So, after a previous post, I was inspired to see just how much I could cram into one fighter to make her a more true to history type of knight. I dont know how effective this build is but it was a lot of fun to toss together so I really hope it works in more than theory. I used 20 Point buy and will be using my level increases to level 20 to increase charisma once, dex once, and strength 3 times. The character im playing will be a half elf with: Elf blood, low light vision, keen senses, elven immunities, dual minded and fey thoughts (diplomacy and perception). Her traits are: Over protective (drawback), armor expert, indomitable faith, and warrior of old. Stats are as follows:
STR: 17 (15+2) DEX:15 CON:14 INT:12 WIS:7 CHA:13
My selected weapon groups will be heavy blades, bows, and polarms. I plan to use mythral full plate, boots of striding and spriging, heavy steel sheild (most likely turned mythral), ring of protection, cloak of resistance, amulet of natural armor, belt of physical perfection, some charisma boosting item, a glaive, longsword, lance, and a composite longbow. (thats all planned for now.)
My feats are in order by level currently.
Power attack,
Quick Draw Deadly aim
DirtyFighting
Furious Focus
Nature Soul
Cleave
Persuasive
Improved Grapple
Animal Ally
Shield Brace
Boon Companion
Mounted Combat
Greater Grapple
Ride-By Attack
Cleaving Finish
Step Up
Throat Slicer
Following Step
Iron Will
Step Up and Strike.
The skills this will have will be 10 ranks Ride, 20 Perception, 10 Handle Animal, and 20 Diplomacy. Could this work? If not, how would you build it?
Hm... No, I don´t see a "Knight" here, at all.
While you probably could make a knight using the Fighter Class (possibly an archetype), the Cavalier is probably closer, as it includes the cavalry aspect, and the code of conduct/devotion to a cause/liege.
Did you want a true historical European knight?
If so, drop diplomacy entirely. Knights were not diplomats. Historically, they were just brutal soldiers that generally owned land and could afford great armor that kept them alive.
As for weapons, get rid of the bow. Peasants and mercenaries were the ones that used the bows to free up the knights for other duties. Heavy focus on maces and similar crushing weapons would also be common. Swords are pretty much useless against plate armor (and even mail to a large extent).
I know that reality and rules do not mesh up. When it comes to game play, a fighter or cavalier is the closest Pathfinder has to a fantasy knight.
Haskol wrote: If so, drop diplomacy entirely. Knights were not diplomats. Historically, they were just brutal soldiers that generally owned land and could afford great armor that kept them alive. Knights were a lot of different things. Tax collectors, law enforcers, administrators, leaders, chroniclers, seducers, poets, troubadours, and sometimes even diplomats. A knight known to be good at diplomacy is the sort of knight the local lord (or even a higher lord) sends to negotiate for him.
but the actual kinghts, those that got the full training and ordination ritual and all were primarily warriors... the judges, tax collectors, diplomats etc were either younger sons who were not to be dubbed knights, or vassal nobles too poor to get the whole hog, when those roles were not devolved to trusted commoners. a REAL knight was an armored warrior fighting from horseback, and he didn't have much room to be much else. That is, unless he was a high ranking noble and primarily a politician and knighthood was mostly a formality rather than a definition.
I agree that either Cavalier or Paladin would make a better choice for a knight, depending on whether or not you're looking for one closer to history (cavalier) or one closer to literary references like Cretien de Troyes (paladin).
Both come with a mount and have built in codes of conduct that are similar (in theory) to the chivalric codes, such as they were.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
...you're going to need to be a lot clearer on what you think a "Knight" is because both my idealized version and my actual version still don't cover the mess you seem to have here. You've said repeatedly you don't want Cavalier because you don't care about the Mount but quite frankly Knights (idealized or actual) are pretty heavily defined by the mount. Google even defines it as "(in the Middle Ages) a man who served his sovereign or lord as a mounted soldier in armor."
You're not good at mounted combat for most of your career. You don't have a scaling Mount until 9th level so you're burning through horses pretty fast (19 HP). Every CR 8 I checked can one-shot the horse, many with AoE attacks. Sir Harold "Goes Through a Lot of Horses" isn't a good name for a knight.
