Why aren't knights tier 4?

[Kaeso]

I've taken another look at the famous tier system and the Knight class, and I started wondering why the knight is in tier 5, which is the worst a PC can do (the CW samurai is so screwed up, it can be considered an NPC class. It's only marginally better than a warrior).

There are two factors that define a tier 5 class, fullfilling either one of these is enough to put yourself on the bottom of the classes list:
1. Capable of doing only one thing, and not necessarily all that well
2. So unfocused that they have trouble mastering anything

The knight most certainly doesn't fullfill the first factor: he's one of the best tanks out there. Heavy armor proficiency, d12 HD, high con (it only needs str, con, cha) and, most importantly, it gives the opponent a reason to attack him and not the squishy caster.

One could debate that the knight belongs in the second group, but I disagree. He's focused on tanking and masters it quite well, and even when tanking isn't appropriate (which is nonsense, tanking is IMHO always appropriate) he can still use his martial weapon proficiency and full BAB to smash some faces.
Sure, he has no real purpose outside of combat, but IMHO a knight should have diplomacy as a class skill. It's based of Medieval European knights, who were expected to be courtly in love, against their inferiors and to their superiors. Diplomacy is a good way to reflect this (while leaving bluff off his list, a knight isn't supposed to lie). That small change, which any reasonable DM would respect, gives the knight the position of party face. With his cha synergy, he could be the best mundane diplomancer out there.

That's why I believe the knight fits the definition of tier 4 better: Capable of doing one thing quite well, but often useless when encounters require other areas of expertise, or capable of doing many things to a reasonable degree of competance without truly shining. Even then, I believe a knight should be pretty high on tier 4 if the DM allows him to put diplomacy on his class list.

EDIT: Don't forget "Loyal beyond death", IMHO the best capstone ability out there.

[Talya]

"Should have diplomacy on their class list" does not equal "has diplomacy on their class list." (Monks should have synergistic class features, but they don't.) I'd strike everything from your argument that is based on diplomacy.

Then I'd agree with the rest. The Knight's up there with dungeoncrasher fighter I'd say, with the caveat that "tank" is a poor role in D&D. There's a lot of stuff you just shouldn't be trying to tank, like, ever.

[The Glyphstone]

The Knight works best as a dip - combined with a Fighter dip for control feats and a solid block of Crusader levels, you can build a fantastically effective area-denial character (the best way to 'tank' in 3.5, really).

[Kaeso]

"Should have diplomacy on their class list" does not equal "has diplomacy on their class list." (Monks should have synergistic class features, but they don't.) I'd strike everything from your argument that is based on diplomacy.

Then I'd agree with the rest. The Knight's up there with dungeoncrasher fighter I'd say, with the caveat that "tank" is a poor role in D&D. There's a lot of stuff you just shouldn't be trying to tank, like, ever.

You have a point on the first part, the second has me raising an eyebrow though. What is so incredibly strong that you cannot even tank it? You could say the Tarrasque, but bear in mind that it's CR 20, and at level 20 the Knight has the awesome loyal beyond death ability, which only makes his hp matter for post-combat (or in-combat) healing.


The Knight works best as a dip - combined with a Fighter dip for control feats and a solid block of Crusader levels, you can build a fantastically effective area-denial character (the best way to 'tank' in 3.5, really).

Aren't the knights challenge abilities dependant on the knights level, making a single level dip useless in the long ron?

[Talya]

What is so incredibly strong that you cannot even tank it?

Most CR-appropriate dragons shouldn't be tanked. You're far better off keeping them using ranged abilities or spells than ever letting them full attack with those claws/teeth/tail/wings.

[NNescio]

You have a point on the first part, the second has me raising an eyebrow though. What is so incredibly strong that you cannot even tank it? You could say the Tarrasque, but bear in mind that it's CR 20, and at level 20 the Knight has the awesome loyal beyond death ability, which only makes his hp matter for post-combat (or in-combat) healing. ...
Something that doesn't rely only on hp damage, for example. Which are a dime a dozen at ECL 20.

[Big Fau]

Most CR-appropriate dragons shouldn't be tanked. You're far better off keeping them using ranged abilities or spells than ever letting them full attack with those claws/teeth/tail/wings.

Except that only applies to the dragons that haven't learned how to cast spells yet. Once that happens, you can't tank them at all.

[Kaeso]

Except that only applies to the dragons that haven't learned how to cast spells yet. Once that happens, you can't tank them at all.

This applies to pretty much every non-full caster, but it doesn't plummet the warblade, barbarian or duskblade to tier 5.

[Greenish]

This applies to pretty much every non-full caster, but it doesn't plummet the warblade, barbarian or duskblade to tier 5.Those aren't really geared for tanking specifically, though, but for primary melee.

[Talya]

This applies to pretty much every non-full caster, but it doesn't plummet the warblade, barbarian or duskblade to tier 5.

I haven't said it does. I agree they should be tier 4.


Except that only applies to the dragons that haven't learned how to cast spells yet. Once that happens, you can't tank them at all.

Dragon spellcasting tends to be very low level in comparison to their hit dice (or those of the party attacking them), they're usually better off full attacking you than casting if they get the opportunity.

[NNescio]

This applies to pretty much every non-full caster, but it doesn't plummet the warblade, barbarian or duskblade to tier 5.

These classes don't just tank.

[Gnome Alone]

Maybe the knight class doesn't have diplomacy as a class skill because the historical medieval knights were supposed to be chivalrous, but in practice weren't they a bunch of surly, uneducated drunken jerks?

Besides, my mommy always used to say that cross-class learning was the key to a rich and fulfilling life.

[Kaeso]

Those aren't really geared for tanking specifically, though, but for primary melee.


These classes don't just tank.

True, but that doesn't mean the knight sucks at melee: he can still do some fierce damage, especially with his mounted combat bonus feats, in case just taking proves sub-optimal.

[Fuhrmaaj]

Part of the reason the Knight is where he is in the tier system is tanking is not a useful role in general. The logic is that doing damage removes enemies from combat quicker, whereas tanking just means you survive longer. In 3.5, the best defense is a good offense.

The Knight does something unique for tanking characters in 3.5. The Knight's Challenge ability can encourage other martial types to attack him instead of other party members. The problem is that the only ability which compels enemies to attack him is a CHA-based Will save. Martial characters are typically MAD, requiring high STR and CON (maybe DEX) so the Will save will either not be very high or he has to sacrifice his usefulness elsewhere. Anything with strong Will saves is not likely to fail a save against Knight's Challenge unless the Knight optimizes that ability.

