Knight's Challenges

[Uder]

I like the class, I just wish they had used something other than CR for the challenge. This makes it a pain to use NPC knights against PCs.

Admittedly, it's a small complaint, but I know I'll get arguments for "your CR is higher than your level since you're on 28-point buy, have buffs from outside sources, really good hit points for your level, and/or more wealth than your level would suggest."

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

If people don't appreciate their characters being mind controlled, perhaps instead of failing the save meaning that you must attack, have it inflict a penalty that can be removed by attacking. That way you retain the choice of what to do.

(pimp, pimp)

I love this idea. (I think I proposed this once at the WotC boards.)

 

[mmu1]

I was initially looking at it merely in terms of how it was designed, but yeah, it does also completely break the suspension of disbelief - and the fact that most of the time, you can come up with some sort of justification to explain why someone acts completely against their principles in honoring the challenge doesn't make it any better. It still feels contrived - just a different sort of contrived...

 

[mmu1]

I love this idea. (I think I proposed this once at the WotC boards.)

Hey, I suggested it in my original post! "...the fact that you can't, for example, choose to refuse the challenge and end up with a morale penalty..."

 

[Kunimatyu]

End result: The cunning Shadow, veteran of a hundred battles, has to hang around the battlefield, so the other PCs kill him.

Two points.

One, this is a lot less goofy than the Shadow being on the recieving end of a glitterdust and stumbling around until he dies.

Second, the effect only lasts until one of the other PCs attacks the Shadow. Once that happens, the Shadow is gone, gone, gone. The only way the Shadow will remain there(for 5+Cha rounds) is if he is essentially dueling the Knight, one on one.

And I like that image.

 

[Henry]

Let me see. Threatening a loved one is so overused that...

That's why I said, "in-plot hot button' - one the player knows of. It'll be different things for different people.

Dominate can take away someone's free will because it's a spell that is clearly mind control. It doesn't break the suspension of disbelief and can even be suppressed or dispelled if the party was prepared.

I take a different view because I've seen tons of real-life examples of smart people doing real-life examples of things they shouldn't do, because of poor judgment. That's part of a will save, in my opinion -- avoiding those (pardon the expression) "blonde moments" that everyone, you and I alike, are succeptible to. To me, making rash actions in the heat of combat, goaded on by someone skilled at doing so, is far more believeable even than magical mind control.

That's where I'll stop, because it just comes down to a difference of opinion on what is and is not possible with non-magic.

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

Two points.

One, this is a lot less goofy than the Shadow being on the recieving end of a glitterdust and stumbling around until he dies.

They could have done that whether the Shadow was a cool customer or not, without breaking the suspension of disbelief.

Second, the effect only lasts until one of the other PCs attacks the Shadow.

Replace "half hit points" with "nearly dead" then. Or some other good reason to retreat.

 

[Mouseferatu]

Part of the problem, I think, is interpreting the ability.

It says the focus of the challenge is forced to attack you "in preference over other available targets."

So, does the ability force the subject to attack? Or does it merely force the subject to choose the knight if and when he's attacking?

If it's the latter interpretation--which is just as viable as the former, under the ability as written--then there's nothing stopping the villain from retreating if that was, in fact, what he wanted to do.

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

Part of the problem, I think, is interpreting the ability.

It says the focus of the challenge is forced to attack you "in preference over other available targets."

So, does the ability force the subject to attack? Or does it merely force the subject to choose the knight if and when he's attacking?

If it's the latter interpretation--which is just as viable as the former, under the ability as written--then there's nothing stopping the villain from retreating if that was, in fact, what he wanted to do.

Even if you're allowed to retreat, you still get examples like the fast and mobile swashbuckler being forced to attack the nearly full-health knight whose tactics take away his advantages, rather than the wounded rogue scrambling around to stab him or the fighter about to kill his boss, etc. Villains should play to their intelligence.

 

[SteveC]

Part of the problem, I think, is interpreting the ability.

It says the focus of the challenge is forced to attack you "in preference over other available targets."

So, does the ability force the subject to attack? Or does it merely force the subject to choose the knight if and when he's attacking?

If it's the latter interpretation--which is just as viable as the former, under the ability as written--then there's nothing stopping the villain from retreating if that was, in fact, what he wanted to do.

Yep, that was my impression of this ability too: if you're going to stick around and fight, you'll battle the knight first and foremost. I don't think this is a perfect ability--it could have been better worded, but it's something interesting. I'll have to see it in play to really grok it.

--Steve