I wanted to get people's opinion of the Knight class. Is it fairly balanced? Is it fun to play? Where does it lack? I have a player who is trying to come up with a character for my upcoming Eberron game and he was leaning towards Warforged Paladin but doesn't want the mount or spells, so I suggested the Knight class. I also thought about doing some Warforged sustitution levels that would remove the mounted combat stuff and add some flavor like maybe adamantine knights and Mithral knights (with the path choosen at the substitution level). Any comments or suggestions are welcome.
|
I wanted to get people's opinion of the Knight class. Is it fairly balanced? Is it fun to play? Where does it lack? I have a player who is trying to come up with a character for my upcoming Eberron game and he was leaning towards Warforged Paladin but doesn't want the mount or spells, so I suggested the Knight class. I also thought about doing some Warforged sustitution levels that would remove the mounted combat stuff and add some flavor like maybe adamantine knights and Mithral knights (with the path choosen at the substitution level). Any comments or suggestions are welcome.
Re: the paladin, you could have him use the non-spellcasting paladin rules from Complete Warrior.
Also, Dragon #349 presents the Sword of Celestia option, which replaces the summonable mount with a summonable celestial weapon.
I don't have any experience with the knight from PHII, but at a quick review it doesn't quite look like a nonmagical paladin -- more like the 4E warlord. YMMV
Re: the paladin, you could have him use the non-spellcasting paladin rules from Complete Warrior.Also, Dragon #349 presents the Sword of Celestia option, which replaces the summonable mount with a summonable celestial weapon.
I don't have any experience with the knight from PHII, but at a quick review it doesn't quite look like a nonmagical paladin -- more like the 4E warlord. YMMV
The Complete Champion has a Paladin give up spellcasting for bonus feats I think every four levels.
The player can't decide what image he is actually going for so the Knight being a Paladin without spells is not exactly what I meant. He describes him as having knightly ideals but so far has said much about spirituality so a Knight might be a better fit assuming the class doesn't suck and is no fun to play.
We had a character play a Knight in one of our PHB II games. The knight's challenge abilities were kind of fun. One thing that I'd note is that some of their abilities won't be very useful if you don't use a battle map (e.g. the ability that makes squares they threaten into difficult terrain).
We only played until level 3 or 4, so the knight didn't seem too much different than a low-level fighter or paladin (say), except for issuing a challenge every fight.
|
The characterization of it as a 4E warlord is fairly accurate, albeit without the healing bits. It's a deliberate 3rd Ed attempt to make a character that can draw aggro, so it is designed to force fights with specific opponents and to stand up for quite a long time against damage being thrown around. I have a PC knight currently, and the biggest problem she's had with hers is that it's not especially exciting (at low levels, anyway) without a single big bad to focus her attentions on. Once she hits 4th level, she can start effectively working against mobs as well, but currently, she just doesn't have the single-target stuff that the class is designed to work against. So it depends to some extent on the design of the adventure the character's going to be in.
I've run a couple knights before, they can be a lot of fun depending on the kind of character your friend wants to create. There are 2 very important aspects of the knight that set it apart from other non-magical classes:
1. This is the archetypal "Tank" class. Most of the class features revolve around boosting AC, and limiting the options of it's opponents.
2. The second thing is it's "Knight's Challenge" feature and the tree of other abilities that stem from it. They revolve around demoralizing opponents and drawing attention to the knight. This coupled with it's high AC, high HP (d12 HD) helps control foe agro very well, keeping the characters with lower AC and fewer HP alive by centering the attacks on itself.
The downsides to this class, are that since there is so much emphasis on AC and hate-control, Knights very very limited damage dealing abilities. Essentially, they can only attack just well enough to defend themselves. Also, their knight's code can make role playing difficult, but rewarding at the same time.
From a distance, they look a lot like Paladins, but up close are quite different. Knights are more about controlling the battlefield, and have little to no emphasis on Divine spell casting or righteousness.
It sounds like the Knight might be fun to play if coupled with a rogue or other sneak attacker. The Knight just stands there and calls the BBEG out, the BBEG attacks the Knight, and the mobile rogue flanks and deals out the damage. When the BBEG realizes that it's in a pickle, it will have a hard time moving away from the Knight due to some of the Knight's abilities, allowing the rogue even more time to snickity-snackity sneak attackity.