The other Knight abilities (Bulwark of Defense, Vigilant Defender and Shield Ally in particular) don't necessary compel the enemy to attack the Knight. Bulwark of Defense is better with a reach weapon, but the Knight gets bonuses when using a shield. Vigilant Defender is alright, and on average doesn't work on creatures with a Dex mod of +6 if they maxed tumble. It also doesn't stop dimension doors or other teleporting, as well as anything ranged. Shield Ally is great though, nothing bad to say about that ability.

The Knight is also incredibly unfocussed. I've already mentioned the reach weapon/shield conflict, but other problems exist. His bonus feat selection is meager and doesn't get better when other splatbooks are included (unlike the Fighter). By and large, the Knight's offensive capabilities are negligible.

So that's pretty much it, doesn't fill many roles and the role he does fill well is a bad role. I've seen good Knight dips though.

[The Glyphstone]

Aren't the knights challenge abilities dependant on the knights level, making a single level dip useless in the long ron?

A 1-level dip is worthless, but a 3-level dip is fantastic. The best ability the Knight gets is Bulwark of Defense...your Knight's Challenge powers are a mildly useful buff, but creating a potentially massive spread of 'no, you can't go there' is great for a melee character. Enlarged and with a reach weapon, you're at minimum a walking 20ft. radius circle of slow movement, no charging, likely get tripped/Stand Stilled if you move into it, that becomes a 20ft. radius sphere once you go airborne.

[Hiro Protagonest]

True, but that doesn't mean the knight sucks at melee: he can still do some fierce damage, especially with his mounted combat bonus feats, in case just taking proves sub-optimal.

That requires him to put ranks in ride, and also requires him to be mounted. Warblade, barbarian, and duskblade have no such requirements.

[Boci]

A 1-level dip is worthless, but a 3-level dip is fantastic. The best ability the Knight gets is Bulwark of Defense...your Knight's Challenge powers are a mildly useful buff, but creating a potentially massive spread of 'no, you can't go there' is great for a melee character. Enlarged and with a reach weapon, you're at minimum a walking 20ft. radius circle of slow movement, no charging, likely get tripped/Stand Stilled if you move into it, that becomes a 20ft. radius sphere once you go airborne.

Unfortunately it only applies to opponent's you threatan at the beginning of your turn. Still potent, but if a monster is 35ft away from you they are free to charge.

[Kaeso]

Part of the reason the Knight is where he is in the tier system is tanking is not a useful role in general. The logic is that doing damage removes enemies from combat quicker, whereas tanking just means you survive longer. In 3.5, the best defense is a good offense.

The Knight does something unique for tanking characters in 3.5. The Knight's Challenge ability can encourage other martial types to attack him instead of other party members. The problem is that the only ability which compels enemies to attack him is a CHA-based Will save. Martial characters are typically MAD, requiring high STR and CON (maybe DEX) so the Will save will either not be very high or he has to sacrifice his usefulness elsewhere. Anything with strong Will saves is not likely to fail a save against Knight's Challenge unless the Knight optimizes that ability.

The other Knight abilities (Bulwark of Defense, Vigilant Defender and Shield Ally in particular) don't necessary compel the enemy to attack the Knight. Bulwark of Defense is better with a reach weapon, but the Knight gets bonuses when using a shield. Vigilant Defender is alright, and on average doesn't work on creatures with a Dex mod of +6 if they maxed tumble. It also doesn't stop dimension doors or other teleporting, as well as anything ranged. Shield Ally is great though, nothing bad to say about that ability.

The Knight is also incredibly unfocussed. I've already mentioned the reach weapon/shield conflict, but other problems exist. His bonus feat selection is meager and doesn't get better when other splatbooks are included (unlike the Fighter). By and large, the Knight's offensive capabilities are negligible.

So that's pretty much it, doesn't fill many roles and the role he does fill well is a bad role. I've seen good Knight dips though.

It's true that in DnD offense is more imporant than defense, put it's also a group game. A knight isn't a stand-alone character, and causing him to attract the attention of all other monsters could allow a rogue, swordsage or other "glass canon" to get in a few destructive blows without risking their own wellbeing.

Secondly, the 'unfocused bonus feats' and 'reach-shield problem' can easily be solved. A lot of the bonus feats are focused on mounted combat, which allows you to use a reach weapon (lance) while using a shield, and your mount is also (at least) large, which means it also has reach.


That requires him to put ranks in ride, and also requires him to be mounted. Warblade, barbarian, and duskblade have no such requirements.

The mounted feats are bonus feats, he doesn't lose anything save for a few skill ranks if he's mounted, unlike the warblade, barbarian and duskblade. Besides, a good mount could give him a lot of versatility. If he rides a raptor with pounce, his damage output could be massive. If he rides a pegasus, he has the ability to fly, even in an antimagic circle.

[Boci]

It's true that in DnD offense is more imporant than defense, put it's also a group game. A knight isn't a stand-alone character, and causing him to attract the attention of all other monsters could allow a rogue, swordsage or other "glass canon" to get in a few destructive blows without risking their own wellbeing.

But unless they fail their will save they have no incentive to attack the knight.


Secondly, the 'unfocused bonus feats' and 'reach-shield problem' can easily be solved. A lot of the bonus feats are focused on mounted combat, which allows you to use a reach weapon (lance) while using a shield, and your mount is also (at least) large, which means it also has reach.

But your mount is also a lot weaker. An area effect or possibly even part of a full attack will kill it.

[Fuhrmaaj]

True, but that doesn't mean the knight sucks at melee: he can still do some fierce damage, especially with his mounted combat bonus feats, in case just taking proves sub-optimal.

The Knight just has full BAB and mounted combat feats. If the Knight charges, ride-by attacks or is otherwise not adjacent to any ally then he is not tanking anymore and is a fairly mediocre damage dealer. I expect most Knights increase their melee abilities with their feats, but that still leaves them behind the other big damage dealers in their tier. I would be more open to the argument that Monks are in the wrong tier (too high, should be tier 6).


That requires him to put ranks in ride, and also requires him to be mounted. Warblade, barbarian, and duskblade have no such requirements.

And probably also in Handle Animal. That effectively means that a mounted Knight has no skills because both of their ranks are being consumed to make the Knight mediocre at combat.

[Kaeso]

But unless they fail their will save they have no incentive to attack the knight.

Beguilers also need to boost their DC's to get an enemy to fail their will saves. I'd hardly call that a knight-only problem, knights just need to boost their cha.



But your mount is also a lot weaker. An area effect or possibly even part of a full attack will kill it.

Very true, but there are two ways to solve it:
1. A knight gets 'shield ally', allowing him to take half of the damage the mount takes.
2. The feat wild cohort allows you to get a mount that scales with your level.

