• NOW LIVE! Into the Woods--new character species, eerie monsters, and haunting villains to populate the woodlands of your D&D games.

The Essential Knight

There were a few jokes about that during the design process.

Really, though, the mechanic is meant to capture the flavor of an alert, experienced warrior. While the rogue inspects a locked door and the wizard tries to translate the runes scribed above it, the fighter keeps his eyes open for trouble, his sword at hand, shifting his feet to stay ready to move. An experienced warrior would look at the three and immediately note that the fighter is a highly trained combatant.

Even outside of combat, you can see it playing out like this. A thief creeps up behind the fighter standing at the bar. As he slides up to the fighter to pick his pocket, the fighter whirls around, grabs the thief by the hand, and slams him into the bar. It's almost a Conan-style thing, the really skilled, warrior driven by training that has transformed into instinct.

Still curious about the design space/compatibility issue. It seems to me that when you have classes using really significantly different mechanics such as existing martial classes and the Knight aren't you REALLY restricting the kinds of feats and items (and other add-ons) that will work OK with both of them? This would be an issue for both compatibility with existing 4e AND could be a real hassle for people designing these things going forward.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

That said, there is one effect this class can have on other fighter builds. Because the knight does not have daily powers...that's less incentive to put out new dailies for fighters in general.
Well, keep in mind - it looks like Martial classes are the ones getting the new treatment. We already got a Martial Power 2, and IIRC the Martial power source has had more attention in Dragon than any other.

So I'm not particularly worried, even if we don't see many new Fighter Dailies for a year or two. :)

-O
 

I really don't get the "we'll never ever ever ever see new stuff for XY again" whining.

Please point me to the quote where it says "we'll stop supporting PHB1; Dragon will be full Essentials from now on"

Compared to "we'll publish these 10 products and then get back to the main line"
^^^^^
paraphrased actual quote

Obviously people will still be playing PHB1 classes in 2011 and onwards, why should they stop adding stuff for them in future Dragons?

Still curious about the design space/compatibility issue. It seems to me that when you have classes using really significantly different mechanics such as existing martial classes and the Knight aren't you REALLY restricting the kinds of feats and items (and other add-ons) that will work OK with both of them? This would be an issue for both compatibility with existing 4e AND could be a real hassle for people designing these things going forward.

This kind of issue existed from the start, even if you look at pure PHB1. Example? A fighter with a two-handed weapon can't use the Tide of Iron at-will. Is that a big problem? No, he just chooses something else.

The Essentials line is meant as a stand-alone product, so it's fair to assume that it will have enough feats, items etc. to build a complete Knight all by itself. If that's not enough for you, you can add in feats and items from other books. Some will work, some won't. I'm pretty sure Charop will come up with an appropriate guide at some point. The target audience (newcomers who are overwhelmed by the 6500+ powers in the database) won't care anyway.
 
Last edited:

And yes, there are players who really do just want "I swing my sword every round," or at least close to it. I've played with them.

As have I. I've already seen a couple of players in D&D Encounters who insist on using only basic attacks (not even at-wills!), and don't take prompting by the other players at the table kindly.
 

You can expect that most classes going forward will have:

1. A unique mechanic, either in terms of actual rules or flavor/effect. Knights have stances, warpriests have domains, mages have schools.

2. The option to use a standard 4e power advancement scheme, like the mage and warpriest, or something that alters or removes a power category, like the knight.

Someone cover me for Mr Mearls, apparently I need to spread my .... Xp before I can give him some more...
 

Even outside of combat, you can see it playing out like this. A thief creeps up behind the fighter standing at the bar. As he slides up to the fighter to pick his pocket, the fighter whirls around, grabs the thief by the hand, and slams him into the bar. It's almost a Conan-style thing, the really skilled, warrior driven by training that has transformed into instinct.

So, by keeping the aura, there is no way for the thief to sneak up behind the fighter? If so, I don't think I like that as it takes the relevant Perception and Stealth skills out of the equation. (Edit: Or am I misunderstanding?)
 


So, by keeping the aura, there is no way for the thief to sneak up behind the fighter? If so, I don't think I like that as it takes the relevant Perception and Stealth skills out of the equation. (Edit: Or am I misunderstanding?)

Pretty sure you're misunderstanding... It doesn't have anything to do with the perception skill really.

He was just setting the scene of what type of guy it depicts.
 


I actually do understand this concept, but you've missed the core point that this is how classes will be designed from here on out.

I think this common quote is being misinterpreted. I don't think that all classes will look just like this (simplified) from now on, but that ALL classes will have complex and simplified options from now on, so more classes will be appealing to more player types.
 

Into the Woods

Remove ads

Top