EDIT: If you're going Warforged Knight, you might change the bonus feat list to bonus Warforged feats.
Another thing to (possibly) consider is to swap out the Knight's Challenge being based on Charisma for one based on Strength or Consitution....I think there is an alternative Warforged Paladin version that does something similar to that. But it's kind of weird to call someone out and have them decide to attack you because you're super strong or super tough. Being super annoying (high cha) makes sense.
EDIT: If you're going Warforged Knight, you might change the bonus feat list to bonus Warforged feats.Another thing to (possibly) consider is to swap out the Knight's Challenge being based on Charisma for one based on Strength or Consitution....I think there is an alternative Warforged Paladin version that does something similar to that. But it's kind of weird to call someone out and have them decide to attack you because you're super strong or super tough. Being super annoying (high cha) makes sense.
Yeah I was thinking of using the different Warforge Armor Material Feats are replacements for mounted combat (as well as swapping out ride for craft) and the have each armor type Knight maybe be from a different house.
Yeah the Paladin's Divine Grace used Con instead of Cha.
|
I've been running a campaign with a Knight in it for a while now; the player joined us in the early-teen levels, and it was his first character. However, I found that (at high levels, at least) the Knight has been a very vital combatant. He primarily spends time trying to protect the "glass cannon" characters (our wizard and bard), and pairs up nicely with the barbarian as our two front-line fighters. The Challenges definitely come in handy when you're dealing with either one big bad ("I've got the Boss, you shred the minions!"), or covering the party's "tactical withdrawl".
I DM'ed for a party with a Knight from level 1 to 8 or so. Overall the knight seemed quite effective, but I felt that the mind-affecting effects we're hard to justify as being non-magical. I greatly preferred the "stickiness" of fighers in 4th edition, as it felt much more "natural" for the character. Try to run away, get smacked and possibly tripped/stopped, rather than being mentally compelled to engage the tank. The PHB II knights seemed a little too MMO/taunt-like (my $.02, of course).
Zzzzzzzzzzz. Sorry, every time I try to read the Knight class I fall...Zzzzzzzzzzzz
I agree with most other evaluations of the knight class here. He controls the battlefield and protects less tough combatants by drawing the enemies into single combat with him, which he can stand because of high ACs and hps. He does not deal the huge amount of damage a fighter is capable of, with all the feats and stuff (similar to the paladin in this regard). The mounted combat abilities are difficult to bring into play until you tailor your adventures to give the knight the spotlight with this - in a typical dungeon, it is useless. Given that mounted combat takes quite a bit of the knights special abilities, don´t play one in a dungeon-only campaign - the other abilities don´t quite make up for this. The code of honor is not quite as tough as the paladins code, but will be difficult to play in a very mixed group. I have one in my group, and I am not entirely satisfied with the class.
Overall, one might argue if this class is really needed, or if you are better off custom-building a fighter to suit your needs. I guess you could introduce a restrictive code of honor to give the fighter a few advantages outside the usual feats.
Stefan
|
It sounds like the Knight might be fun to play if coupled with a rogue or other sneak attacker. The Knight just stands there and calls the BBEG out, the BBEG attacks the Knight, and the mobile rogue flanks and deals out the damage. When the BBEG realizes that it's in a pickle, it will have a hard time moving away from the Knight due to some of the Knight's abilities, allowing the rogue even more time to snickity-snackity sneak attackity.
Maybe my memory is fuzzy, but isn't the Knight prohibited from aiding another character in using Sneak Attack? Or is it just the Knight that cannot benefit from flanking?
Just the knight he can help others flank, he just can't take the benefit of the +2 to hit.
In my current campaign I have a knight (Tin Man for those of you who read the journal). He had problems with the class because A) his dice hate him and B) he couldn't really remember his class abilities very well. I discussed it with him and he eventually took an OGL prestige class called Stalwart Defender that works better for him because it focuses on being tough as nails, not on special abilities. This is a problem with the player, not the class.
I think that the Knight it an excellent class. However there are two important things about it before a player takes it. First is that it is a surprisingly tricky class. The abilities require good tactical thinking and teamwork to make use of. I don't recommend it for someone's first character.
