The Fighter as the Knight in PHB II


Races & Classes


As I'm sure many of you are obviously aware, a large number of people are crying foul over the power level of the fighter and how it constantly falls under one niche. Obviously, it is supposed to be a capable defender and foes should WANT to attack it.

Now, consider the Knight from PHB II along with a feat from Miniatures Handbook.

The Knight: Looking here, we can see that the knight has a number of abilities to gain advantages over enemies, draw their attention toward him, and hinder enemies in his area. In addition, he even has the power to wear certain armor without penalty.

Now, for those of you without PHB II, here is a quick run through of some major abilities.

Challenges: There are a decent number of these and they require a swift action to activative. They give the knight bonuses, force foes to target the knight (upon a failed save), or benefit the party in some way.

Hinderance: The knight gets a special ability which allows it to treat all squares adjacent to it as difficult terrain, meaning no free-five feeting away, and if you do move, you will provoke!

Armor Without Penalty: No longer would the slow fighter in full plate slowly creep his way across the field if they could wear that full-plate like a second skin, moving with fluidity beneath it.

Goad: This gem from Miniature's Handbook allows the taker of the feat to, as a move action, force a target foe to make a Will Save or be forced to focus melee attacks against them. Sensing a pattern here?
---------

I may be alone in this endeavor, but I believe that advances to the fighter could certainly begin by looking to Players Handbook II and the beautiful feat above.
-------

Hoping he posted this in the right section

-Anaxxius-


While the mechanics are not OGC, the ideas are a good starting point. Personally, I like the Marshal's grant move action.

Giving the fighter some level of tactical ability that can affect the party would go a long way to giving the class versitility.


Anaxxius wrote:
Goad: This gem from Miniature's Handbook allows the taker of the feat to, as a move action, force a target foe to make a Will Save or be forced to focus melee attacks against them.

Dockett taunts!

Seriously, I would like to see Fighters be able to act as roving nonmagical buffs, such as the ability to bolster others against morale penalties and fear, improved abilities with flanking, shield-wall and phalanx abilities, etc.


Hn. I'm not really a fan of any ability which forces enemies to attack a particular character. To my mind, the rationale for attacking a fighter should be that either he's made himself the only viable target through clever positioning, or that if somebody doesn't try and deal with him, he'll be able to roam around with impunity, attacking anyone within reach.

That said, there's nothing preventing fighter players from taunting the enemy in character, leaving the GM to decide whether they're going to stand for this behaviour.

Edit: Secondly, there's the whole reciprocity thing. Anything a PC can do, an NPC should be able to do, in theory. Thus, an NPC knight should be able to force PCs to attack him to the exclusion of all others, which is probably going to be a frustrating experience for the player involved.


Chris Banks wrote:
Secondly, there's the whole reciprocity thing. Anything a PC can do, an NPC should be able to do, in theory. Thus, an NPC knight should be able to force PCs to attack him to the exclusion of all others, which is probably going to be a frustrating experience for the player involved.

This is a very silly theory. If this was true, NPC adventurers should have looted all the dungeons long ago. RPGs function on the fundamental conceit that the players are special or important. This is why NPCs have NPC class levels and PCs have PC class levels.


The PHB2 Knight is actually a spectacularly poorly designed class, and I would not want it to be particularly represented in Pathfinder. Also note that it is considered proprietary content so we couldn't use it anyway, which is just as well.

-Frank


Frank Trollman wrote:

The PHB2 Knight is actually a spectacularly poorly designed class, and I would not want it to be particularly represented in Pathfinder. Also note that it is considered proprietary content so we couldn't use it anyway, which is just as well.

-Frank

Really! I've found myself agreeing with an awful lot of the things you say, but I've also always been immensely fond of the Knight, and I've always felt it was one of the more clever classes in third edition. Can you elaborate?


Burrito Al Pastor wrote:
Frank Trollman wrote:

The PHB2 Knight is actually a spectacularly poorly designed class, and I would not want it to be particularly represented in Pathfinder. Also note that it is considered proprietary content so we couldn't use it anyway, which is just as well.

-Frank

Really! I've found myself agreeing with an awful lot of the things you say, but I've also always been immensely fond of the Knight, and I've always felt it was one of the more clever classes in third edition. Can you elaborate?

Sure. Let's start with the very basic code of conduct that the Knight has, which punishes you for attacking an opponent who is standing in a grease effect, but not for attacking an opponent who has fallen in the same grease effect. And which calls upon you to give up your flanking bonus, despite the fact that you can't do that as Flanking involves your opponent having to guard from two directions and is therefore not something that you have any say in. Also it's against regulation to actually kill Trolls, as standard procedure in D&D requires you to continue beating on them with fire or acid after they pass out or they get back up again and rampage.

