT
(Dragon #155)
 

In response to the two pro-cavalier letters in
issue #152?s ?Forum,? I observed that the cavalier
class disappeared from the AD&D® 2nd
Edition rules for a very good reason: It was both
unnecessary and overly powerful.

Daniel Stephans and Jeff Cliber cited ?logical?
justifications for the cavalier?s many special
powers. I could give an equally logical refutation
of each of their arguments, but that isn?t the
point. The point is game balance. Compare the
cavalier to the traditional fighter, a time-tested
and well-balanced class. What does the cavalier
get that the fighter doesn?t? Better armor, high
social status, more starting equipment, savingthrow
advantages, virtual immunity to many
common spells, more hit points, improved
ability scores, bonuses on attack rolls, and extra
attacks per round. There?s more, of course, but
those are the main points. What does the cavalier
sacrifice for these overwhelming advantages?
He?s required to adhere to a code that is
pretty much the way many AD&D game fighter
characters are played anyway (violent, arrogant,
reckless, and suicidally stubborn). In practice, as
the cavalier?s proponents have suggested by
their comments, most DMs won?t strictly enforce
this lone disadvantage.

Why play a cavalier? The most obvious reason
is to have a more powerful character, something
players like. But how can a DM maintain any
kind of balance when one member of a PC party
is so much more powerful than the others? Not
only does this unbalance play, it causes resentment
among the other players.

The other excuse for using the cavalier is the
desire to play a noble knight. A TSR writer
whose name escapes me [David ?Zeb? Cook, in
issue #121, pages 12-13] defined cavaliers (and
barbarians) as fighters with attitude problems,
and I think that sums it up quite well. A character
?s personality and behavior are role-playing
matters and should be left in the realm of roleplaying.
A separate class based merely on personalities
is unjustified and unnecessary.

Alan Clark
Herndon VA
(Dragon #156)
 

After reading the criticism in issue #152 of
David Howery?s article, ?The Corrected Cavalier,
? I had to respond. It seems that most of the
arguments in favor of the cavalier?s powers are
based on the idea that cavaliers dedicate their
lives to training for battle, and that this training
is the basis for their enhanced abilities. I would
like to point out that the fighter class, as the
name so aptly implies, is the only class that
specializes solely in fighting, and it has none of
the cavalier?s extra abilities. The cavalier is a
knight, trained in honor and horsemanship in
addition to pure combat. It is hard to argue that
the cavalier should have even the same combat
abilities as the fighter, let alone the massive
advantages that it does.

For example, the 3 hp bonus at 1st level gives
the cavalier 8.5 average hit points, far more
than any class except the ranger, without the
ranger?s penalty of eight-sided dice thereafter.
Normal fighters cannot function at negative hit
points or increase their abilities through training,
even though their training in these areas
should not be any worse than a cavalier?s. Why
were these abilities not granted to the fighters
originally? Perhaps the game is not meant to
have so many people running around with 18/00
strengths from ?training.? Level advancement
already simulates increased conditioning with
improving attack tables and saving throws.

Even if one still believes that the cavalier
should logically be superior to the fighter, there
is also the consideration of game balance. Unearthed
Arcana saw the addition of powerful
new classes that threaten to make the older
ones obsolete. Why bother to play a lowly
fighter when cavaliers are so much more powerful?
Some die-hard role-players might enjoy
playing less-powerful characters, but the fact
that another class can beat fighters at their own
game is a serious flaw in the rules. Weapon
specialization is an attempt to make fighters
more competitive, but it does not go far enough,
and I would suggest that it is a move in the
wrong direction. Monty Haul playing is already
a problem without writing it into the rules.

Cavaliers should be different from fighters,
not better. They are chivalrous warriors trained
for mounted combat, not superheroes who can
do anything. Thus, many of the abilities granted
them are unnecessary and illogical because they
make the cavalier an extra-powerful fighter
instead of a separate class with its own unique
features. I applaud Mr. Howery?s attempts to
balance the cavalier?s abilities.

Nicholas R. Howe
Princeton NJ
(Dragon #156)