The second is that the player needs to recognize the knight for what it is. It is not the main damage dealer, although it can do decent at that if done right. The goal of the class is to defend, not attack. If the player wants to play the role of protector then it is an extremely good class.
Hope that helps. For the record it and the beguiler are the only two classes in that book I find to be worth bothering with.
Personally I feel that the Duskblade isn't any worse (munckinywise) than the Beguiler is. But the Duskblade gets more of a gut reaction than the Beguiler because people don't really read the Beguiler class throughly and think of what it has and what that means (I.E. a wizard with better HP, better Skills, Trap sense, and spontanteous casting while wearing armor).
|
|
Personally I feel that the Duskblade isn't any worse (munckinywise) than the Beguiler is. But the Duskblade gets more of a gut reaction than the Beguiler because people don't really read the Beguiler class throughly and think of what it has and what that means (I.E. a wizard with better HP, better Skills, Trap sense, and spontanteous casting while wearing armor).
The beguiler is an extremely strong class. Very, very good at what it does. It does have some issues with mindless opponents, but in general it holds up quite well.
The duskblade is a solid class as well, but maybe people tend to overlook its problems when complaining about its strengths. One of the biggest issues it has is that it's only got a d8 HD, but the class features basically require you to be a meleeist - you have to stand up there next to the fighter and the barbarian, but you won't have their hit points and you won't have their AC. Another problem is that it has MAD - not a huge amount, but you really need Str, Con and Int to work properly, and that can get tricky (you only really need Int 15, though, so it's not too painful). It is a good class, don't get me wrong; it's the only real attempt at an arcanist/fighter that has actually worked. But it's not broken.
It can do really well with reach weapons, and I've seen some chatter about using it in conjunction with a spiked chain and whirlwind attack... but over all yeah that's my point. The Beguiler is generally a much stronger class at what it does (even going 20 levels in beguiler when you get feint as a free action and +2 DC if you succeed on the feint).
Most of the duskblade's spells aren't that impressive either (even with them being added to a full attack routine), and it doesn't really mix well (the few PrC you might want are generally not as useful for the duskblade as other 'gish' types -- Abjurant champion, eldritch knight, et al.).
Most of the duskblade's spells aren't that impressive either (even with them being added to a full attack routine), and it doesn't really mix well (the few PrC you might want are generally not as useful for the duskblade as other 'gish' types -- Abjurant champion, eldritch knight, et al.).
IMO, the "strongest" PrC choice for a duskblade is spellsword (Complete Warrior). The abilities are complimentary (i.e., channel any spell instead of just touch spells, the reduction to Arcane Spell Failure for heavier armor types not covered by Armored Casting, etc.) and you keep the full BAB progression (you do give up a few casting levels, but the duskblade isn't all about casting in the first place).
Duskblade 13/spellsword 7 is the "sweet spot" for the two. Channeling a polar ray into a spell storing weapon attack while you activate a stored vampiric touch can hurt quite a bit! Especially when you follow it up with a full attack channeling touch of idiocy or another spell.
I'm running a swashbuckling campaign, and the main tank is a human swashbuckler 3/duskblade 12/fortune's friend 1, I believe. Definitely has the highest BAB in the party. I like the duskblade because it's basically a melee combatant with a "trump card" ability. It can use Swift Expeditious retreat to chase after a monster, channel shocking grasp for an attack that does extra damage, etc. The one I DM for went the Spring Attack route, and has Bounding Assault and is working his way towards the Super Bliztkrieg feat or whatever (Move, attack, move, attack, move, attack, move as a full round action). Most of his other feats are Luck feats, which I really like too.
Personally I feel that the Duskblade isn't any worse (munckinywise) than the Beguiler is. But the Duskblade gets more of a gut reaction than the Beguiler because people don't really read the Beguiler class throughly and think of what it has and what that means (I.E. a wizard with better HP, better Skills, Trap sense, and spontanteous casting while wearing armor).
None of which will be useful when the beguiler is put against undead, constructs or other creatures immune to mind-effects.
And yes, it has better HP and armour, but an addtional hit point per level on average isn't going to make the class a melee master, and a wizard can make use of spells to gain a better armour class.
