Cavallier vs plain pally

Remove all ads!

Has anyone tried both as player characters? I've only played Cavallier paladin in BG2 (Inquisitor and Undead Slayer won't go because they don't lay hands and that's lame) and it works nicely apart from some moments it sucks not to be able to fire arrows. The plain one is still awesome judging by other IE games I've played. So, it's not like to be or not be, but just which one do you prefer - only if you've played them both, please.

 

Hm, there was a similar threat not so long ago. But anyway.

I am a little bit confused about the English names in the moment, but if the Cavallier paladin is the one, which can cast remove fear and lay-on-hands, than that's the one I like the most.

I usually have always a Paladin in my group, but I never take Keldorn. Inquisitor, yes, dispel magic is pretty stron. But without lay-on-hands, it just has not the right feeling and dispel-magic, even if it's powerfull, a spell that just needs to much concentration for me. Just walk in, slash and lay-on-hands. That' a paladin. And remove fear versus dragons. Yes, a cleric can cast remove fear too. So what ?

 

Remove fear isn't all that fun. Saves the cleric some slots, but one can do without that. But rp-wise the immunity to fear looks nice and the same to the not-so-useful dragons/daemons bonuses. Limited fire resistance or especially total poison resistance help a lot, but rp-wise they suck, I believe. Of course my paladin is a keen drinker, so he could have some good poison resistance, but total immunity isn't really justifiable. Another thing is that I'm taking one-handed style and thus switching to bow would be easier than from dual-wielding (like all my cavallier pallies so far). Let's invert the question: is acquiring the possibility to use bows (with for example gauntlets of 18 dex too ) worth sacrificing cavallier bonuses?

 

He, he, I just realize, that Baldurs Gate 2 is an old game. My memory is seriously starting to fade away. Anyway. Yes, the fear-immunity. I love it. Not that spells couldn't do the same. But I liked that Paladin. Couldn't help it. And the missile-weapons. For me, it does not matter at all, because for a missile-weapons, I used the Ranger-special Kit and once a warrior. And a missile-weapon, at least for me, just don't fit a Paladin. He's in the frontline, sword swinging.

So, I may have forgotten the points in detail, but I always used the cavallier Kit. I just found it the best.

 

I'm a hopeless case of a powergamer - i have always preferred the cavalier for his nice abilities and immunities, the melee only restriction was just right for me: melee rocks!

I think the pure pally got somewhat lost over the cavalier and became much less attractive. But the cavalier was just noble enough for me - so my choice is clear: Cavalier all the way. The remove fear rocks, especially in the earlier parts of the game and also later on, when fighting dragons especially. It's not so much about the saved spellslots - it's casted much faster as an innate ability iirc, and it can be restored quickly after an enemy's dispell spell.

I cannot understand how people could ever play the undead slayer and the inquisitor - as chevalier said, they are lame, lacking some key abilities I love about pallies.

 

undead slayer isnt lame......
he\she got immunity to level drain....
extra damage (or something) vs undead
possibly other advantages i have forgotten...

these specialties is pretty darn good considering that there r alot, and i mean alot of undead and vampires in this game.

and the lay on hands ability comes "not-so-useful" if u have a cleric of some sorts in ur party.

but personally i dont like paladins that much...i like them but i prefer a monk or kensai instead letting my thief wield the carsomyr when the "use-everything" ability are avaible.

 

For me, it wouldn't be worth losing the abilities just to use a missile weapon. Whenever I play, I hardly ever use missile weapons with any of my frontline fighters, whether that be myself, or an NPC. Since I hardly use the missile weapons anyway, losing the ability to use them is no drawback whatsoever. IMHO, all of the paladin kits are better than a vanilla paladin, and an argument can be made for the strengths of the individual kits. The undead hunter is also extremely strong. All you lose is lay on hands (and you can do without one healing spell) you reatin all of the other abilities, and they have immunity to hold and level drain - some of the more annoying spells you have to deal with in the game.

Basically my advice is don't pick the plain pally. The Cavalier, and the other two kits for that matter, are better than a plain pally.

 

Actually, Cavaliers can use missile weapons, just not launchers (bows, etc.). They can use the thrown weapons just fine, and there are some really sweet ones in the game.

