I'm planning on converting a campaign over to Pathfinder rules and I've got a character playing a Knight, from PHB2. I'm in the process of figuring out how best to convert a Knight, as there is no definitive guide for it, and I was wondering if anyone else out there has done something similar. I'd really appreciate any input, so I can make this a clean transition.
Thanks =D
I made the Knight class features into feats/feat chains. That way, a fighter makes an ideal knight, but you can make a nifty paladin/knight as well.
|
I'm planning on converting a campaign over to Pathfinder rules and I've got a character playing a Knight, from PHB2. I'm in the process of figuring out how best to convert a Knight, as there is no definitive guide for it, and I was wondering if anyone else out there has done something similar. I'd really appreciate any input, so I can make this a clean transition.
Thanks =D
I actually tried converting it last year during the Beta test, but the only thing I remember doing, aside from moving a few of the abilities around to be more evenly spaced, was making the Test of Mettle a little more powerful. I don't have it right in front of me, but I recall it seeming a bit weak when played and even weaker compared to the Pathfinder power boost.
(also you might take a look at the PF paladin code and make similar adjustments to the knight, though the knight was always more explicit about what he could and couldn't do)
Thanks, everyone.
I also believe that Knight gets a pretty steady flow of abilities as it progresses, but I find that some of them don't really stack up against some of the other PF classes... Paladin in particular.
I may take your advice and alter Test of Mettle. I also have plans to adjust Shield Ally a bit. We'll see.
Again, thank you all for your input.
I made the Knight class features into feats/feat chains. That way, a fighter makes an ideal knight, but you can make a nifty paladin/knight as well.
Maybe you could post that feat chain.
|
|
Thanks, everyone.
I also believe that Knight gets a pretty steady flow of abilities as it progresses, but I find that some of them don't really stack up against some of the other PF classes... Paladin in particular.
I may take your advice and alter Test of Mettle. I also have plans to adjust Shield Ally a bit. We'll see.
Again, thank you all for your input.
The mechanic I used for Fighting Challenge/Test of Mettle involved improving the Fighting Challenge bonus for every 2-3 enemies "called out" by the ability. I don't remember the exact ratio or even if it was balanced, but that was the direction of the changes.
Please let us know what you end up doing. It's a great class and I'd love to see it stand up to Paladin. :)
Thanks, everyone.
I also believe that Knight gets a pretty steady flow of abilities as it progresses, but I find that some of them don't really stack up against some of the other PF classes... Paladin in particular.
I may take your advice and alter Test of Mettle. I also have plans to adjust Shield Ally a bit. We'll see.
Again, thank you all for your input.
The knight is a fine class, really enjoyable. Yes against the paladin he might be underpowered, most classes are actually. But put him in a comparision with the fighter, ranger, barbarian and he does well.
I'd really appreciate any input, so I can make this a clean transition.I'd do this.
Well done good sir, well done.
Since there seem to be some people who are interested in how I plan to convert knight. I've taken some of the opinions of it on these boards into consideration, and have made some additional tweaks for realism purposes (specifically the Shield Ally class feature).
To be fair, I have definitely added more power to the class than many of you have suggested is required, but I am rather skeptical that the abilities Knight is given stack up to some of the equivalent classes available in Pathfinder. That being said, I am willing to hear comments and criticisms regarding this conversion, and would be happy to discuss points of contention. My primary interest here is making a class that will be balanced and won't require too many tweaks, as this character will be played by a new-ish player to D&D/Pathfinder.
Here are the details:
===
Fighting Challenge (Ex) 1st
The rate at which the bonus to Fighting Challenge improves has been altered such that at 5th level and every 4th level thereafter, the bonus increases by 1 (+2 at 5th, +3 at 9th, +4 at 13th, +5 at 17th).
Test of Mettle (Ex) 4th
In addition to its usual effects, Test of Mettle provides the knight a morale bonus to her AC equal to her Fighting Challenge bonus against the creatures affected by Test of Mettle only.