Of course, you could also buy chainmail barding, boosting its AC by at least 4 points.


And probably also in Handle Animal. That effectively means that a mounted Knight has no skills because both of their ranks are being consumed to make the Knight mediocre at combat.

It's not like they have any other skills worth taking, save for intimidate (which a human knight could take). And I'd hardly call them mediocre because they can use their normal feat slots to become a supercharger.

[The Glyphstone]

Unfortunately it only applies to opponent's you threatan at the beginning of your turn. Still potent, but if a monster is 35ft away from you they are free to charge.

That's what Stand Still/Hold The Line/Improved Trip are for, and thus that Fighter dip. If they're small enough that you can effectively trip them, they go down, stop movement, and from then on are mired in your Bulwark. If they're big and likely untrippable, they probably have a poor Reflex save, and a Knight who hasn't completely ignored Strength will throw a potent DC on the Stand Still instead, causing them to stop movement and be mired in your Bulwark. It's more of a 'worst of both worlds' situation for the enemy than an unambiguous successful tactic - either they try to stay out of your threat zone, or try to rush you and hope you don't knock them on their rear in the process.

[Boci]

That's what Stand Still/Hold The Line/Improved Trip are for, and thus that Fighter dip. If they're small enough that you can effectively trip them, they go down, stop movement, and from then on are mired in your Bulwark. If they're big and likely untrippable, they probably have a poor Reflex save, and a Knight who hasn't completely ignored Strength will throw a potent DC on the Stand Still instead, causing them to stop movement and be mired in your Bulwark. It's more of a 'worst of both worlds' situation for the enemy than an unambiguous successful tactic - either they try to stay out of your threat zone, or try to rush you and hope you don't knock them on their rear in the process.

But even an enemy with no ranks in tumble and a neutral dexterity modifier has a 30% chance of negating an AoO.

[The Glyphstone]

But even an enemy with no ranks in tumble and a neutral dexterity modifier has a 30% chance of negating an AoO.

To do that, though, they have to move even slower than normal, and will still be subject to 2 such checks.

But Tumblers are still a threat, which is why Crusader makes up the bulk of the build - once you have Thicket of Blades, you are for all intents and purposes untouchable by anything that can't hit you from more than 20ft. away.

[Boci]

To do that, though, they have to move even slower than normal, and will still be subject to 2 such checks.

Why two checks?


But Tumblers are still a threat, which is why Crusader makes up the bulk of the build - once you have Thicket of Blades, you are for all intents and purposes untouchable by anything that can't hit you from more than 20ft. away.

Yeah, but its not a good sign that knights need crusader levels (or two feats and minimum 10th level).


Beguilers also need to boost their DC's to get an enemy to fail their will saves. I'd hardly call that a knight-only problem, knights just need to boost their cha.

But beguilers need stats in the following order: int, con, dex. Knights need them in this order: str, con, cha. See the problem?


Very true, but there are two ways to solve it:
1. A knight gets 'shield ally', allowing him to take half of the damage the mount takes.

It could also be dominated to act against you.


2. The feat wild cohort allows you to get a mount that scales with your level.

Its still a lot weaker than the PCs.


Of course, you could also buy chainmail barding, boosting its AC by at least 4 points.

Its AC still won't hold against monster's attacks.

[Greenish]

your mount is also (at least) large, which means it also has reach.Not necessarily. Most normal mounts are long instead of tall, and only sport 5' reach (horses, bears, centaurs, unicorns, tigers, griffons, giant eagles etc.).

But yeah, Knights are, at the very least, strong tier 5, and it's not a great stretch to call them tier 4.

[Fuhrmaaj]

Beguilers also need to boost their DC's to get an enemy to fail their will saves. I'd hardly call that a knight-only problem, knights just need to boost their cha.

But Beguilers are more likely to have their INT cranked up because it's their biggest class feature. Beguilers also have 6 skills points per level and likely more due to high INT. The Beguiler only needs to crank other stats if they plan to use them.


Very true, but there are two ways to solve it:
1. A knight gets 'shield ally', allowing him to take half of the damage the mount takes.
2. The feat wild cohort allows you to get a mount that scales with your level.

Of course, you could also buy chainmail barding, boosting its AC by at least 4 points.

So that means that a Knight takes 1.5 times the damage other characters take from area effects. You consume another feat to become mediocre in melee and now you're spending your WBL on protecting your assets instead of doing more damage.


It's not like they have any other skills worth taking, save for intimidate (which a human knight could take).

Heavy armour users should have swim, especially at the lower levels. Their skill list is super limited so they'll have to take good skills cross-class if they can spare the points. If you actually put much into your CHA then getting Intimidate and Diplomacy would be pretty cool.

[Gametime]

Tumble is trained-only. You could dump a skill point into it cross-class. Even then, this theoretical knight presumably wants Combat Reflexes to make the most of Stand Still; that means having to succeed on at least two checks to avoid getting stopped, possibly more if you're going around the knight instead of at him.

It's certainly not foolproof, but it significantly reduces the tactical options open to your enemies.

[Greenish]

The Knight just has full BAB and mounted combat feats. If the Knight charges, ride-by attacks or is otherwise not adjacent to any ally then he is not tanking anymore and is a fairly mediocre damage dealer.Ride-by Attack and Knight's Challenge isn't a bad combo. Knight doesn't have to be in melee to tank, amusingly.


Beguilers also need to boost their DC's to get an enemy to fail their will saves. I'd hardly call that a knight-only problem, knights just need to boost their cha.Well, except that Int is the primary attribute for beguilers (it's their casting stat as full casters, as well as the skillpoint stat as skill monkeys), so it's not really comparable.

[Boci]

Tumble is trained-only. You could dump a skill point into it cross-class. Even then, this theoretical knight presumably wants Combat Reflexes to make the most of Stand Still; that means having to succeed on at least two checks to avoid getting stopped, possibly more if you're going around the knight instead of at him.

You're correct about it being trained only, I never noticed that, buy wrong about needing two checks. The check is per opponent, not per potential attack of opertunity.

[MeeposFire]

I think a big problem for the knight is that a fighter can do what it does but better in every situation outside of compelling a target outside of your reach to attack you. Once a fighter built for lockdown gets a target in its reach it is much more effective than the knight. In addition if you don't optimize your call you will have little chance of getting targets to attack you and if you optimize it you further weaken yourself against the fighter (which you are already weaker).

[The Glyphstone]

Why two checks?

One for Hold The Line (AoO against chargers), one normal for leaving a square you threaten.