They are, in essence, sorcerers who are resrticed to a set spell list and gain bonuses against flat-footed opponents.
The duskblade on the other hand, is a machine (metaphorically speaking of course, unless you're a warforged). The ability to apply a vampiric touch to every melee attack in a round can add up. Theres also the "Quick Cast True Strike: Power Attack for full" tactic (which might be less viable with PF's version of power attack, but then again in PF's version the Beguiller really starts to fall behind).
Theres also the staying power, a high level duskblade can receive +5D6 points of damage on melee attacks using only his or her backup abillities (i.e, low level spells), which is alot when you consider that a raging barbarian at 20th level will only gain +4 to hit and damage on attacks (or +6 to damage in the case of a two-handed weapon).
To be honest though, my arguments are never going to favour the duskblade, I really don't think the class is good at all, so some of what I said is likely to be heavily biased.
|
The Beguiler rolls arcane caster and skill monkey into one, and can fill both roles well enough.
Sure, if we are talking about pure combat efficiency he is behind other classes, but who cares ? In my campaign one players runs a Beguiler and he is yet to be killed by anything. His ability to pull out of tight spots saved the party at least three times.
And Duskblade ? Shocking Grasp on each attack + True Strike + Power Attack, followed by Swift Invisibility. Works 80% of time, much to my frustration.
I think it is important to look at both the beguiler and the duskblade in the contextual role they are meant to play.
In the case of the beguiler, they are not meant to play the role of a frontline combatant but replace the role played the rogue in a party. The beguiler has issues dealing with undead, slimes and the like... but then so does the rogue, so I don't necessarily see this as a detriment to the class. I know that PRPG has taken steps to make the rogue class more effective in these types of situations (or at least not as ineffective as often), but I don't think that these considerations would extend to the beguiler (though I don't know enough about the specific rules in PRPG).
On a side note, I feel the bard falls into the same category as it is not as effective against undead either.
The Duskblade seems to inneffective in two situations. The first is anything other than combat, but then they are made for combat... it's not really all that different from a fighter in that regard. The second is that the Duskblade is a killer in a few fights per day rather than the staying power of a fighter to do their tricks over and over and over. How detrimental this is really depends on the DM/Campaign. If you know the DM's stories are likely to only have a few intense combats per day then a Duskblade could be considered more competent than a fighter due to increased burst damage ability.
Sean Mahoney
But back to knights...I played with one off and on for several levels. The player was quite a min-maxer, and was able to lockdown an entire battlefield with his spiked chain-using, enlarge potion-drinking knight.
But back to knights...I played with one off and on for several levels. The player was quite a min-maxer, and was able to lockdown an entire battlefield with his spiked chain-using, enlarge potion-drinking knight.
That's about as bad as a dwarf knight/dwarven defender (defensive stance + knight's challenge). Even with the -2 Cha as a dwarf, this can get ugly.
Knights are martial controllers to use the dreaded 4e lingo...
On Beguilers I would agree... however they cast spells based on their Int and not their charisma. This means they have all the lovely perks of a huge Int and all those extra skill points per level, while still having spells that are effective (some even against undead, looking at the new spells in the PHB 2) and many of the tricks that a rogue has (plus free action bluffing).
It's the total package. They have more skills than a rogue, more HP than other arcane casters, more spells known than a sorcerer, more spells per day than a wizard, spontaneous casting, and several bonuses of their own to boot.
But back to knights...I played with one off and on for several levels. The player was quite a min-maxer, and was able to lockdown an entire battlefield with his spiked chain-using, enlarge potion-drinking knight.That's about as bad as a dwarf knight/dwarven defender (defensive stance + knight's challenge). Even with the -2 Cha as a dwarf, this can get ugly.
My biggest issue with the knight is he can control the battle field and no one can really stop him.
Sure they can, it's called ranged combat. "Fine mister knight, you sit right there, I don't mind, I'm just going to peg your wizard friend behind you full of arrows."
Or fireball him... summon lesser cuthulu (evard's black tentacles)... grease... Hold Person.
If you can make those saves then the knight is simply talking a lot, and he doesn't prevent you from tumbling... he just makes it harder.