Shield Ally (Ex) 6th
As an immediate action, a Knight may respond to a melee attack against an adjacent willing ally by entering the ally's space. This results in both the Knight and her ally having 50% odds each of being targeted by the attacker. The attacker must roll a percentile die for each attack: 1-50 targets the knight's ally, 51-100 targets the knight. The knight may choose to take a -4 penalty to AC until her next turn to have 75% odds of the attacks against her ally to be treated as attacks against her instead. Once all attacks against the knight's ally have been resolved, the knight may choose an adjacent space to eject her ally to as a 5-foot step (for the ally). During the ally's next turn, his movement speed is reduced by 5 feet to account for this.
To perform this action, the knight must have at least 5 feet of unused movement left over from her previous turn.
Improved Shield Ally (Ex) 12th
This class feature operates as Shield Ally, but does not require that the knight have 5 feet of unused movement left over from her previous turn to be performed. Additionally, the knight may choose to take a -4 penalty to AC to ensure that all attacks against her ally are treated as attacks against her instead.
Greater Shield Ally (Ex) 18th
This class feature operates as Shield Ally, but when sharing an ally's space, the knight has 75% odds of being targeted by attacks against her ally. The attacker must roll a percentile die for each attack: 1-25 targets the knight's ally, 26-100 targets the knight. The knight may take a -2 penalty to AC until her next turn to ensure that all attacks against her ally target her instead. Additionally, the knight can perform this special attack of opportunity action to respond to an attack against an ally up to 10 feet away, as long as the knight has at least 10 feet of unused movement left over from her previous turn and there is line of effect between the knight and her ally.
Armor Mastery (Ex) 19th
At 19th level, a knight gains DR 5/— whenever she is wearing armor or using a shield.
===
The change to Shield Ally is in response to its original definition allowing the knight to take half damage for the shielded ally. I honestly cannot visualize how one could take half of the damage from each blow. It just doesn't work in reality. So instead, I've converted this to probability, which makes a lot more sense here than a straight up division. It takes more rolling, but I think it'll be a lot more suspenseful, and it behaves more accurately with regards to DR.
Let me know what you think.
P.S. There are a few more posts here now than there were, so I'm looking into them and how they compare.
While on the topic of the knight, there's one thing about the class that really bugs me: the taunt mechanism (Test of Mettle). I'm fine with the knight getting morale bonuses when he calls someone out; that's a good mechanic, and it's fun and cool to boot. But magically controlling people's behavior by yelling at them always seemed overly gamist, especially when you turn around and label it "(Ex)," a way of weakly pretending like it's not magic. If you want to take over people's minds, be an enchanter or beguiler, I think.
While on the topic of the knight, there's one thing about the class that really bugs me: the taunt mechanism (Test of Mettle). I'm fine with the knight getting morale bonuses when he calls someone out; that's a good mechanic, and it's fun and cool to boot. But magically controlling people's behavior by yelling at them always seemed overly gamist, especially when you turn around and label it "(Ex)," a way of weakly pretending like it's not magic. If you want to take over people's minds, be an enchanter or beguiler, I think.
I'm in agreement there. Upon reading Tom Baumbach's knight conversion above, I saw a few modifications that I'd like to incorporate into my prototype... His altered Test of Mettle being one. If a creature is affected by Test of Mettle it takes a -2 penalty to basically any action other than something to attack the knight. I think that's sufficiently annoying to the creature and not going into the realm of mind control.
"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.
"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.
That has always been my number one issue with the Knight. But you mentioned feats you had that created a similar class out of the fighter, how did you handle this aspect of the knight class? Did you make it bard effects from feats or what?
I can see a bard using their song to demoralized a foe if they don't act a certain way and that would be clearly a magical effect and mind altering, but the knight doesn't to me feel like he is doing that.
There's a reason the save DC is based on Charisma. It's no different from using intimidate to impose a fear status, would you call that a magical effect?
Imposing a shaken condition, I have no problem being (Ex). Imposing a panicked one, that forces the opponent to flee, that I have a problem with. A penalty for being a bit shaken is reasonable -- that's physiological response, not a behavior. Any effect that requires certain behavior -- especially behavior that is against the subject's self-interest -- is, to my way of thinking, a mind-affecting power. If I made a class feature that forced you to kill your favorite party member and best friend, I could call it (Ex) all I wanted, but it amounts to magical mind control, no matter how you slice it.