Yeah, but its not a good sign that knights need crusader levels (or two feats and minimum 10th level).


Which is why I prefaced this entire thing with the note that Knights are not a good class on their own, but make a great dip addition a Crusader-heavy area denial build. Knight20 is worse than Crusader20, but Knight 3/Fighter 2/Crusader 15 is better than Crusader20.

[Kaeso]

One for Hold The Line (AoO against chargers), one normal for leaving a square you threaten.



Which is why I prefaced this entire thing with the note that Knights are not a good class on their own, but make a great dip addition a Crusader-heavy area denial build. Knight20 is worse than Crusader20, but Knight 3/Fighter 2/Crusader 15 is better than Crusader20.

Why not go for Knight 6/Fighter 2/Crusader 14 then?
It gives you test of mettle, armor mastery (medium) so you can move around unhindered and gives you a nice, round number of levels (8) for your initiator level.

[NNescio]

Why not go for Knight 6/Fighter 2/Crusader 14 then?
It gives you test of mettle, armor mastery (medium) so you can move around unhindered and gives you a nice, round number of levels (8) for your initiator level.

What, ECL 22?

[Kaeso]

What, ECL 22?

I meant Crusader 12 :smallsigh:

[Fuhrmaaj]

Not necessarily. Most normal mounts are long instead of tall, and only sport 5' reach (horses, bears, centaurs, unicorns, tigers, griffons, giant eagles etc.).

But yeah, Knights are, at the very least, strong tier 5, and it's not a great stretch to call them tier 4.

I hate that this stuff always comes up tbh. I think a class "spectrum" might have been more prudent because everyone gets snippy when their favourite class isn't where they want it to be.


Ride-by Attack and Knight's Challenge isn't a bad combo. Knight doesn't have to be in melee to tank, amusingly.

I was referring to the Shield Other ability which stipulates you must be adjacent to an ally to use.

Another point which hasn't been brought up is that a fair amount of combats are basically won in the first round (when the enemy is flat-footed), but the Knight can't contribute until the enemies are aware. He also can't benefit from any controller spells because most of them leave the enemies helpless or flat-footed. So the Knight throws a monkey wrench in your team plans unless he's willing to lost the Knight's Challenge ability and/or take a -2 to attack rolls and saves.

The tier system is not supposed to reflect use when multiclassing, but most of the Tier 5s make good dips.

[The Glyphstone]

Why not go for Knight 6/Fighter 2/Crusader 14 then?
It gives you test of mettle, armor mastery (medium) so you can move around unhindered and gives you a nice, round number of levels (8) for your initiator level.

Well, that's Epic for starters. If you meant 6/2/12, that's only Initator Level 16 by the end, and you won't get Thicket of Blades until ECL16. The extra three levels of Crusader give you Thicket at ECL10, and you eventually claim your 9th level Heal strike.

K6/F2/C12 is a valid alternate build though - you give up the aforementioned bonuses, but get ToM and Armor Mastery, the former actually being possibly useful because you'll be wanting at least some Charisma anyways for Indomitable Soul and Smite.



Another point which hasn't been brought up is that a fair amount of combats are basically won in the first round (when the enemy is flat-footed), but the Knight can't contribute until the enemies are aware. He also can't benefit from any controller spells because most of them leave the enemies helpless or flat-footed. So the Knight throws a monkey wrench in your team plans unless he's willing to lost the Knight's Challenge ability and/or take a -2 to attack rolls and saves.


That really only applies when everyone involved is either a full caster or an Ubercharger. In that sort of game, a Knight will indeed be outclassed, but so will pretty much anyone not one of the above.

[Eldariel]

Knights don't really tank better than higher tier characters (indeed, straight Knight loses out to Tier 3s like Psy Wars, Warblades and Crusaders in tanking, and is probably somewhat tied with the Barbarian) and lacks the other functionalities his higher Tier counterparts have. Most higher tier melee does amazing damage with good mobility and some secondary tricks (Barbarian with Intimidating Rage + Ferocity/Instantaneous Rage for "Celerity Rage", Warblade and Crusader's dime dozen of utility maneuvers, Psy War's Powers, etc.) while also being equally or more so (Thicket of Blades or just Expansion to make the area massive, if lacking the mechanics to make movement harder; get some, lose some) capable of tanking.

It's also worth noting that the Tier System assumes single-classed characters; it does not evaluate classes' dip value, multiclass combinations' value or such. Knight has some multiclass value (though rarely are they the optimal choice; single-classed Crusader tends to outdo a Knight in every aspect) but single-classed, it gets its first good class feature on level 3 and the second on level 20. That's kind of a problem. It has the Paladin-issues of MAD (it's kinda AoO-based with Bulwark so you need Dex in addition to Str/Cha/Con) and really, really needing high Cha to make Knight's Challenge (more or less the point of the class) worth a damn. It doesn't have Paladin's spells either, and they both suck at skills even though fluff-wise, they should excel there (no skill points, no points for Int). All that means it makes for a mediocre Tank without magical christmas land stats, and not much else.

[Greenish]

One for Hold The Line (AoO against chargers)Can you Tumble to avoid that?

[Eldariel]

Can you Tumble to avoid that?

No, that can't be bypassed if charging (other by, of course, somehow denying opponent AoOs overall).

[Gnaeus]

I think a big problem for the knight is that a fighter can do what it does but better in every situation outside of compelling a target outside of your reach to attack you. Once a fighter built for lockdown gets a target in its reach it is much more effective than the knight. In addition if you don't optimize your call you will have little chance of getting targets to attack you and if you optimize it you further weaken yourself against the fighter (which you are already weaker).

I agree, but I think a better comparison is Knight vs. Paladin.

With a couple of ToB feats, a paladin can match virtually every ability that a knight has as either a class feature or a spell (therefore, as a cheap wand in a wand chamber).

On the other hand, Paladins have a lot of utility that a knight cannot match. Paladins can fly without support of another PC. They can make devastating charge builds. They can do downtime healing. If their weapons are taken away, they can pick spells to temporarily enchant them. They can use turn attempts to power travel devotion so that they can get full attacks every round.

Knight should be whatever tier Paladin is, minus half a tier.

Oh, and as a bonus, their class features and fluff are a trap designed to lure inexperienced players into the weakest weapon style in the game, sword and board. Yes, they CAN use buckler & 2h, or animated shields, but I regard them as a trap for the unwary, much like monks. (Or a dip class, again like monks).


Beguilers also need to boost their DC's to get an enemy to fail their will saves. I'd hardly call that a knight-only problem, knights just need to boost their cha.