As far as the other 2 paly classes, it's totally a matter of preference. I've never liked the Undead Hunter much personally, because his abilities (immunity to level drain, etc) can be made up through the use of items. As can the abilities of the Chavalier. You can boost those resistances through rings, and I suppose the extra dragon/demon damage is nice too, even though there aren't all that many of them in the game. But the reason I prefer the Inquisitor is his innate spells. There have been so many battles where the beefed-up Dispel Magic and True Sight have bailed me out of a jam. They cast almost instantly and cast much higher than their level it's obscene.

The downside of the Inquisitor are the paladin abilities you think are so cool. Well for me, I've just never found them all that cool. Lay on hands is nice I guess, but it can only be cast once a day and doesn't help much for a character with 120 hitpoints. Then there's the priest spells, which are only the lowest levels for most of the game. If I wanted a spellcaster, I'd make a fighter/cleric. I see the inquisitor as a fighter with 2 of the most useful spells in the game built in.

But who knows - maybe I'll give the Chavalier a try and see what the big deal is. It's pretty hard to go wrong with Paladins. That said, the vanilla Paladin - when compared to his kits - is completely unattractive to me and I wouldn't pick one. It's different with Rangers. I think the vanilla Ranger is the best kit in terms of melee ability, but naturally I'd pick the Archer for a sniper or a Stalker for a sneaky hybrid. I don't know anyone who likes the Beastmaster. But my point is - in the case of Paly vs. Chav, I'd rule in favor of Chav.

 

I've never liked Cavalliers. Not having bows just isn't me.

[ May 17, 2003, 02:05: Message edited by: Ruler of the Known Universe ]

 

I played through once with Keldorn, and I think the Inquisitor kit is great. Those powerful dispel magic spells (cast at 2x caster level) and True Sight made the loss of a few other pally abilities worth it to me. Both of these spells are huge in BG2.

If someone were to pin me into a corner though... I'd probably say that the Cavalier is my favorite Paladin Kit... they eventually get some decent spells like Defensive Harmony, great immunities and Remove Fear is useful throughout the game.

 

The Undead Slayer is a fun character to play with but only when there are hordes of skeletons and zombies about I believe. When I played as an undead slayer, I usually paused the game and add more zombies, you know..make the paladin earn his keep.

 

I have played all three types of Paladin, and each of them has an upside. My game style does not require everyone to use a missile weapon, so a Cavalier is great, especially if you have an Archer taking care of the other side of the coin for you. I like to have one or two melee folks rush ahead and stop the opposition from getting to the rest of the party. A Cavalier armed with Carsomyr, boots of speed, the necklace of cheetah speed, the Ring of Gaxx, and some other goodies is a really magnificent sight!

I always like to have Keldorn along as well, as his true sight frees up spellcasting slots. I don't mind the Inquisitor's lack of spells, turning ability, or Laying on Hands ability, as my clerics keep that stuff covered -- I rarely if ever use a Paladin's turning ability anyway.

I loved my time as an Undead Hunter -- the immunity to level drain was so nice, and I have other means for healing. I could use the Mace of disruption on Minsc, the Amulet of Power on Nalia, and voila! 1/2 of my party could tango with Vampires and their ilk with no worries. I like the customization of the Paladin kits -- not all holy warriors are alike!

 

Like for most of the classes, the plain one simply sucks in terms of fun when playing.
I think that loosing ranged weapons abilities is absolutely worth the bonuses the Cavallier gains,
but my favourite kit is surely the Inquisitor (I always take Keldorn when I play on the good path), wich seems to be quite dislaked on the previous posts.
The fact that this kit looses practically ALL of the typical paladins's abilities to gain something completely different (and IMHO much better), it's quite interesting for me. Instant Dispel magic and True sight ROCKS!!

 

Paladin:
Advantages: Lay on hands skill, cleric spells, turn undead, become proficient in any weapon.
Disadvantages: Lack of race and alignment choice.

Cavalier:
Ad: THAC0 and Damage bonuses against Demons and Dragons (+3), cast remove fear 1/day, immune to fear, 20% resistance to fire and acid, immunity to poisons.
Dis: Can't use missile weapons.

Inquistor:
Ad: Dispel Magic ability once a day every four levels, true sight once a day for every four levels, immune to charm and hold spell.
Dis: Lose spells, lay on hands and turn undead.