I don't understand the grapple thing at all. You take Improved Grapple at 8th, the level after the Cleric can literally just be immune to it. You double down on it with Greater Grapple at 13th, around the point where people can afford the ring of immune to grapple. And then Throat Slicer at 17th level, well past the point where grapple would work for you (and you have no other way to set it up). Also, Sir Francis "Kills Helpless Prisoners" or Sir Jacob "Kills People in Their Sleep" is just right out for a knight. Well, maybe not the real ones.
You don't take Step Up until 16th level, past the point at which (I think) any opponents actually walk on the ground. Except for BSFs, of course. And only the stupid ones, as I think even Fighters can fly and teleport by that level. So Warriors only, no magic items, perfectly level plain to fight on. At level 16?
You won't get a chance to take Iron Will if you wait until 19th level, as by then some monster (Aboleth? I'm thinking Aboleth) has turned you into its meat puppet. Sir John "Passed Around by Succubi" could be a very fun character... but not a great knight.
Basically, you seem to be taking a bunch of feats available within the first few levels at high levels. Most of them don't keep well. Many are best taken as soon as possible instead of delayed forever. And any character who actually focuses on them will have completed what you have by level 5 or 7 and either continued making it better or moved on to something else. Mounted Combat can negate a hit on your mount, letting bought horses last longer. You take it at 12th level after already getting a full animal companion. Iron Will is never not useful, it's almost your capstone. Shield Brace, to let you use a Glaive with your shield... 10th level, despite being available at level 1. Are you going to be regularly spending a move action in battle to take off the shield so you can actually use your Glaive/Lance? Because if not I'm guessing you'll just be using the Longsword for 9 levels. Probably sunk a bunch of money into it too. Why would you suddenly start using the other weapons?
Will you be effective? Sure, same as any full BAB that took Power Attack. More effective than a Warrior of the same level? Kind of a tossup. Good? Not so much.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Knight is a loaded term, already you have seen a lot of people think of knights as different things. Thats fairly accurate too since the title has been around for several hundred years and changed a great deal in that time. The term "Medieval" refers to a thousand year period where Knights would go from "men specifically trained and equipped for heavy combat" up to "a lordly class who owned land, made ruling decisions for their land would be expected to act appropriate to their class among their peers and have some specific training in combat."
Can you better define what your concept of knight is capable of?
Technically just a level of fighter makes you proficient with all of the weapons you want which would represent specific training in how to use them and you can buy a war trained heavy horse but this is not a game about mundane knights fighting conscript armies on a battle field. this game is about Lancelot on a magic horse fighting a dragon. Legendary figures normally have more focus on their unique abilities and equipment. I know you want to use four weapons but have you considered how useful they will be even if you could take the feats for all of those combat styles? You will need to keep up the enchantment bonuses to overcome DR and the game will not give you enough wealth to maintain 4 magic weapons plus Mithral Full Plate.
Mounted combat with a lance is perhaps the most damaging combat style in the game, it is also feat intensive and highly restrictive on when you can actually employ it as taking a charger into a dillapidated ruin isnt very effective. But at least it overlaps with a lot of feats you need for any melee build.
Archery needs a very different stat array than melee to keep accuracy up and is the other most demanding combat style in the game as far as feat taxes... Point Blank Shot, Precise Shot, Rapid Shot, Many Shot, Clustered Shots... to say nothing of the snap shot tree.
The way i see it, you want Mount as a class feature, martial weapon and heavy armor proficiency, a weapon agnostic damage booster and some skills.
A level of Fighter followed by Anger Inquisition or Rage Domain Sacred Huntmaster does this but has divine spell casting which you've presiobuly said you dont want.
You could go Fighter 1/Ranger X but then your agnostic damage booster depends on favored enemy or using a wand of instant enemy to switch that around. It does let you get free feats without meeting prereqs which can be good for your stats. I am not sure if they have any archetypes that are completely agnostic in their damage buffs that also keep the animal companion.
Honestly though you have said you wont do a Cavalier which is the class built to do what you want, i cant think of too many classes that get full martial abilities plus an animal companion. Spending three feats to get one on a fighter defeats the purpose of being a fighter and getting bonus feats...
Recent threads in General Discussion
|