Aside from Greenish's very correct response, I would also point out that Beguilers have a very solid spell list WITHOUT resorting to Will SoL's, including some very nice buffs (Haste! Greater Invisibility.) and spells that do not require a save (dispel magic, solid fog, power words, time stop) or only require a save if interacted with (most illusions). And with UMD on their class list, they are pretty good at faking it if they don't have an appropriate spell.

A knight, on the other hand, facing something with a will save he can't beat (or something that challenge won't work on, or something that can just withdraw and plaster the party with AOEs), is a semi mobile wall. That screams tier 5 to me.

[Talya]

I think, by the wording of the tiers, the OP is right that Knight is a tier 4. It's a very low tier 4 because it can only do one thing well, and the thing that it does well isn't very useful. Certainly not required. I don't object to seeing it at the high end of tier 5, either, for that reason.

Honestly, if combined all of a Paladin's class features with a Knight's class features in a single class, you'd still have a hard time cracking Tier 3. (Although...this wouldn't be that bad to play...)

[Taelas]

Tanking is inefficient, plain and simple, especially since if that's your only shtick, you're going to need a healer eventually (which is another inefficient role).

[The Glyphstone]

I think, by the wording of the tiers, the OP is right that Knight is a tier 4. It's a very low tier 4 because it can only do one thing well, and the thing that it does well isn't very useful. Certainly not required. I don't object to seeing it at the high end of tier 5, either, for that reason.

Honestly, if combined all of a Paladin's class features with a Knight's class features in a single class, you'd still have a hard time cracking Tier 3. (Although...this wouldn't be that bad to play...)

True, which I guess would make it a flaw in the Tier system more than the class - the Knight is very good at a specific thing. The thing it's good at, though, is not very good to be good at.

[Fuhrmaaj]

True, which I guess would make it a flaw in the Tier system more than the class - the Knight is very good at a specific thing. The thing it's good at, though, is not very good to be good at.

Well CW Samurai is very good at Intimidation, but I can't even say that with a straight face.

[NNescio]

Let's approach the question from another way. Is a Knight generally 'better' (read: can contribute more) than a non-dungeonscrasher Fighter (a Tier 5) in most situations from levels 1-20?

If they are not, and if we accept that a non-dungeoncrasher Fighter is Tier 5, then Knights cannot be Tier 4.

(Note that the converse is not necessarily true.)

Meepo made a compelling case for the Fighter.


I think a big problem for the knight is that a fighter can do what it does but better in every situation outside of compelling a target outside of your reach to attack you. Once a fighter built for lockdown gets a target in its reach it is much more effective than the knight. In addition if you don't optimize your call you will have little chance of getting targets to attack you and if you optimize it you further weaken yourself against the fighter (which you are already weaker).

Similarly, if a Knight is Tier 4, then he's generally 'better' than a Paladin (again, a Tier 5) in most situations.

Gnaeus made a strong case in favour of the Paladin, even without the ToB feats.


I agree, but I think a better comparison is Knight vs. Paladin.

With a couple of ToB feats, a paladin can match virtually every ability that a knight has as either a class feature or a spell (therefore, as a cheap wand in a wand chamber).

On the other hand, Paladins have a lot of utility that a knight cannot match. Paladins can fly without support of another PC. They can make devastating charge builds. They can do downtime healing. If their weapons are taken away, they can pick spells to temporarily enchant them. They can use turn attempts to power travel devotion so that they can get full attacks every round.

Knight should be whatever tier Paladin is, minus half a tier.

Oh, and as a bonus, their class features and fluff are a trap designed to lure inexperienced players into the weakest weapon style in the game, sword and board. Yes, they CAN use buckler & 2h, or animated shields, but I regard them as a trap for the unwary, much like monks. (Or a dip class, again like monks).

[Veyr]

True, which I guess would make it a flaw in the Tier system more than the class - the Knight is very good at a specific thing. The thing it's good at, though, is not very good to be good at.
The various quotes about the Tiers are supposed to be descriptors about the kinds of things that get you into each Tier, but not rules for how the Tiers are defined. There can be cases like this, where you are legitimately good at something unimpressive, and end up Tier 5. The Knight is Tier 5 not because it can't be legitimately good at its schtick, but because even if it is, it's not that good a schtick. I'd point out here that the line is "Capable of doing only one thing, and not necessarily all that well" (emphasis mine) — there is room in the Tier to actually do the thing well, if it still makes you comparable to other Tier 5s.

I mean, Monks are pretty good, in general, about "not dying", at least compared to other Tier 4-5-ers. It's just... not that useful an ability when "not dying" becomes "being ignored while your party dies around you".

Hell, the Truenamer is astoundingly good at Knowledge checks. They have every reason to pump Int like mad, an almost-entirely-useless class skills list that means they will max every single Knowledge skill for lack of anything to do with the points their high Int gives them, Utterances that boost Knowledge, etc. etc. — a Truenamer not only can, but is likely to have like +50 to every Knowledge skill by level 20.

But that just doesn't do you very much good.

[Iferus]

In my house rules, the Knight class and the Marshal class are merged. Together, this is a leader/defender type of role. What tier would that have?

[Greenish]

In my house rules, the Knight class and the Marshal class are merged. Together, this is a leader/defender type of role. What tier would that have?Hey, that's pretty neat. Not sure it'd quite reach tier 3, but solid 4. The set of abilities is remarkably coherent, too.

[Draz74]

Hell, the Truenamer is astoundingly good at Knowledge checks. They have every reason to pump Int like mad, an almost-entirely-useless class skills list that means they will max every single Knowledge skill for lack of anything to do with the points their high Int gives them, Utterances that boost Knowledge, etc. etc. — a Truenamer not only can, but is likely to have like +50 to every Knowledge skill by level 20.
While the rest of your point stands, I was surprised by the bolded part. Truenamers have a crappy class skill list? Since when?


Honestly, if combined all of a Paladin's class features with a Knight's class features in a single class, you'd still have a hard time cracking Tier 3. (Although...this wouldn't be that bad to play...)

I'd call it Tier 3 myself. But then, I already disagree with the Paladin being called Tier 5 instead of Tier 4. (Battle Blessing, anyone? Devotion feats, Divine feats, ACFs to trade the Mount in for?)

But yeah, regardless of whether it ends up at 3 or 4, a Paladin//Knight could definitely be a fun character to play!


In my house rules, the Knight class and the Marshal class are merged. Together, this is a leader/defender type of role. What tier would that have?

That works too. That one, I'd still call Tier 4, but a high Tier 4.

[Veyr]

While the rest of your point stands, I was surprised by the bolded part. Truenamers have a crappy class skill list? Since when?
Concentration and Truenaming are necessary, obviously.