That has always been my number one issue with the Knight. But you mentioned feats you had that created a similar class out of the fighter, how did you handle this aspect of the knight class? Did you make it bard effects from feats or what?
Honestly, I omitted mechanics, and left that a flavor thing, with explanations like the voluntary examples I gave above. If forced to apply mechanics, I'd shift it around, and apply bonuses to the knight and/or penalties to the refusing subject, but I dislike forcing self-defeating behavior on otherwise self-willed creatures.
That has always been my number one issue with the Knight. But you mentioned feats you had that created a similar class out of the fighter, how did you handle this aspect of the knight class? Did you make it bard effects from feats or what?Honestly, I omitted mechanics, and left that a flavor thing, with explanations like the voluntary examples I gave above. If forced to apply mechanics, I'd shift it around, and apply bonuses to the knight and/or penalties to the refusing subject, but I dislike forcing self-defeating behavior on otherwise self-willed creatures.
Would I be right in calling your knight basically as a very defensive and protective fighter/paladin package that focuses on defending the party instead of dealing huge chucks of damage?
An elaborate, expertly crafted lie, coupled with plenty of 'evidence' supporting my claims, laid out during a time of peak emotion. Perhaps allowing myself to be struck in battle by said favorite party member as a supposed innocent individual to further prove my point and incite the character to murder his friend.
Is it guaranteed to work? No.
It's not guaranteed to work because his response is voluntary, not imposed. He can use detect lie, or conduct his own investigation, rather than just up and kill the guy. On the other hand, if he is REQUIRED to immediately act in a certain manner that goes against his better judgement, and that is contrary to his insticts and self-interest, then that's an effect that no weave of lies can accomplish -- that's magical mind control. "Save or be forced to immediately act in a specific manner that I dictate" is outside the purview of lies or intimidation.
Would I be right in calling your knight basically as a very defensive and protective fighter/paladin package that focuses on defending the party instead of dealing huge chucks of damage?
I remade the Knight-Protector PrC abilities into feats as well. You can pick up some or all of these feat chains if you want to focus on defending allies instead of Vital Striking or whatever.
To me, that saving throw is the guy's common sense, his ability to see the situation and choose the best course of action.
To me, a saving throw is an exceptionally poor substitute, or none at all, for any of those things.
Obviously, the designers of the class see things your way. The designers of 4e seem to as well. I, and a number of others, don't feel that all issues of free will should simply be replaced with a "save or be a slave" mechanic.
|
On the "Test of Mettle" being mind control gripe, just change the mechanic. Diplomacy/Bluff/Intimidate already provide ways to force an npc to do what you want in a non-magical manner. Have "Test of Mettle" incorporate one of these skill rolls into it's mechanic. If the skill check succeeds, the monster/npc attacks the Knight. If it fails, the npc/creature receives some sort of penalty if it doesn't attack the knight. That way it still has a choice, but the ability isn't useless on a failed skill roll. You could even have it be a new skill check where the knight is considered to have a (3 + knight level + chr) bonus to the roll. Personally I like a variation on the bluff mechanic as it's charts already include bonuses/penalties for trying to convince someone to do something they don't want to do.
Would I be right in calling your knight basically as a very defensive and protective fighter/paladin package that focuses on defending the party instead of dealing huge chucks of damage?I remade the Knight-Protector PrC abilities into feats as well. You can pick up some or all of these feat chains if you want to focus on defending allies instead of Vital Striking or whatever.
I do love that PrC, more for the story and history of the Knight Protectors then anything else. I can see that being built with just a selection of feats.
I love knights in shining armor.....it's an illness I know but when given a choice between a knight and a barbarian I always end up playing the knight.
On the "Test of Mettle" being mind control gripe, just change the mechanic. Diplomacy/Bluff/Intimidate already provide ways to force an npc to do what you want in a non-magical manner.
