The Knight Thread
- Thread starter Tuzenbach
- Start date
Remathilis
Legend
Knights kick ass. Bad fort-save be damned!
Imagicka
Explorer
Greetings...
Well, I don't know what the 'knight' thread was... but... Shields and stuff... that's something I can get into.
Are shields effective in the game? No. Not in the least.
Looking at the straight numbers, no bonuses, when we're talking about a d20 range of randomness for combat situations. A shield would only give 5%, 10% or 20% benefit to improve the defensive capabilities of combatants.
Does that seem logical to anyone? If you had a light shield which effectively covers your torso. Should it only improve your defensive capability by 5%? Should a buckler offer the same protection as a light shield? Or a heavy shield only improve your defensive capability by 10%?
I don't think so.
Recently, I have implemented a houserule where I've effectively doubled the AC bonus to shields (except buckler that still remains at +1).
Which of course makes shields a lot more effective, closer to real-life effectiviness, IMNSHO.
Well, I don't know what the 'knight' thread was... but... Shields and stuff... that's something I can get into.
Are shields effective in the game? No. Not in the least.
Looking at the straight numbers, no bonuses, when we're talking about a d20 range of randomness for combat situations. A shield would only give 5%, 10% or 20% benefit to improve the defensive capabilities of combatants.
Does that seem logical to anyone? If you had a light shield which effectively covers your torso. Should it only improve your defensive capability by 5%? Should a buckler offer the same protection as a light shield? Or a heavy shield only improve your defensive capability by 10%?
I don't think so.
Recently, I have implemented a houserule where I've effectively doubled the AC bonus to shields (except buckler that still remains at +1).
Which of course makes shields a lot more effective, closer to real-life effectiviness, IMNSHO.
The Lost Muse
First Post
All your shield are belong to me 
Just kidding. I think a non-magical not paladin knight is a good addition to the game, and the low fortsave makes sense.
Just kidding. I think a non-magical not paladin knight is a good addition to the game, and the low fortsave makes sense.
When Complete Fighting came out, I agreed with 95% of other folks that its version of the samurai was realy dumb. However, I replaced the two weapon stuff with choice of a few feat trees, called it a knight, and it has worked fairly well for that purpose. Haven't seen the new knight, but I am starting to wonder how many core classes we need before we just go to some points-based system.
hands_miranda
First Post
Read over the knight right after I got the book. I think it's pretty good, but I do have two issues with it:
1. For a class that is all about defense, and even has class features that work with shields, they should have Tower Shield proficientcy right off the bat.
2. It uses CR as part of mechanic. While it's not as bad as the Truename stuff in Tome of Magic, it is annoying in that CR is a bit imprecise anyway, and it falls into the same trap as polymorph, i.e. every creature needs to be complete vetted to work against this ability. If it can't be done with a core ability, it certainly can't be expected of one that's in an optional book.
Otherwise, I think it's a cool class. Lots of the problems that people have with it flavorwise are eliminated if you consider that a limited amount of cross-class selection will allow for those abilities.
Raymond
1. For a class that is all about defense, and even has class features that work with shields, they should have Tower Shield proficientcy right off the bat.
2. It uses CR as part of mechanic. While it's not as bad as the Truename stuff in Tome of Magic, it is annoying in that CR is a bit imprecise anyway, and it falls into the same trap as polymorph, i.e. every creature needs to be complete vetted to work against this ability. If it can't be done with a core ability, it certainly can't be expected of one that's in an optional book.
Otherwise, I think it's a cool class. Lots of the problems that people have with it flavorwise are eliminated if you consider that a limited amount of cross-class selection will allow for those abilities.
Raymond
Hussar
Legend
You might want to check out This thread to get the answer to this question.
I forget exactly what the beef was. Oh right. People want to limit the class to a half-remembered historical knight from Europe. Never mind that completely ignores all the history of a given campaign setting, but, that's what they want.
I'm still trying to figure out whether or not people intend to give their knights all the benefits of chivalry as well as the hinderences - no paying for anything, title, immunity to laws - that sort of thing. Isn't history fun?
I'm also wondering how people would justify modelling the Knight class after European knights and allow women. IIRC, they burned people at the stake for that.
I forget exactly what the beef was. Oh right. People want to limit the class to a half-remembered historical knight from Europe. Never mind that completely ignores all the history of a given campaign setting, but, that's what they want.
I'm still trying to figure out whether or not people intend to give their knights all the benefits of chivalry as well as the hinderences - no paying for anything, title, immunity to laws - that sort of thing. Isn't history fun?
I'm also wondering how people would justify modelling the Knight class after European knights and allow women. IIRC, they burned people at the stake for that.
Similar Threads