Aside from those, you have Use Magic Device and all Knowledges, and then Craft and Profession, which everyone gets, and Perform (Oratory), which doesn't actually help any of your class features or serve much purpose.

Meanwhile, you have 4+Int skills per level, and are likely to be focusing on getting Int as high as possible, as soon as possible. Starting with Int 20 is likely (and if not, you're Human so you get an extra skill point to make up for it anyway). So you can max 9 skills. Conc, Truename, and UMD are obvious; the other 6? Oh hey, look at that, there are 6 Knowledge skills that are generally useful.

Then your Int increases, and you've really got nothing better to do with those points than to simply increase the other Knowledge skills that aren't useful.

Maybe the skill list isn't awful (it's better than the Wizard's, for example), but it is limited.

[Talya]

I'd call it Tier 3 myself. But then, I already disagree with the Paladin being called Tier 5 instead of Tier 4. (Battle Blessing, anyone? Devotion feats, Divine feats, ACFs to trade the Mount in for?)


...trade...in...mount?

But...if I'm playing a paladin, the mount is half the reason why! :smalleek:

Seriously, I just love collecting helpers. (Except for Familiars. Familiars scare me.) Animal Companions, Special Mounts, Cohorts, Wild Cohorts...I'll take 'em all! :smallbiggrin:


In my house rules, the Knight class and the Marshal class are merged. Together, this is a leader/defender type of role. What tier would that have?

Ooooh, idea! In a game with a wizard, a druid, and a Warblade, would a paladin//knight//marshal end up being a competitive asset?

[Eldariel]

Ooooh, idea! In a game with a wizard, a druid, and a Warblade, would a paladin//knight//marshal end up being a competitive asset?

It'd be MAD up the wazoo but it'd be the same kind of MAD between all the classes so if you can pull off the stats (mostly Str, Cha, Con with a side dose of Dex/Wis + prolly 10 Int for skills, and with Turn Undead-conversion+Paladin Spell imbued Attack Rolls, a somewhat competitive way to offset penalties should they come to that). And Marshal raises the whole mess's base skill point allotment to 4! YAY!

You get Auras, you get a bunch of neat, if minor Swift Action-consuming (primarily) tricks with Knight's Challenge, decent ways to control the area around you & Mount + good buffs and Turn Undead from Paladin. Overall, I'd say Pally is the biggest contributor here; what you end up with is in essence an enhanced Paladin with:
- Non-magical combat enhancing/enemy-disrupting abilities
- Area control
- A very, very welcome bonus feat (Mounted Combat)
- Few extra Auras
- Grant Move Action, or Adrenaline Boost (both are...well, niché but potentially usable, Adrenaline Boost perhaps more so)

It would probably be a Tier 3 class simply thanks to the combination of spells, auras & skills marshal and pally bring together (really, Marshal synergises quite well with a full BAB combat oriented Cha-based chassis), and it gets some extra tricks in combat thanks to Knight.


EDIT: The more I think about it, the more I like the Marshal/Paladin as a general purpose solution. Marshal is basically eminently mediocre in combat; kind of like a really, really bad Bard. Decent force multiplier for some niché uses but absolutely worthless in and of himself. On the other hand, Marshal's minor auras, especially once he learns a bunch, are absolutely amazing out of combat and he does add to a party in combat in a way few classes do. 4+Int skills and SF: Diplo plus a good list doesn't hurt either.

Paladin, on the other hand, is pretty solid in combat. Full BAB, Turn Undead to convert into stuff & buff spells alongside the handy dandy mount mean a Pally, given the stats, is quite competent at turning peoples' faces into bloody pulp. Again, the stats are the recurring issue here but that's something we can't fix easily without moving Pally casting onto Cha. Outside that though, their combat capability as a warrior is rather respectable. Outside the mounted charger capabilities of a Warrior though, Pally's restricted spell list, restrictive skill points and lack of major out-of-combat class features outside Detect Evil contribute tremendously little.

Those two classes hit each others' weak points (again, aside from MAD) really neatly. Marshal's inability to contribute in combat & Paladin's generally lackluster kit for anything but charging hit each other in the excessively weak areas and result in a rather functional whole. Knight adds another dimension to the combat capabilities which is likewise certainly welcome.


This is an absolutely superb idea. Well done. Though I still can't think of a reason not to play a Crusader.

Basically, Pally and Marshal

[Kaeso]

...trade...in...mount?

But...if I'm playing a paladin, the mount is half the reason why! :smalleek:



+1!

The ACF is pretty weak IMHO, you get a little bonus on a charge while using smite, a mounted charge is better than that IMHO.

[Greenish]

The ACF is pretty weak IMHO, you get a little bonus on a charge while using smite, a mounted charge is better than that IMHO.Well, the two others are pretty neat, especially in places they're designed for.

[Kaeso]

Well, the two others are pretty neat, especially in places they're designed for.

Can you give me the names and sources please? As far as I know, there's only one ACF that trades away a Pally's mount.

[Seerow]

+1!

The ACF is pretty weak IMHO, you get a little bonus on a charge while using smite, a mounted charge is better than that IMHO.

A mounted charge is strictly better damage (gogo double charge damage), but the charging smite feature gives you close to the same damage, but easier to access (no feats spent to get yourself spirited charge, no need to get a lance, can be used in cramped spaces where a mount is at a major disadvantage). Which one is better is going to largely vary based on campaign setting. If you dungeon delve a lot, your mount will be near useless. If you spend a lot of time on open plains, you want the mount.

[Greenish]

Can you give me the names and sources please? As far as I know, there's only one ACF that trades away a Pally's mount.Cityscape's web enhancement (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/we/20070228a) has Stand Fast, Dungeonscape has Divine Spirit and Complete Champion has Underdark Knight.

[Edit]: I had forgotten about Stand Fast, it's not very impressive. The other two are decent.

[Draconi Redfir]

Better question: Why do teirs matter? Just play how you want to play or make a character how you want your character to be.

[NNescio]

A mounted charge is strictly better damage (gogo double charge damage), but the charging smite feature gives you close to the same damage, but easier to access (no feats spent to get yourself spirited charge, no need to get a lance, can be used in cramped spaces where a mount is at a major disadvantage). Which one is better is going to largely vary based on campaign setting. If you dungeon delve a lot, your mount will be near useless. If you spend a lot of time on open plains, you want the mount.

What about a Halfing Paladin on a riding dog?

[Greenish]

Better question: Why do teirs matter?They help in making a balanced party. That's their stated purpose, as you can see from the tier system page.