And now let's move on to the fact that much of your Fighting Challenge stuff doesn't stack with bless or Bardic Music and is thus completely wasted much of the time. Most fear effects only last one round anyway, so the ability to give people a bonus Savingthrow the turn after a fear effect goes into effect is pretty sketchy. And of course, their signature level 4 "get Hate" ability is completely insulting and CRPG - its very inclusion in the game is an insult to me and everyone else who plays the game.

Now let's talk about them tactically. They get mounted combat bonuses and bonus walking speed in armor - which can't be used together. Also they get a shield specialization and an ability to prevent people from closing on them with 5' steps that only really matters when they are using a Reach Weapon - which is again pulling in opposite directions.

So basically it's a scattershot class whose class features frequently can't be used together and often don't do anything at all. Their code of conduct displays an offensive lack of understanding of how D&D combat works and in no way encourages knightly or honorable combat. The class is mechanically weak, frequently breaks the 4th wall, and schizophrenic. There is nothing salvageable in that class. No ability would not be better were it rewritten, no prohibition would not be better unheeded.

The Knight is an example of a bad class. Bad writing, bad concept, bad implementation, bad everything. 20 levels long and the class doesn't contribute its fair share at any of them.

-Frank


Burrito Al Pastor wrote:
Chris Banks wrote:
Secondly, there's the whole reciprocity thing. Anything a PC can do, an NPC should be able to do, in theory. Thus, an NPC knight should be able to force PCs to attack him to the exclusion of all others, which is probably going to be a frustrating experience for the player involved.
This is a very silly theory. If this was true, NPC adventurers should have looted all the dungeons long ago. RPGs function on the fundamental conceit that the players are special or important. This is why NPCs have NPC class levels and PCs have PC class levels.

And yet, NPCs with PC class levels do exist. Generally as antagonists. One could argue that PCs are more likely to fight opponents with PC class levels than they are to fight those with NPC class levels. After all, where's the excitement for players in overcoming obviously inferior opponents?

Not that I myself would make use of the knight class for an antagonist. That would just be annoying.

Dark Archive

Frank Trollman wrote:

The PHB2 Knight is actually a spectacularly poorly designed class, and I would not want it to be particularly represented in Pathfinder. Also note that it is considered proprietary content so we couldn't use it anyway, which is just as well.

-Frank

My thoughts exactly -- I don't like the "aggro" mechanics in any form, which is one of my briggest problems in 4E. And like you, I wouldn't want to see it featured in Pathfinder.

Dark Archive

Burrito Al Pastor wrote:
Chris Banks wrote:
Secondly, there's the whole reciprocity thing. Anything a PC can do, an NPC should be able to do, in theory. Thus, an NPC knight should be able to force PCs to attack him to the exclusion of all others, which is probably going to be a frustrating experience for the player involved.
This is a very silly theory. If this was true, NPC adventurers should have looted all the dungeons long ago. RPGs function on the fundamental conceit that the players are special or important. This is why NPCs have NPC class levels and PCs have PC class levels.

It's not silly -- in FR, many NPC adventurig bands *have* picked many dungeons clean time after time. The NPC classes (Commoner, Expert, Aristocrat, Adept, Warrior) are supposed to represent "average" people without any special ambitions or training. Yet they are not exclusively for NPCs or the "heroic" classes for PCs only. It shouldn't affect how the PCs are in the "limelight" one way or the other.

As I already noted, I don't want to see Pathfinder evolve into a "poor man's 4E" with specific "roles", aggro mechanics and supernatural martial attack powers. It wouldn't be 3.75 anymore, but closer to 3.99 or something. And I think that Jason, Erik and others have clearly identied those features which most of the "naysayers" do not like in 4E -- "cool" races, awesome combat powers, "magical" power sources and abilities for everyone, CCG/Boardgame-type of tactical combat, etc. By staying closer to core 3.5 than 4E will (while adapting some of the best design ideas from 4E) they're more or less catering to all of those who think that 4E is not an improvement over 3E (and probably to many of the "fence-sitters", too). And that's the smart thing to do, because I think the game will find its "niche" in the RPG market among those people who are not going to switch. If it's closer to 4E than 3E, I don't see it succeeding, because 4E fans will buy 4E and the "naysayers" will keep playing 3E or switch to another system.

Community / Forums / Archive / Pathfinder / Playtests & Prerelease Discussions / Pathfinder Roleplaying Game / Alpha Playtest Feedback / Alpha Release 1 / Races & Classes / The Fighter as the Knight in PHB II All Messageboards
Recent threads in Races & Classes
Non-SRD Classes