Knights - Likes & Dislikes

[Vorput]

I just can't buy his ability to taunt the enemy and force them to do stuff... it feels so... I dunno- un-knightish... It's one thing to take out the BBEG with a well-placed fireball, or arrow bolt, or sword swing, or dominate monster... it's another to force them to do something they wouldn't normally do simply cause you're... good at talking? at challenging? I dunno.

Vorp

 

[Deuce Traveler]

I like that he is focused on defense, but is still a strong fighter. I'm going to house rule the class, though, and get rid of the silly 'challenge' rules. Instead I'll probably allow bonus feats for armor or shields, or have it so that knights reduce a couple more penalty points for heavier armor.

 

[Nifft]

They make poor NPCs.

PC: "I attack the wizard!"

DM: "Actually, you attack the meatshield."

PC: "No, I want to attack the wizard."

DM: "Sorry. It's his class ability."

-- N

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

Dislikes:

No cool mount!

No good Fort save.

Taunt ability, specifically the Test of Mettle. It's a lot like mind control or Suggestion as a supernatural ability. Is this supposed to be an FX class? It really breaks the suspension of disbelief for me. It's twice as bad when used against a PC, too.

CoC problems.

The Knight's Code: You fight not only to defeat your foes but to prove your honor, demonstrate your fighting ability, and win renown across the land. The stories that arise from your deeds are just as important to you as the deeds themselves. A good knight hopes that her example encourages others to lead righteous lives. A neutral knight wishes to uphold the cause of his liege (if he has one) and win glory. An evil knight seeks to win acclaim across the land and increase her own personal power.

The knight's code focuses on fair play: A victory achieved through pure skill is more difficult, and hence wins more glory, than one achieved through trickery or guile.

* A knight does not gain a bonus on attack rolls when flanking. You still confer the benefi t of a flanking position to your ally, but you forgo your own +2 bonus on attack rolls. You can choose to keep the +2 bonus, but doing so violates your code of honor (see below).

* A knight never strikes a flat-footed opponent. Instead, you allow your foe to ready himself before attacking.

Arrgh! The graveyards are filled with the remains of honorable warriors, and I think I can see why.

* A knight never deals lethal damage against a helpless foe. You can strike such a foe, but only with attacks that deal nonlethal damage.

If you violate any part of this code, you lose one use of your knight's challenge ability for the day. If your knight's challenge ability is not available when you violate the code (for example, if you have exhausted your uses for the day), you take a -2 penalty on attack rolls and saves for the rest of that day. Your betrayal of your code of conduct undermines the foundation of confidence and honor that drives you forward.

While you cleave to your view of honor, chivalry, and pursuit of glory, you do not force your views on others. You might chide a rogue for sneaking around a battlefield, but you recognize (and perhaps even feel a bit smug about) the reality that not everyone is fit to follow the knight's path.

The failure to follow the code rules are pretty decent though, and the bit about not interfering with other heroes is also good.

Likes:

Most of the challenge abilities. The first one is great.

 

[Particle_Man]

I may be one of the few that loves the aggro ability exactly as written. It is about time that we get some ability where "come and fight me!" actually means something, rather than "Oh, I have immunity to charms and compulsions due to spell X or class ability Y or feat Z".

I like that there is a character that *cannot* be ignored. For me, this fits the "dramatic-heroic" ideal of D&D (rather than the "realistic" ideal that some seem to be going for, where something has to be magic to affect others' actions).

(This after playing a high AC fighter that the DM simply had monsters ignore, making my character concept less useful. Oh, if I had only had this knight back then!).

 

[blargney the second]

Particle_Man, you just explained the raison d'etre of the knight to me. Thanks!

 

[frankthedm]

(This after playing a high AC fighter that the DM simply had monsters ignore, making my character concept less useful. Oh, if I had only had this knight back then!).

Did you have armor spikes? Hungry monsters don’t usually like those. Did the wizard have illusions up to look like a tank? IMO A class that takes away a foe's Int and Wis scores are not The Answer to bad tactical decisions.

I Like the fact the Knight class specifies Claiming a flanking bonus[*] and Sneak Attacks are dishonorable.

[*]Flanking is what attacking from behind became in 3e since there is no facing in the system.

 

[reanjr]

I'd really prefer that all of these abilities were feats, and I could play a fighter and just pick the feats that I'd want.

You could easily say the same thing about the paladin. Or even the ranger and barbarian. Perhaps you should check out Buy the Numbers [ http://www.iguk.co.uk/products/buy-the-numbers-d20-supplement-4502.aspx ]

 

[Particle_Man]

Did you have armor spikes? Hungry monsters don’t usually like those. Did the wizard have illusions up to look like a tank? IMO A class that takes away a foe's Int and Wis scores are not The Answer to bad tactical decisions.

I had weapons way better than armor spikes, but it didn't matter. I couldn't tank because the characters optimized more for damage-dealing than AC were the preferred targets. And usually jumping into a monster's mouth was not an option, if that is where you are going with armor spikes. And grappling sure as hell wasn't an option, given the size and strength of most monsters that we fought, if *that* is where you were going with armor spikes.

And as for your illusion tactic, I went to the trouble of getting Glamor on my armor to look like regular clothing, for crying out loud!

Heck, the Knight might be the first way to stop my DM from metagaming against the tanks.

And as far as my enjoyment goes, the grand drama of "No, this one is Mine!" always trumps people or monsters using their Int and Wis scores.

 

[satori01]

I'm not sure why people are implying the taunt ability is automatic, there is a saving throw involved. The power is certainly less binding then say Dominate Person/Monster...do you guys never have bad guys use that spell? You never had a duplicitous villain with high Bluff? What a shame.

The key I think to using the challenge abilities against the PC is in presentation. Do not use it like Nifft has written, spice it up. Say something like " In a loud, Commanding and slightly echoing voice, the Armored Man issues forth a challenge, calling all the maggots to prove their worth against him, and him alone. Make a WILL save. Those of you who fail your WILL save feel so shamed you take the man up on his offer".

My players would eat that up, knowing it would be fun to play that scenario, and that the likelyhood for bonus XP for good performance is high.

I wish the Knight had a higher Fort save, if not good than at least a medium progression, a front line, bring it on type guy needs High Fort.