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; it's not like there's a table of DCs for whether you want the guy to jump of a cliff or rape his own mother. The taunt mechanism, on the other hand, basically boils down to "save or commit suicide" in many cases.
And yet that is exactly what the designers of 3.5 did with the diplomacy skill.
See my response just above your last post. ;)
Almost every day I see somebody get taunted into getting the snot beat out of him, or see somebody jump into a lake (when they can't swim) because of a dare, etc etc. In all those cases, those people thought about what they should do, and in the end they failed to have the will to resist being stupid.
Edit: And don't even get me STARTED on all the will saves most of us guys fail to women. I swear we must have a special gender vulnerability to female manipulation lmao.
You must hang out with a far different group of people than I do. The adults I associate with don't do stupid things just because someone "dared" them to. Little kids might, but hopefully we're not using little kids as villains in Pathfinder. The taunting challenge, boiled down to brass tacks, consists of "I dare you to kill yourself," and the opponent immediately says "Okay!"
With respect to females: I might find one intensely attractive; that's beyond my control. But I CHOOSE not to engage in adultery with her. There is no woman on earth so attractive that I would be forced to have an affair with against my will. "It's not my fault; I couldn't help it" is nothing but a lame rationalization for a stupid choice that you could easily have made differently. But the choice is always there, and shouldn't, in my opinion, be superceded by a random dice roll.
Maybe I do hang around with a different bunch, and perhaps it helps that I'm only 20, but the world I see is a world where people are stupid very often. Not all the time, and not all people, but I hope you get the point I was making.
Heh. Maybe... I remember one day when I was around 30 I woke up and realized that I could think about things other than women. It was an incredibly liberating experience.
Still, I do see an incredible amount of stupid behavior, just as you do... but very little of it suicidal, and dictated in a period of six seconds by someone who wants you dead.
Very little true, but my point, is that hey, if that does exist in our world, then in a fantasy world, where the iconic knight is challenging his foe to glorious individual battle, shouldn't he be able to overcome the person's usual sensibilities? Shouldn't there be a chance for them to fail their will save, and engage in something stupid just because it's a stupid moment for them?Maybe I do hang around with a different bunch, and perhaps it helps that I'm only 20, but the world I see is a world where people are stupid very often. Not all the time, and not all people, but I hope you get the point I was making.Heh. Maybe... I remember one day when I was around 30 I woke up and realized that I could think about things other than women. It was an incredibly liberating experience.
Still, I do see an incredible amount of stupid behavior, just as you do... but very little of it suicidal, and dictated in a period of six seconds by someone who wants you dead.
For another knight to not accept the challenge I see this working fine, but for a rogue, ranger, monk, or even seasoned warrior I just don't see them accepting the knights challenge or giving a whit about it unless it carries some magical weight with it.
|
|
Even bluff only has a penalty if the lie is so impossible that no one should believe it. The do not flat out say you can't convince someone. Basically, all the Knight is doing is convincing someone they should go after him first. I don't see it as that far fetched for the knight to get most people to try to take him on. He basically plays on the other persons imperfections: Pride, fear, anger, etc...
|
While I agree that there isn't much realism in the knight's Shield Other ability causing him to take half damage the benefit of the mechanic is that it's clean and simple. From a simulationist perspective it makes no sense, but as a DM it makes a lot more sense.
How about this as an alternative -
Shield Other (Ex): As an immediate action the Knight may sacrifice their shield bonus to AC and grant it to an adjacent ally. They may do this when an opponent declares its attacks on an ally but not before their attack roll is made.Improved Shield Other (Ex): As an immediate action the knight may trade places with an adjacent willing ally. He may do this when he knows that an ally is being targeted for an attack, he moves with such swiftness that the opponent accidentally targets the knight instead of the ally. The Knight may only do this if he has 5 feet of movement left from his turn.
These are quick and clean abilities that don't add unnecessary dice rolls while still fulfilling the simulationist desire for a realistic ability.
As far as changing the Test of Mettle ability is concerned again it seems a difference between gamist and simulationist philosophy. The mechanic works as is and really is the main draw of playing a knight, it's a unique ability that no other class really hits on. But if you feel it needs a nerf then maybe this is more your cup of tea?
