Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
White Dwarf Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Nest
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
EN Publishing
Twitter
BlueSky
Facebook
Instagram
EN World
BlueSky
YouTube
Facebook
Twitter
Twitch
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
The Essential Knight
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Aegeri" data-source="post: 5258580" data-attributes="member: 78116"><p>The only thing that would concern me is things that boost stances, which aren't limited by a Knight class feature fighters could potentially get. Being able to make the fighters already incredibly good stances like Rain of Steel <em>better</em> doesn't seem like a good idea to me. If they limit this to improving the Knights stances that will work pretty well overall. Additionally, as his "mark" powers require the aura this is an immensely easy way of preventing the original fighter stealing any of those feats.</p><p></p><p>I do agree though that I cannot see how the Knight can be "compatible" with the original Fighter on reflection. If the Knight can take Fighter stances, he basically removes all his at-will powers - albeit probably for a better benefit - for the whole encounter. If the knight can't, then I wonder if they get improved encounter length stances of their own or what they replace things with. Given that they have moved most of their powers into class features, it's easy to make the knights feats and similar completely exclusive. </p><p></p><p>It is harder IMO to make the knight compatible with other things like existing feats (Mark of Warding) and items (Oathkeeper Weapon IIRC). Particularly those elements that rely on a mark unless he can mark an enemy and I wouldn't be surprised if he has his aura and a dedicated mark too (one class feature sounds distinctly mark like). </p><p></p><p>The question has to be if everything in essentials should be compatible with previous material or not. It's pretty clear the Mage and Cleric are, so maybe if something really wants to be different like the knight for the benefit of the game it should be relatively incompatible with portions the existing fighter class and vice versa for balance.</p><p></p><p>Edit: Also, hilariously I just realized that some PPs like Pit Fighter are much reduced in effectiveness for the Knight. Because melee basic attacks don't count as being from your class the main feature of the pit fighter - wisdom to damage - doesn't work at all for the knight who only has a melee basic attack. So that's an example of a pretty silly "incompatibility". I imagine though the Knight will have its own PPs that probably boost its aura or change how that works.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Aegeri, post: 5258580, member: 78116"] The only thing that would concern me is things that boost stances, which aren't limited by a Knight class feature fighters could potentially get. Being able to make the fighters already incredibly good stances like Rain of Steel [i]better[/i] doesn't seem like a good idea to me. If they limit this to improving the Knights stances that will work pretty well overall. Additionally, as his "mark" powers require the aura this is an immensely easy way of preventing the original fighter stealing any of those feats. I do agree though that I cannot see how the Knight can be "compatible" with the original Fighter on reflection. If the Knight can take Fighter stances, he basically removes all his at-will powers - albeit probably for a better benefit - for the whole encounter. If the knight can't, then I wonder if they get improved encounter length stances of their own or what they replace things with. Given that they have moved most of their powers into class features, it's easy to make the knights feats and similar completely exclusive. It is harder IMO to make the knight compatible with other things like existing feats (Mark of Warding) and items (Oathkeeper Weapon IIRC). Particularly those elements that rely on a mark unless he can mark an enemy and I wouldn't be surprised if he has his aura and a dedicated mark too (one class feature sounds distinctly mark like). The question has to be if everything in essentials should be compatible with previous material or not. It's pretty clear the Mage and Cleric are, so maybe if something really wants to be different like the knight for the benefit of the game it should be relatively incompatible with portions the existing fighter class and vice versa for balance. Edit: Also, hilariously I just realized that some PPs like Pit Fighter are much reduced in effectiveness for the Knight. Because melee basic attacks don't count as being from your class the main feature of the pit fighter - wisdom to damage - doesn't work at all for the knight who only has a melee basic attack. So that's an example of a pretty silly "incompatibility". I imagine though the Knight will have its own PPs that probably boost its aura or change how that works. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
The Essential Knight
Top