[3.5/3.P] Solid Base Classes

[BlueInc]

I love giving my players options so they can make whatever kind of character they can think of; I mostly like base classes so they can start doing what they had envisioned from level 1.

I recently added the Tome of Battle and Psionics Unleashed to my Pathfinder game and so far I'm enjoying the results. I'm going to open up Magic of Incarnum and the Factotum soon.

What other viable 3.5 base classes can you think of that would fit well into Pathfinder?

Running List of Base Classes:


Core Pathfinder:
Barbarian
Bard
Cleric
Druid
Fighter
Monk
Paladin (and Anti-paladin)
Ranger
Rogue (and Ninja)
Sorcerer
Wizard

Advanced Player's Guide:
Alchemist
Cavalier (and Samurai)
Inquisitor
Oracle
Summoner
Witch

Ultimate Magic:
Magus

Ultimate Combat:
Gunslinger

Psionics Unleashed:
Psion
Psychic Warrior
Soulknife
Wilder

Tome of Battle:
Crusader
Swordsage
Warblade

Magic of Incarnum:
Incarnate
Totemist

[Edit] More classes!

Dragon Magic:
Dragonfire Adept
-BAB as Cleric

Tome of Magic:
Binder

Complete Arcane:
Warlock

Player Handbook 2:
Beguiler

Complete Psionics:
Ardent

Web:
Psychic Rogue (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/psm/20040723b)

[Keld Denar]

Dragonfire Adept (Dragon Magic)
Binder (Tome of Magic)
Factotum (Dungeonscape)

Those 3 are all solid Tier 3s that fit well into Pathfinders paradigm.

[Siosilvar]

A Warlock (CArc) with a standardized Eldritch Blast (1d6 per odd level) and a few extra invocations known might do well enough.

[GoodbyeSoberDay]

Beguiler is one of my favorite base classes in 3.5. Nearly impossible to screw up, solid levels 1-20, thematic and less ridiculous at high levels than other full casters.

[Essence_of_War]

I'm a big fan of the Ardent.

Basically the only good thing to come out of CPsi :smallsmile:

Edit:

It's a little tier-2-y but it should fit comfortably if you're having no problems with the psion or wilder.

[MeeposFire]

I'm a big fan of the Ardent.

Basically the only good thing to come out of CPsi :smallsmile:

Edit:

It's a little tier-2-y but it should fit comfortably if you're having no problems with the psion or wilder.

Mind arrows are fairly nice too but that is a prc.

[subject42]

Dragonfire Adept (Dragon Magic)
Binder (Tome of Magic)
Factotum (Dungeonscape)

Those 3 are all solid Tier 3s that fit well into Pathfinders paradigm.

The only note with regard to DFA is that it violates the Hit Die/BAB progression convention of pathfinder. You'll either want to drop the hit die to d6 or raise the BAB to 3/4.

[MeeposFire]

I like raising the BAB. It would be nice to have a reasonable choice for going melee. I think you could add a BW ability that adds your BW damage on melee attacks thus making a synergy.

Also I think it would be nice to make the pure single element BW adaptions should not count towards the one adaption at a time rule thus improving versatility.

[Coidzor]

Some food for thought in the form of a collected list of balanced T3 classes. (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=174628) (Or maybe just the resulting discussion)

Beguiler, Wildshape Ranger, Factotum...

If you want solid base classes you'll want to consider changing the Fighter into a 2 level prestige class instead.

[AureliusDuPrix]

Alchemist, whilst a solid class, is also one of the most overpowered in pathfinder. The reason? Mutigens. They need to be removed, or at least modified, in my opinion, for the class to be a balanced and fair one. Other than that, there's not much issue with the list.

[BlueInc]

I'll add these to the list!

Dragon Magic:
Dragonfire Adept - DFA Handbook (http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75882/19870954/The_New_Dragonfire_Adept_Handbook!).
-BAB as Cleric or drop HD to a d6.

Tome of Magic:
Binder - Binder Handbook (http://brilliantgameologists.com/boards/index.php?topic=137.0)

Complete Arcane:
Warlock - Warlock Handbook (http://brilliantgameologists.com/boards/index.php?topic=2915.0)

Player Handbook 2:
Beguiler - Beguiler's Handbook (http://brilliantgameologists.com/boards/index.php?topic=2322.0)

Complete Psionics:
Ardent

[Essence_of_War]

Mind arrows are fairly nice too but that is a prc.