[JoshuaZ]

Maybe the knight class doesn't have diplomacy as a class skill because the historical medieval knights were supposed to be chivalrous, but in practice weren't they a bunch of surly, uneducated drunken jerks?


Yeah, and the same thing goes for historical samurai who weren't very honorable at all. Oh, and historical ninja didn't do nearly as much sneaking around as a combination of disguise and barring that outright intimidation. And while they did do some stuff in the assassination business ninjas really shined when it came to large scale arson, either to kill specific people, or to destroy supplies and barracks. Most D&D classes are built around the legendary, romantic form of the classes much more than any historical versions.

[Eldariel]

Better question: Why do teirs matter? Just play how you want to play or make a character how you want your character to be.

Because it is more enjoyable for a cooperative game to have the cooperating players be on an approximately equal footing and thus contribute about equally so that nobody feels they're useless and nobody feels they need to carry others. Further, it enhances the group experience if the group has to actually cooperate to achieve goals, as opposed to one character being able to do anything (I once played a Druid in 15th level oneshot with lots of Heavily LAd characters; I practically ended up soloing the whole 4 hour adventure aside from letting Rogue search for traps at one place, and while as a one-shot the others didn't mind too bad, I could notice that they liked they could've contributed more than attacked a bit when I didn't feel like ending encounters).

Basically, 3.5 is a massively imbalanced game where you principally don't want a Fighter to fight purely efficiency-wise but instead a Druid or a Cleric, and if you wanted a party that has the best chance of clearing every adventure, that party would most likely contain two Druids, one Wizard/Rogue and one Wizard in Core and out of Core, Archivist, Artificer, Druid, Wizard or so (StP Erudite or Cleric could really replace any of those depending on how much work you put to expanding repertoire). And similarly, you can build a party of Monk, Samurai, Healer, Warmage that's going to have exceedingly large trouble beating equally CRd encounters. In such a system, mishmashing classes freely is a great way to generate an unenjoyable environment and such a more sophisticated understanding of the system enables for a more engineered play experience with commonly decided level of play and sufficient optimization applied towards any single concept to bring them all to approximately the same level, ergo tier.

[Hiro Protagonest]

They help in making a balanced party. That's their stated purpose, as you can see from the tier system page.

Yes. In a party with a debuffer/diviner/summoner/enchanter wizard and a fighter, the fighter will be an underachiever. A buffer/diviner/summoner/enchanter wizard will make him feel a bit more useful because of the buffs, but he's still only one person compared to the spellcaster and his three or four summoned creatures. And the wizard is more useful out of combat.

[Seerow]

What about a Halfing Paladin on a riding dog?

Then it's more comparable since you can use the dog in the same space as any medium creature, but then you're having to deal with the fact that you're a halfling, between smaller size and a strength penalty, that's eating away at your damage. The mounted charge may still be stronger, but the difference between the two is less, and the charging smiter saved some feats (which Paladins get few of)

[Greenish]

Then it's more comparable since you can use the dog in the same space as any medium creature, but then you're having to deal with the fact that you're a halfling, between smaller size and a strength penalty, that's eating away at your damage. The mounted charge may still be stronger, but the difference between the two is less, and the charging smiter saved some feats (which Paladins get few of)Be a Talenta halfling paladin, and get a dinosaur mount and a couple of great weapons. :smallcool:

[Seerow]

Be a Talenta halfling paladin, and get a dinosaur mount and a couple of great weapons. :smallcool:

A what?!
10 characters

[LOTRfan]

Halflings native to the Talenta Plains. They domesticate dinosaurs as war-machines and mounts. Brought to you by Eberron. :smallcool:

[Hiro Protagonest]

Halflings native to the Talenta Plains. They domesticate dinosaurs as war-machines and mounts. Brought to you by Eberron. :smallcool:

And have it wield a Talenta sharrash. Reach weapon with a 19-20/x4 crit!

Edit: also, I say this anytime Eberron is brought up: Eberron's awesome, it's the only campaign setting where orcs are the stewards of nature, and elves rampage across the land in destructive hordes. :smallcool:

[LOTRfan]

If I remember correctly, its double damage against charges too, right? :smallamused:

[Seerow]

And have it wield a Talenta sharrash. Reach weapon with a 19-20/x4 crit!

Y'know this makes me realize I should probably read at least eberron's crunch, cause holy **** that weapon sounds ridiculous. What's the damage die on it?

[Greenish]

And have it wield a Talenta sharrash. Reach weapon with a 19-20/x4 crit!Also trips. Not bad for a martial weapon, huh?

Shame it was nerfed in errata, but eh, it's still better than other martial reach weapons.


Oh, and since you've proficiency with the boomerang, feel free to grab Boomerang Daze.

[Edit]:
Y'know this makes me realize I should probably read at least eberron's crunch, cause holy **** that weapon sounds ridiculous. What's the damage die on it?1d10, though it was nerfed in errata for 19-20/x2. :smallfrown:

[Hiro Protagonest]

If I remember correctly, its double damage against charges too, right? :smallamused:

Nah, sorry.

[LOTRfan]

Ah, man. That would've been epic. :smallfrown:

[Draz74]

Concentration and Truenaming are necessary, obviously.

Aside from those, you have Use Magic Device and all Knowledges, and then Craft and Profession, which everyone gets, and Perform (Oratory), which doesn't actually help any of your class features or serve much purpose.

Maybe the skill list isn't awful (it's better than the Wizard's, for example), but it is limited.
Huh. Why in the Nine Hells doesn't the class who speaks his way through dungeons get Diplomacy or Bluff? I thought he did. Well, that's stupid. (Guess I shouldn't be surprised, considering how much effort went into the rest of the Truenamer class.)

As a side note, I actually like Perform (oratory) quite a lot as a roleplaying-type skill, though I grant you it has little mechanical benefit.


...trade...in...mount?

But...if I'm playing a paladin, the mount is half the reason why! :smalleek:

Seriously, I just love collecting helpers. (Except for Familiars. Familiars scare me.) Animal Companions, Special Mounts, Cohorts, Wild Cohorts...I'll take 'em all! :smallbiggrin:
Yeah, well, then you've got some obvious bias. Myself, I'm a little reluctant to get a "helper," as they tend to slow the game down; and I would certainly never want more than one "helper."

That being said, some of my Paladin builds do end up trading away the Mount, then still picking up a mount via Wild Cohort. I hear Wild Cohorts end up being more level-appropriate-hard-to-kill than Paladin Mounts, unless you take the Leadership feat (often banned) to buff the Paladin Mount up.


The ACF is pretty weak IMHO, you get a little bonus on a charge while using smite, a mounted charge is better than that IMHO.
Hint: if you take Charging Smite, you should still fight on a mount ... and use your smites when you do a mounted charge. The extra Smite damage from Charging Smite multiplies.

