Remind me again why I should like the PHB II?

[Staffan]

Oh, you mean that idea that Magic: The Gathering started back in the Urza's and Mercadian Masques sets? They've had spells that cost more to cast if you used the full version, and had less of a cost if you cast the lower-powered "short" version.

Invasion block, the Kicker ability.

 

[pawsplay]

bleeding heck. I honestly think people who dislike the Knight play too many massively multi players on line. The number one thing i hear about it is "It causes AGGRO!" You know I never heard that term before the MMOs. It has a single, limited class-specific special ability set, that only works a limited amount of the time against a select number of enemies, and it has a reasonable save. Why all the hate? You know what, i want to hear these "multiple reasons" be brutal. please.

The knight...

... potentially takes away player choice by using mind control. Since it's not a spell, the result is that someone is forced to player their character stupider, or in a way contrary to their character conception ("my wizard character, whos is more spineless than a worm, probably would not accept a challenge").
... is LG, stepping all over the Paladin's toes. Why not just any lawful? That would be more consistent with the Cavalier PrC. Or no alignment restriction; surely a wandering, chaotic knight could still be honorable. Last time I checked, "sporting" combat rules were not a component of any alignment.
... has d12s, for really no good reason.
... is a concept that incorporates greater than average PC wealth, but does little to address that disconnect.

I don't hate the knight. But I'm not impressed, either, although I like some of the abilities and restrictions they came up with.

 

[FireLance]

The knight...

... potentially takes away player choice by using mind control. Since it's not a spell, the result is that someone is forced to player their character stupider, or in a way contrary to their character conception ("my wizard character, whos is more spineless than a worm, probably would not accept a challenge").

No, no, your wizard character, who is more spineless than a worm, is so frightened of the knight that he decides to magic missile him first, or will fireball him and only half the horde of orcs instead of fireballing all the orcs. Yes, he's not acting optimally, but that doesn't mean he has to act stupid.

... is LG, stepping all over the Paladin's toes. Why not just any lawful? That would be more consistent with the Cavalier PrC. Or no alignment restriction; surely a wandering, chaotic knight could still be honorable. Last time I checked, "sporting" combat rules were not a component of any alignment.

I think you have been misinformed. A knight has to be lawful, but does not have to be good.

... has d12s, for really no good reason.

He's especially tough because of all the people beating him up in the game and on messageboards.

... is a concept that incorporates greater than average PC wealth, but does little to address that disconnect.

Huh? This is where you lost me completely.

 

[Janx]

I've yet to warm up to the "PC rebuild" material. It doesn't do anything for me. I don't really see the use for it, but if others like it, OK.

I've skimmed the PH2, that's about it. I think the PC Rebuild rules might be useful for folks who don't plan their PC out to 20th level. It would allow them to correct choices they made at lower levels that didn't pan out as useful. That's not a bad thing. We've done that for years when a PC has purchased some skill or something that NEVER gets used, and really doesn't help the character (but instead takes a slot that could have been spent better for the character concept).

 

[Henry]

Invasion block, the Kicker ability.

No, I'm talking about earlier, cards like the buyback abilities, or the enchantments that could be burned for instants; however, you're right, the Kicker ability is a closer fit to the mechanics.

 

[Nellisir]

I can vouch for the fact that the Affiliations system received more playtesting in my home games than any other system I've designed for a WOTC product. I've been using the PHB II Affiliations system in my home games for about five years, almost since 3E was first unveiled. When I received the design document for the PHB II, I jumped all over the Affiliations chapter. I think I wrote Dave Noonan an email with about twelve exclamation points in it! Maybe there were more exclamation points than words; I don't remember.

Affiliations are the best new idea in the book!

That said, some advice and guidelines for creating your own affiliations, benefits, and the like would be very, very useful.

EDIT: I mean, advice and guidelines on integrating affiliations into your own campaign would be very, very, useful. There is a page on creating your own affiliations (more is better, though!) A online supplement would be great, or a Dragon article, or...a thread here on EN World!

 

[Hussar]

Nope....none of that. Green Ronin's Cavalier has the d12's, Fighter BAB, good fort and will saves, better skill points and skills (ie. Diplomacy), a very small number of fighter feats that are pre-selected, kind of like with the ranger, except they're knightly, mounted combat style feats, leadership abilities, and a rising bonus to hit with some of his weapons (ie. lance, sword) that increases as he goes up in level.

Not a single Su ability in there.

I'm sure you can find the book on the cheap. I got it from Green Ronin on special last year, and it's got some cool stuff in it. Also has a social class system so characters can be born peasants, or nobility, or whatever, and a depiction of what effects birth station has, various types of mounts, a bunch of knightly feats, rules for tournaments, etc.

Banshee

So, effectively, it's a fighter with Iron Will and Toughness? That would pretty much cover everthing listed there.

I'm not meaning to hack on this idea, but, a "fighting guy on a horse" with no SU abilities is a fighter. Or maybe a fighter with a couple of extra class skills. In any case, it's not like we need an entirely new class for this. The Knight, at least, is not a fighter with a different name.

 

[buzz]

Because they screwed up by not putting it in PHB1, and it's better to put it in some book than in none at all.

I'm glad that content was not in the PHB, as I found it 100% useless. A version that was maybe 10% the page count might be appropriate for a Dummies book or a web article.

Sorry, I have a hate-on for those sections. Least useful content I've ever seen in a D&D book, hands down.

 

[Jefe Bergenstein]

I can't comment too much since I don't own the PHB II but from what I have heard about the Retraining rules it seems like it could be a power gamer's delight. Pick things that are more powerful at lower levels and then swap them out for things that work better at higher levels.

Some people like throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Is it an issue for YOU, in YOUR games? If not, its pointless whining.

How do they explain how a character magically changes his levels and abilities? What penalties, if any, are there for retraining?

Olaf the Stout

Magic. Seriously. You go to the necrotic cradle, enter, and get reborn. Stuff like that.

 

[pawsplay]

No, no, your wizard character, who is more spineless than a worm, is so frightened of the knight that he decides to magic missile him first, or will fireball him and only half the horde of orcs instead of fireballing all the orcs. Yes, he's not acting optimally, but that doesn't mean he has to act stupid.

Something like that. We're still talking about a non-magical effect that can control someone... even if the context makes it a nonsensical decision. Imagine, for instance, two knights standing apart. One of them challenges the opponent, who advances toward him. The next round, the other one challenges him, causing him to backtrack...

I think you have been misinformed. A knight has to be lawful, but does not have to be good.

I was looking the other day. They can retain their abilities if their alignment is lawful. But I think you have to actually be LG to take levels in the class. I could be wrong, though.

He's especially tough because of all the people beating him up in the game and on messageboards.

I suppose. But basically, he's as tough as a barbarian or a dwarven defender. This guy is tougher than the Fighter, who pretty much only fights.

Huh? This is where you lost me completely.

I'm picturing a 1st level knight... without chainmail, a heavy warhorse with barding, a lance, a sword, a heavy steel shield. Just some dude in scale mail with a morningstar and a backpack, named Sir Fred d'Garage-Sale.