Test of Mettle (Ex): Issuing this challenge is a call to the mightiest among the knight’s nearby enemies, challenging them to face the knight in combat. Any target of this ability must have a CR equal to the knight’s character level -2.As the knight issues a test of mettle challenge, he attempts to taunt all opponents within 100 feet, compelling them for 1 minute toward harming the knight (each in their own preferred fashion) in preference to all other available targets (e.g. swordsmen will seek to engage the knight in melee, archers will attempt to shoot the knight, spellcasters will target or include the knight as a target of their spell, etc.). All opponents within hearing range must make a Will Save equal to 10+ 1/2 the knight's level + the knight's charisma modifier. Opponents that fail the save and take any action that isn’t directed toward harming the knight (such as attacking a different foe or casting a non-harmful spell), do so with a penalty to skill checks, attack rolls, and caster level checks each round they ignore the knight equal to the Knight's Fighting Challenge bonus. Spellcasters who fail and do not include the knight in the area of effect of any harmful spell must make a Concentration check with a DC = 10 + Spell Level + Knight's Fighting Challenge Bonus, failure results in the Spellcaster losing the spell with no effect.
If an opponent forced to harm the knight through this ability should cause or contribute to the knight falling to 0 or fewer hit points, the knight immediately gains one additional use of his knight’s challenge ability for the day. The knight can only gain an additional use in this fashion once per day, and if not used before the beginning of the next day, this extra issue is lost.
Anyway I hope these mechanics are clean enough for gamists and realistic enough for simulationists to both be happy. While it nerfs the Knight a little to lose their most potent battle-field control ability I feel the penalties are large enough many NPCs will still opt to attack the knight over anybody else.
I kinda liked the tome of secrets Knights class.
Take look at it.
The Rogue does it because "Hey, who does that big fat slag of metal think he is, one dagger in the faceplate and he won't be saying sh!t to me anymore"
My point was, the rogue's instinct for self-preservation should be stronger than his Will save reflects: "Man, that knight is annoying, but if I don't kill that wizard RIGHT NOW, we all die." Attacking the knight isn't just stupid; it's blatantly suicidal, like jumping off a cliff. I'm okay with giving people penalties for ignoring the challenge; I just don't like their actions to be dictated to them, when it means suicide.
If the ability took a minute to set up, before combat begins, I'd be a lot more okay with it. But for two groups to stumble upon one another, and everyone in one group be completely brainwashed into lemmings after an instantaneous (swift action) challenge, that strains things too far for me.
YMMV.
Why is magic an "I get to do anything I want but you spend your whole life training to do one thing and you can't do it because you don't have magic" line of bs?
It shouldn't be. Casting defensively should be a recipe for failure. Will saves for fighters in particular should be a lot better than they are. Or save-or-suck spells should be nerfed (as some have been). Some combination of the above.
Like, if the challenge took longer to set up (like maybe one round, which is only six seconds of taunting, as opposed to the zero seconds it currently takes)? Or only applied for one round, and then you came to your senses and realized you were committing seppuku? (This would parallel the nerf to hold person, for example). Or at least admit that the knight's challenge is also mind-affecting magic, and allow SR and immunities to compulsion effects to apply.
As it is, the taunting challenge is a quickened mass dominate monster effect that allows no SR, and is usable many times per day starting at relatively low levels.
There are still balance issues. As it is, the taunting challenge is a quickened, widened, mass dominate monster effect that allows no SR, and is usable many times per day starting at relatively low levels. It makes the knight a far better enchanter than any enchanter can ever hope to be.
There are still balance issues. As it is, the taunting challenge is a quickened, widened, mass dominate monster effect that allows no SR, and is usable many times per day starting at relatively low levels.
Really? I wasn't aware that Knight's Challenge allowed you to tell your enemies to kill themselves or each other. That's news to me.
Really? I wasn't aware that Knight's Challenge allowed you to tell your enemies to kill themselves or each other. That's news to me.
Think about it. The knight's challenge is a command to commit suicide, if the knight's friend the wizard is left free to do whatever he wants with no one threatening him.