Valorous Lance, Spirited Charge, Charging Smite = deal bonus damage equal to 12 times your Paladin level on a charge. And if you miss, at least your Smite attempt for the day isn't used up. That's not terrible; in fact, it's kind of overkill for most Big Nasties. :smallamused: Worth losing the default Mount for, in my book.


Cityscape's web enhancement (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/we/20070228a) has Stand Fast, Dungeonscape has Divine Spirit and Complete Champion has Underdark Knight.

[Edit]: I had forgotten about Stand Fast, it's not very impressive. The other two are decent.

I don't know Underdark Knight, and yeah, Stand Fast sucks. Charging Smite and Divine Spirit are the two I had in mind.

What's Underdark Knight do?

[LOTRfan]

I'm looking at the sharrash stats now, and I think they should've left it as it is. If you are going to waste a feat on it, it should be a pretty decent weapon...

[Hiro Protagonest]

I'm looking at the sharrash stats now, and I think they should've left it as it is. If you are going to waste a feat on it, it should be a pretty decent weapon...

Tell that to the guys who created the bastard sword, dwarven waraxe, and maul.

[Greenish]

What's Underdark Knight do?Makes you better at moving in Underdark. +10' move speed, bonuses to jump/climb/balance, lowlight vision (or darkvision if you had llv, or more range to darkvision if you had darkvision) upfront, then more stuff as you level (notably, Earth Glide at level 12).


I'm looking at the sharrash stats now, and I think they should've left it as it is. If you are going to waste a feat on it, it should be a pretty decent weapon...I do agree, but it is a martial weapon for Talenta halflings.

[LOTRfan]

I said that they should be decent weapons if you are losing a feat just to use them properly, not that they all are decent. :smalltongue:

[Seerow]

Tell that to the guys who created the bastard sword, dwarven waraxe, and maul.

To be fair, in 2 out of 3 of those cases the developers were working on the assumption that wielding a weapon in one hand was a benefit, not a detriment. Remember these are the people working on the assumption that TWFing is worth a half dozen feats, and +2 to damage is equivalent to rewriting the cosmos. It's not that they didn't logically try to make the weapons better than martial counterparts, they just failed to understand what makes for something actually being good.

[Zaq]

Huh. Why in the Nine Hells doesn't the class who speaks his way through dungeons get Diplomacy or Bluff? I thought he did. Well, that's stupid. (Guess I shouldn't be surprised, considering how much effort went into the rest of the Truenamer class.)

As a side note, I actually like Perform (oratory) quite a lot as a roleplaying-type skill, though I grant you it has little mechanical benefit.


You want stupid? They don't even get Speak Language as a class skill. (OK, if you're playing a Truenamer, there's a good chance that you're an illumian, and they always have Speak Language as a class skill, but that is so not the point.)

The fact that it has UMD saves it from being a truly awful skill list, but it's by no means good. You'll be taking Truespeak, UMD, and a hellaton of Knowledges at pretty much every level. (No, not Concentration. Concentration isn't used for Truenaming. You "utter defensively" by taking a penalty on your Truespeak check. Dunno who thought THAT was a good idea.)

Anyway, on-topic, I really like the Knight, but I'd be lying if I said it was good, as we've all pretty much hashed out. Funny story: in my current game, one of my friends started out by playing a Knight. When she got tired of being made redundant by the Wilder's Astral Constructs (to be fair, the Wilder was being a prick about it), she quit playing the Knight. There was an intervening character, but she's now playing the Knight's brother, a Crusader. "I always tried to tell him to take some Devoted Spirit, but noooo, he was always saying 'I need more Test of Mettle' or 'but I'm this close to tumbling in full plate' or whatever . . . bah. He always was the stubborn one." Fun times.

[Big Fau]

To be fair, in 2 out of 3 of those cases the developers were working on the assumption that wielding a weapon in one hand was a benefit, not a detriment. Remember these are the people working on the assumption that TWFing is worth a half dozen feats, and +2 to damage is equivalent to rewriting the cosmos. It's not that they didn't logically try to make the weapons better than martial counterparts, they just failed to understand what makes for something actually being good.

And then they went and made 4E, where every feat is effectively Weapon Focus.



For the record: They still don't know how to design a feat. They make a good one (that Dwarven feat in Martial Power that adds Wis to attacks/damage), then nerf the hell out of it in errata (basically the complete oposite of what they do with MtG).

[Seerow]

And then they went and made 4E, where every feat is effectively Weapon Focus.


See, that doesn't bother me so much. Different systems, different assumptions. In 4e, they redesigned the system from the ground up on the assumption that feats are minor numerical bonuses, and new options come from your powers. So while feats are all generally minor bonuses, you have fewer outliers making several feats good and the rest terrible, which is what I think they were going for.

Honestly that system would have done a lot better if they had simply given more powers known and more variety in powers. I think when people complain about 4e having options, that tends to be the real complaint, that they can't use enough of them.

[Talakeal]

Not necessarily. Most normal mounts are long instead of tall, and only sport 5' reach (horses, bears, centaurs, unicorns, tigers, griffons, giant eagles etc.).

But yeah, Knights are, at the very least, strong tier 5, and it's not a great stretch to call them tier 4.

Isn't that a 3.0 rule, and Knight a 3.5 class?

[Greenish]

Isn't that a 3.0 ruleNo. (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/movementPositionAndDistance.htm#bigandLittleCreatu resInCombat)

[The Glyphstone]

Partly. In 3.0, some creatures took up a 10x5 space, and had a 5ft. reach. In 3.5, those "long' creatures now all take up a 10x10 space, but retain their 5ft. reach.

[Talakeal]

Hmm, learn something new everyday. I never noticed that they left in long reach while removing long base size.

[Hand_of_Vecna]

Partly. In 3.0, some creatures took up a 10x5 space, and had a 5ft. reach. In 3.5, those "long' creatures now all take up a 10x10 space, but retain their 5ft. reach.

Wow what an odd change. Has anybody seen this get play and have an effect on gameplay? I'm just thinking about all the mounted minis that are set on two space bases.

I suppose it could help with low op tanking.

[Cog]

Wow what an odd change.
I suspect it was to help get rid of the concept of facing.


Has anybody seen this get play and have an effect on gameplay? I'm just thinking about all the mounted minis that are set on two space bases.

I suppose it could help with low op tanking.
Well, that's how we've always played it, so yes, it helped the Paladin cover a little more terrain. As for the minis, just place them centered on the line instead of the square and it should work out just fine.