Undead Hunter:
Ad: THAC0 and Damage bonus against undead (+3), immunity to hold and level drain.
Dis: Can't lay on hands.

Spells:
Pal - Cleric - turn undead
Cav - Cleric - turn undead
Inq - None - no turning
Und - Cleric - turn undead (wow!)

Best Fighting:
Pal - Evil stuff.
Cav - Demons, Dragons Spiders.
Inq - Mages, Sirines, Dryads, Succubi, umber hulks, otyughs.
Und - Undead creatures (all of the damn things.)

 

Thanks, people. The thing with Cavallier isn't strictly about ranged attacking - I used the returning dagger and Azuredge when I really had to, but with missile weaponry. I'll probably stick to Cavallier since I've already started playing, and perhaps try the Inquisitor some day, although I generally don't see that class as paladin in BG2 (my paladinhood concepts aren't limited to d&d, even contrary - I first heard of d&d like 4 years ago and first played two while being all about paladins as far as my memory can reach). The original Inquisitor kit in 2E makes more sense, but still it's not it.

Then the question isn't about bonuses - since that we probably all know from descriptions and stuff, but which of the two wins the competition roleplaying-wise or tactics-wise.

In my case all characters use bows until the enemies reach them. Then it gets to knives Warrior pool characters get really many attacks with bow and have the best thac0 progression, so they hit twice as often as some thief does and are far more likely to hit. Many enemies with enormous (for their size, rank, XP value) potential but short to medium hp-span can be put down this way before doing something nasty. I use this tactic in any rpg I play (hence they all get good bows and decent profs as a priority), but in BG2 I have to send the cavallier forward (works like charm until surrounded or the enemy is a real boss) or have all the rest shoot and the cavallier wait till the enemy gets close (thrown) or just stand still (lame). Well, I can also rush forward - and I do that pretty often, but you know the force of habit

 

nice to see u have made an decision ^_^

anyway as lord keldin said...
having the undead hunter allows u to put the "immunity to level drain" items on other chars making more chars better against creatures that drains levels.

no no, i aint saying u must or should choose him....just had to make a reply with my thoughts ^_^

[Please spell out words like "you" - BTA]

[ May 18, 2003, 03:54: Message edited by: Blackthorne TA ]

 

I've generally preferred the Inquisitor or the Undead Hunter to the Cavalier or unkitted Paladin.

The Undead Hunter very well fits the idea of most any Paladin without the LoH. They still have their spells which has always been half the point of them. They are dedicated to fighting traditionally evil enemies in all their forms for their god and they are gifted with powers aimed in that particular direction. Even with it's scalability the LoH just isn't a big loss. Specially when backed by a good Priest. As an added bonus they get plenty of bonuses to make some of the most prevelant and annoying kinds of enemies in the game, even parts of ToB.

Lay on Hands is Interruptable if your not careful and while it's nice in an emergency it does take a dedicated fighter away from combat. Any of the Pally's with Carsomyr in hand becomes very potent.

Depending on my mood I will play any of the 4 however. Each has their bonuses and losses. I sometimes felt like the Cavalier should have gotten a bit more considering the varried kinds of dragons there are and being dedicated to fighting these kinds of enemies. I never was sure how poison fit into them.

 

I have played an Inquisitor and a Cavalier several times, using thrown axes (not precisely roleplaying, but I made my own internal justification ) and after AzureEdge, the Cavalier fits the bill perfectly. Inquisitors seem to shine later on, when everything and their brother requires TrueSight, but until then, the resistances and bonuses to Cavaliers make the Dreaded Hand of Heath Movie playa bit less often - and I play both paladin kits as "me first" knights charging headlong into battle, treading where others fear (or prudently choose not ) to tread!

 

Cavallier does not appeal to me, I find their bonuses rather too rarely useful. And I like bows. But Inquisitors are really neat in situations where you face spell casters...and you face them a lot!

There are times when I yell 'Boy I need an Inquisitor badly right now!' when all those enemy spells flying on the air. Can't really say I wished for a Cavalier that often.

 

I've soloed a pally twice I didn't find any use for bows once you get your hands on Carsomyr (which you get quicker with the +3 against dragons) and Boots of Speed, take the Cavalier, I say!

And isn't it an obvious choice for chevalier anyways.