Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Chun-tzu" data-source="post: 505888" data-attributes="member: 1441">I agree with this in principle, but I think there is a place for a Knight core class, if the Paladin is removed (or made into a prestige class).Sure, you can do a good simulation of a knight with a Fighter. But it's not necessarily the best d20 simulation. You're saying "the Knight isn't really necessary from a mechanics perspective, because the Fighter is pretty close."  I'm saying, "yeah, the Fighter's close to a Knight, but it's really missing out on some key features that could be expressed much better through class abilities."Fighters are terrible at anything skill-related. You could say, "just take the Cosmopolitan feat, to gain access to Diplomacy and Knowledge: Nobility." But that seems like a high price to pay for something that you're taking to better simulate the appropriate character type. It's like a Wizard having to spend an extra feat to gain Alchemy, which isn't necessary, but should be available.Why should non-magical Knights have mounts that can advance? Because D&D is a game of advancement, and mounts are so integral to the Knight (and Paladin) that they should be more or less permanent NPCs. How long do you think a normal horse will last in a high-level campaign? That's an important class feature that CAN'T be simulated by feats.Do relatively minor tinkerings justify a separate class? In some cases, I'd say yes. The Samurai from Oriental Adventures is not very different from a Fighter. But I think it fits much better than a Fighter-approximation of a Samurai.</blockquote>

Verification