How could I forget the soulbow! It has a special place in my heart for vastly improving the stillbirth that was the soulknife! :smallbiggrin:

[Bovine Colonel]

Alchemist, whilst a solid class, is also one of the most overpowered in pathfinder. The reason? Mutigens. They need to be removed, or at least modified, in my opinion, for the class to be a balanced and fair one. Other than that, there's not much issue with the list.

...And what's wrong with mutagens?

[Gwendol]

Knight, PHB II
Duskblade, PHB II

[BlueInc]

Alchemist, whilst a solid class, is also one of the most overpowered in pathfinder. The reason? Mutigens. They need to be removed, or at least modified, in my opinion, for the class to be a balanced and fair one. Other than that, there's not much issue with the list.

Mutagens (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/base-classes/alchemist#TOC-Mutagen-Su-).

Not that powerful. It's kind of like a rage (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/core-classes/barbarian#TOC-Rage-Ex-) that takes an hour to prepare and gives you a penalty on INT, WIS, or CHA.

[Frosty]

Knight, PHB II
Duskblade, PHB II
I dunno...I think that the Cavalier (with certain orders and archetypes) and the Magus kind of make Knight and Duskblade obsolete.

[BlueInc]

I dunno...I think that the Cavalier (with certain orders and archetypes) and the Magus kind of make Knight and Duskblade obsolete.

I don't know enough about the Knight to comment, but I'm pretty sure the Magus is strictly better than the Duskblade.

[Greenish]

Knight has a few rare/unique features, but by and large it's eclipsed by other classes you already have.

[Kansaschaser]

I really like the Artificer (Eberron Campaign Setting), Spirit Shaman (Complete Divine), and the Beguilar (Players Handbook 2).

I have no idea how to convert the Artificer to Pathfinder, and I wish I could find an official Pathfinder Artificer class to use.

[Frosty]

Knight has a few rare/unique features, but by and large it's eclipsed by other classes you already have.Its only worthwhile unique feature is really Test of Mettle. If only it scaled with HD instead of Knight levels... :smallsigh:

In PF, there are a few ways to achieve similar effects, but only against a single target at a time.

[Gwendol]

Bulwark of defence is useful for close-range battlefield control. Not sure it's unique though.
Loyal beyond death is pretty unique and insanely powerful (for a melee base class).

[Shpadoinkle]

I took a look at the knight class and... it just strikes me as being horribly weak. I mean... wow! I get a +1 to hit and Will saves vs. ONE enemy and get kicked while I'm down if he beats me! And it scales really badly!

I get Mounted Combat as a bonus feat, which fighters can do too! Or not, if they want to take something else, because they actually get a choice about it.

I can get hordes of weak enemies who aren't really a threat anyway unless there are hundreds of them to target me instead of my allies! This seems either pointless or suicidal.

Call to Battle (grant an ally another save vs. a fear effect) seems like it could be useful but is gained at level 8.

Daunting Challenge cases the shaken status but is gained at level 12 and the save to avoid it is pretty easy to make.

And as your capstone ability you get a single extra round of actions when you're at negative HP. Wow, you get to be ever slightly more annoying to kill!

People seem to think knights are a decent class but they just look largely ineffective to me. Am I missing something?

[BlueInc]

I took a look at the knight class and... it just strikes me as being horribly weak. I mean... wow! I get a +1 to hit and Will saves vs. ONE enemy and get kicked while I'm down if he beats me! And it scales really badly!

I get Mounted Combat as a bonus feat, which fighters can do too! Or not, if they want to take something else, because they actually get a choice about it.

I can get hordes of weak enemies who aren't really a threat anyway unless there are hundreds of them to target me instead of my allies! This seems either pointless or suicidal.

Call to Battle (grant an ally another save vs. a fear effect) seems like it could be useful but is gained at level 8.

Daunting Challenge cases the shaken status but is gained at level 12 and the save to avoid it is pretty easy to make.

And as your capstone ability you get a single extra round of actions when you're at negative HP. Wow, you get to be ever slightly more annoying to kill!

People seem to think knights are a decent class but they just look largely ineffective to me. Am I missing something?

Those look like great abilities except for all the "buts." Maybe it's a class that deserves a serious Pathfinder makeover like the Paladin?

[Gwendol]

I suggest taking a look at Person Mans Knight Handbook before discounting the Knight class.

You need to read the capstone ability better: one use of knight's challenge keeps you going for one round, and you can keep using them until they're exhausted. So, no, not just one round of extra actions.

[Gnaeus]

People seem to think knights are a decent class but they just look largely ineffective to me. Am I missing something?

You aren't missing anything. You are exactly correct. Knight is weaker than Paladin in 3.5, and (assuming availability of 3.5 feats/spells in PF) therefore much weaker than the upgraded PF paladin. They have a poor job, and they do it poorly.

