Cavallier vs plain pally

Remove all ads!

I'm with you, Silverstar. Since cavaliers are so focused on dealing with dragons and demons, that their advantages don't come into play as often as those of the Inquisitor or Undead Hunter kits. And while there aren't all that many undead in TOB, UH's are still quite useful for their Level Drain and Hold immunities.

Regardless, given that dragons are often the most challenging and dangerous battles to be found, it's not a bad thing to have a character who can step up to the plate against those dangerous wyrms!

 

It's the immunities and resistances that make the cavalier better. The plain paladin is quite good, but you need a bit more equipment to be equivalent to the cavalier -- especially after obtaining Carsomyr (missile weapons pale in comparison and I rarely use one instead).

The bonuses from the Undead Hunter are negated by the Amulet of Power (I never had a problem with Hold). Carsomyr makes every paladin an Inquisitor, just beat on the spellcaster until everything is dispelled. Works every time (almost). But I also believe Lay on Hands is an important feature of the paladin so may be biased.

I think all of the paladin kits are among the most powerful classes to play -- the game was practically written for a paladin protagonist.

 

I very much disagree with this statement.

In an actual roleplaying game, a Paladin would have a really hard time siding with a murderous thieves guild, even to save his best friend. He'd find some other way.

I do agree that they're very, very powerful. They're supposed to be. As a matter of fact, in P&P D&D, they can get away being so powerful because they need to live by so many roleplaying restrictions which can not be enforced in a cRPG.

 

I like the Cavalier Paladin - I thought that was a cool pally kit, mostly because that's how I usually RP'd my paladins in DnD. Melee only, only peasants resort to using bows. I also never equip my paladin with any armor lesser than scale. Basically scale, plate or full plate...That's it.

 

btw, if this were to become a poll, I'd pick Inquisitor at the best paladin kit. They can dispel much better than any character out there!

If I were playing in a party, I wouldn't choose one though because I like Keldorn.

A party of goody-two-shoes is nice in BG2 though:

Cavalier PC
Anomen
Keldorn
Imoen

Protagonist Dual-Weilds the psuedo Holy Avenger bastard sword with Crom Faeyr (or the above sword in the offhand with Axe of Unyeilding as main weapon).
Anomen gets Flail of Ages
Keldorn gets Carsomyr
Imoen gets Staff of the Magi

This team is awesome!

 

I agree with you, Klorox. I think that the Inquisitor is the best pally kit in BG2, largely due to its great usefulness throughout the entire game, i.e. both SoA and ToB. That said, the other two kits are solid and no one could go wrong playing either one.

Undead Hunters are very nice during SoA, due to the large numbers of undead to be deat with. And at times in ToB, their immunity to level drain comes in very handy.

And while anti-dragon/anti-demon benefits of a Cavalier may not be as commonly used in SoA, when you do need them, they come in rather handy since these battles are among the tougher ones you'll encounter. And their immunities never seem to go out of style, either.

Arguably, the pally class has the best set of 3 kits in BG2. There are no weak ones in the bunch.

 

Right on Crucis. Each kit is very good. -- in it's own way. There really is no "wrong" choice.

 

Cleric kits don't have any drawbacks...

Anyway I prefer Undead Hunters because of their immunity to level drain. It's not powerful but it's really convenient especially at the beginning.

 

Clerics are a lot better when dual or multiclassed though. You don't have that choice with a Pally.

 

To answer the question I think despite the "drawbacks" the cavalier (and other kits) are better than a plain pally.

For flavor/RP though the vanilla pally would definately be the best.

As for all the kits, Cavalier is my favorite. In fact this post has made me start a goody-two-shoes run-through . This will feel good after running through with the most evil blackguard I've ever conceived!

 

why would i give a paly a bow when i can give him carsomyr?

the Cavalier's disadvantages are almost non existed (for me). I actually never really use Lay on hands, so the Undead Hunters disadvantages are also miniscule, pretty much the same for Inquistors.

i mostly go Cavalier because of all the dragons in BGII, esp. if you throw in a few mods. game+tactics+deeper shadows of amn, thats what 12, 13 dragons to fight?

but there are a lot of Undead enemies too, lots of Liches, hard ones too. bloody Kangaxx and the one in WK.

 

Because you can give him a bow and Carsomyr! It is simply a matter of preference for some players who like having a party that can deal quite a bit of damage at range as well as up close. I'm included in that group due to habit from BG.

In order to stay on topic with this [very] old thread, I prefer Cavaliers. In short, they just feel more impressive. What a reason, eh?

 

yeh i suppose, but it just doesnt seem right to have a paly with a bow.

might be stereotypical, but palys look cool holding some huge two handed sword whilst out slaying evil, righting wrongs and protecting the weak and helpless.


well thats my oppinion. just seems weird using a bow, thats more of a hooded elf ranger/thief thingy.

