Actually they don't even have to attack the knight. If they're already engaged with someone else in melee combat, they can completely ignore Test of Mettle.
|
Except that once the wizard attacks the person who is under the effect of the challenge the effect ends on that individual.
Ultimately the ability isn't really all that and a bag of potato chips as is, more than enough opponents make their saves to completely ignore it. Those that don't are usually only under the effect for a round or two while the allies get to do some of the cool stuff they enjoy doing.
The entire point of the knight is to draw fire away from the wizard, the rogue, the cleric and even the second fighter so that they can strut their stuff and get into advantageous position, or try out that really cool spell. Weakening the ability weakens the knight's core competency. But if you do want to do so I did make a suggestion of how a few posts ago (giving opponents a penalty that scales with their Fighting Challenge Bonus.
Except that once the wizard attacks the person who is under the effect of the challenge the effect ends on that individual.
Depending on how it's implemented, this might be enought to sway me a bit, because it means the effect is really only lasting 1-2 rounds, as you point out.
Also note that if anyone else attacks them, they're instantly freed from the effects of Test of Mettle and are immune to it for the next 24 hours.
|
"Have you no honor KNAVE, FACE ME ALONE!"Which is fine if the NPC has a choice, but if he has to "save or attack you," no matter how stupid a choice that might be for him? Like, I can see a lawful NPC voluntarily agreeing because his world-view is bound by concepts like contracts and binding agreements. I can see a chaotic opponent voluntarily agreeing because it will impress his mooks and make them easier to manager later on. But if you meet a solo intelligent, CE opponent who has no reason to agree, and every reason NOT to (like, a desire to knock out the party mage pronto), then if he's forced to attack the knight instead, against his own will and against his instinct for self-preservation, then that's magical mind control, pure and simple.
Well, so are diplomacy and intimidate, then. The first time a player is made shaken by an opponent's intimidate check, I imagine they feel a bit like they've lost control of their character, too.
|
|
Well, so are diplomacy and intimidate, then. The first time a player is made shaken by an opponent's intimidate check, I imagine they feel a bit like they've lost control of their character, too."Have you no honor KNAVE, FACE ME ALONE!"Which is fine if the NPC has a choice, but if he has to "save or attack you," no matter how stupid a choice that might be for him? Like, I can see a lawful NPC voluntarily agreeing because his world-view is bound by concepts like contracts and binding agreements. I can see a chaotic opponent voluntarily agreeing because it will impress his mooks and make them easier to manager later on. But if you meet a solo intelligent, CE opponent who has no reason to agree, and every reason NOT to (like, a desire to knock out the party mage pronto), then if he's forced to attack the knight instead, against his own will and against his instinct for self-preservation, then that's magical mind control, pure and simple.
Or the terrifying power of a Diplomacy check (Order of the Stick's Print Only Dungeon Crawling fools had a great moment when the Order had captured some goblins):
Elan: "That was mean! Fine, I'm making a Diplomacy check right... NOW!"
Goblin 1: "ARRGH! NO!"
Goblin 2: "Feel my opinions... inexplicably changing!"
Did I not already address Diplomacy and Bluff?
That's just the thing -- Intimidate and Bluff don't do that. The shaken condition in no way dictates your behavior. I have an issue with Diplomacy, but at least there's room for give and take there...
Why yes, I did! And Diplomacy is not a swift action. There's a reason quickened spells are 4 levels higher than their non-quickened counterparts. Diplomacy is a full round. And can't be used in combat. And is still just about the most godawful mechanic in the entire game, and obe of the first things that should have been reworked in Pathfinder.
Diplomacy is a full round. And can't be used in combat.
Actually, it can be used as a standard action in combat at a -10 penalty. Just for the record, not disagreeing with you about the silliness of Diplomancy (the close cousin to Shadowrun's pornomancy).
EDIT: Whoops! They removed that clause in Pathfinder. Not sure I agree with it -- now once a fight starts it's technically impossible to talk people down.
I think it's totally possible to be in a situation where you would like to do one thing, but someone else essentially dictates what you do instead. Surely there are people all the time who "don't get involved" with dangerous situations, despite the moral draw to do so. Imaging walking down a street and coming across an assault in an alley. Now, you may or may not be able to convince yourself to intervene despite the personal danger, but lots of people wouldn't.
At that point, it's not a "choice", because there are other factors pushing you to do what you'd rather not. Free will can be influenced by factors other than itself. A very strong willed person is just less likely to be influenced. But then, a very strong willed character should have a decent Will save. I think it's a perfectly valid game mechanic.
|
Diplomacy is a full round. And can't be used in combat.Actually, it can be used as a standard action in combat at a -10 penalty. Just for the record, not disagreeing with you about the silliness of Diplomancy (the close cousin to Shadowrun's pornomancy).
EDIT: Whoops! They removed that clause in Pathfinder. Not sure I agree with it -- now once a fight starts it's technically impossible to talk people down.
Well that bites. I liked talking people down in fights because my character was usually the one that figured out that they were all being manipulated into killing one another. I'd totally add a house rule to that.
As for the Knight, just add a Fort save to it. I always thought it was weird that it never had one to begin with, and then I saw Tome of Secrets. As for the empty slot at 18th, just make it a bonus feat. There's a dead level for it saying it should essentially be Skill Focus: Diplomacy (which only works against nobles and what not), but I think that's stupid, and WAY too late in the game to be adding that.
Overall, just look at the Pathfinder Knight in Tome of Secrets, and make your own version. I personally have no problems with Test of Mettle, but I do agree that adding a penalty to their rolls against anyone other than the knight is a neat idea. Basically continually goating them, and causing them to lose focus on the other guys until they finally explode and attack you. However, not so powerful that it automatically causes Rage or Berserk to go off.
As for it being an impossibility and that you'd probably always ignore the knight if given the chance, just think about it rationally. Do you take the guy on who's annoying the hell out of you to the point of distraction, or do you go after the weak mage? If I'm running nails down a chalkboard and having the bard yodel as an accompanyment, vs the mage casting something that you don't know (because your spellcraft sucks), when the battle's only just begun, who are you going to chase after first? There's different kinds of taunts. Even the monk can't be that holy a being. You talk badly enough about their momma, and they'll tear after you just as quickly as the rogue or ranger.
Out of curiosity, how would you handle having both the Knight (PHB2) and the Cavalier (APG) into the same campaign?
|
|
Out of curiosity, how would you handle having both the Knight (PHB2) and the Cavalier (APG) into the same campaign?
I think they'd complement each other well. I could imagine a really fun Knights of the Round Table campaign, with different styles of heroism being displayed by the noble Knight, the glory seeking Cavalier, along with the pious Paladin and vengeance fuelled Ranger.