 

Also note that you can get around the missile weapon prohibition with weapons that can be either melee or missile, like axes. Azuredge was a favorite of my cav.

 

The first time I played BG2 I played as a Cavalier. It was great and I didn't even find Carsomyr (yes, I hang my head in shame. I also didn't find all the parts for Crom Faeyr). I did utilize the thrown melee weapon work-around. In retrospect, it was not proper roleplaying, but I was more powergaming at the time.

If my memory serves me, according to the old Unearthed Arcana manual, which introduced the Cavalier class, the prohibition on missile weapons comes from two things. 1) missile weapons are for peasantry and not suitable for a cavalier (who is most likely of noble birth or at least trying to emulate it, and
2) missile weapons are not very courageous weapons. Stories of valor are rarely tales of how some bad guy got picked off at a distance. No, they are about the good guy and the bad guy fighting in close combat, sword to sword. The more risk you expose yourself to, the better. Bows are seen as cowards weapons as a result. To quote Fezzik, who held a boulder in his hand when his opponent had but a rapier, “My way is not very sportsman-like.”

Additionally, some other restrictions that the cavalier class originally had were:
- Always had to have the best looking armor. They had to try and get plate armor as soon as possible and keep it, no matter what. If mundane plate mail were available and so was scale mail +5, the cavalier HAD to take the plate despite the greater magical bonus on the scale. The reasoning was for appearances sake. They had to appear as noble, knights in shining armor and could not condescend to be seen as anything less.
- Were not originally a paladin subclass, but fighters, if I remember right. They had pretty strict prerecs for stats. As they went up in levels, they would actually gain ability points, kind of like in 3E, but only on certain attributes. Physical ones IIRC.
- Very limited in available weapons. Could only have weapon proficiencies in swords and lances and I think field mace or something like that. No polearms (besides the lance) for the same reasons as missile weapons listed above.

This is about all I can remember at this point, but I think it is some interesting background on the history and the reasoning behind the class. The class as it is now is great, and while the usefulness of the dragon and demon bonuses are debatable, the immunity to fear and poison and the elemental resistances never go out of style.

 

BG= Kids running away from a wolf. Solution? Bows.
BG2= Veterans running away from nothing. Claymore and XP time.

Never understood missile weapons in BGII, unlike BG, the term "distance" is nonexistant when your characters have boots of speed/haste/improved haste and some enemies move pretty fast. Monsters have more HP, mages are protected from arrows (or whatever missile-thingy) in a nanosecond, so you can't hit the low HP ones either.
The only reason to use missile weapons (in BG2) is if your THACO with melee weapons is 20 at level 12. And paladins don't belong to that group, better having them butcher the evil in their midst.

I've imported couple pallys to the sequel, all of them seemed to lost interested to crossbows after Lilacor, as Giles said, it's just not very noble.
It's really not a big difference between chevy and pally. The attack bonus against bad guys is pretty nice, but in higher levels, it really doesn't make any difference. Evil goes down in the end.

 

From roleplaying view Cavalier looks like a better choice to me. Well, plain paladin can be about any knightly aristocrat, while Undead Slayer and Inquisitor are warriors completely dedicated to war against a particular form of evil.
Cavalier is instead dedicated to honor and virtue itself, an archetype of many brave warriors from myths, like Tristan or Siegfried. If I wanted to play a true warrior of the powers of light, I'd take Cavalier.

Gameplay-wise, choose that one, whose abilities fit best in your party. That would be probably plain paladin for his better choice of ranged weapons. And he doesn't need to be the most glorious of the knights in order to be chivalrous. Look at Parsifal.

Baldur's Gate is really great roleplayers' playground.

 

@Giles:
http://www.sorcerers.net/Games/BG2/cavalier.php

 

Fel,

So I see little changed from the Unearthed Arcana.

 

Oh my, this thread still exists and I made it back in the beginning of 2003. I'm going to weep.

Now, however, it begs pointing out that I haven't played Baldur's Gate 2 since about that time, actually, or maybe a little bit less. Perhaps it would be time to play again - and again with a Cavalier character perhaps. On the other hand, it doesn't look like I'm going to find the time, especially if I'm to play newer games. Still, Baldur's Gate 2 has something in it that makes you want to return. Something newer games don't have. Playing the different classes, with each being given a unique approach, is one part of the charm. In that game you truly could be a plain paladin or an undead hunter or an inquisitor or a cavalier... there were many choices and although the subclasses (kits) weren't addressed in dialogue.tlk (the dialogue file of the game, featuring all or nearly all texts appearing in the game), nor did they have separate quests, the little difference in kit could indeed dramatically change gameplay. This is why I'm looking forward to playing again, though maybe not right now, nor in a year from now... maybe two. When I have forgotten a bit more and the urge to revisit the gameworld is stronger.

Sorry for the off-topic musings, but I couldn't resist upon finding this thread.