[Gwendol]

Not the same. The Knight is a Fighter of sorts, not a Paladin.

[Gnaeus]

Not the same. The Knight is a Fighter of sorts, not a Paladin.

Its abilities are closer to paladin. Knight is a tank/survival class, like Paladin, while Fighter is a Damage or battlefield control class. Assuming all 3.5+PF, Paladin with a couple of Tome of Battle feats can duplicate or exceed virtually all the Knight class features, and can do a lot of things that a Knight just can't do.

Cleric or oracle, of course, is strictly better at that job than either one. But that is no surprise.

[Gwendol]

Well, you can't beat cleric.

[Greenish]

Bulwark of defence is useful for close-range battlefield control. Not sure it's unique though.Thicket of Blades has much the same functionality, and if your DM rules it prevents Tumble, is pretty much straight better. Earth Devotion can generate difficult terrain with swift action. There are others.


Loyal beyond death is pretty unique and insanely powerful (for a melee base class).Healers and Truenamers get Gate. It's widely held that a powerful capstone isn't much of a saving grace. Immortal Fortitude isn't quite as good as LBD, but given it comes online five levels earlier and on way better class…

[Dusk Eclipse]

Any of the ToB Classes are great solid classes IMHO; but I think they might be a bit more powerful than the normal melee classes of PF though I am not familiar enough with them to corroborate that.

[BlueInc]

Any of the ToB Classes are great solid classes IMHO; but I think they might be a bit more powerful than the normal melee classes of PF though I am not familiar enough with them to corroborate that.

They're definitely more powerful than Pathfinder's base melee classes, even with the release of Ultimate Combat; they're also already on the list :smallwink:

[Dusk Eclipse]

They're definitely more powerful than Pathfinder's base melee classes, even with the release of Ultimate Combat; they're also already on the list :smallwink:

Missed that in the OP :smallredface:

Well Psychic Rogue (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/psm/20040723b) is also pretty nice; but it might need a bit of tweaking to be on par with the Psionics Unleashed classes

[MeeposFire]

The knight is not worth it. A well made fighter can defend the party better than the knight. Seriously if you want to defend the party with no spells then play a lockdown fighter and call it a day. You will certainly be better off than playing a knight.

[BlueInc]

Missed that in the OP :smallredface:

Well Psychic Rogue (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/psm/20040723b) is also pretty nice; but it might need a bit of tweaking to be on par with the Psionics Unleashed classes

Forgot the Psychic Rogue, thanks.

I feel like it could be a Rogue variant with the PF Ninja as a starting point...

[Gnaeus]

The knight is not worth it. A well made fighter can defend the party better than the knight. Seriously if you want to defend the party with no spells then play a lockdown fighter and call it a day. You will certainly be better off than playing a knight.

Especially in PF where fighter gets to add his weapon training bonus on maneuvers using that weapon.

[Gwendol]

I'm not familiar with the PF fighter, but in 3.5 I'd say the knight is strictly better than the fighter and on par with the barbarian as a "no magic" full-BAB class.

[Curious]

I'm not familiar with the PF fighter, but in 3.5 I'd say the knight is strictly better than the fighter and on par with the barbarian.

Eh, PF Fighter gets a bunch of numerical bonuses which are essentially worthless, but gets to trade them out for such goodies as giving allies bonuses to hit as a swift action, or moving and full attacking.

[Gnaeus]

I'm not familiar with the PF fighter, but in 3.5 I'd say the knight is strictly better than the fighter and on par with the barbarian as a "no magic" full-BAB class.

Not remotely. A well built Barbarian serves the party role of Overwhelming Damage. The knight serves the role of Movable Wall. Overwhelming Damage is useful to all but the very highest optimization levels. Movable Wall is decent, but not necessary at low levels when enemies are likely to engage Movable Wall, and it becomes steadily worse as levels/options available to intelligent enemies increase.

The best way to draw hate in D&D is to be a credible threat. The Knight is one of the least credible threats to a high level opponent in the game.


Eh, PF Fighter gets a bunch of numerical bonuses which are essentially worthless,

If your plan is to do a lot of combat maneuvers, the numerical bonus is likely to help. Personally, I think combat maneuvers are weaker in PF than in 3.5 (this is its own debate, I know), but clearly the fighter is better at them than the knight would be.

[MeeposFire]

I'm not familiar with the PF fighter, but in 3.5 I'd say the knight is strictly better than the fighter and on par with the barbarian as a "no magic" full-BAB class.

Nope look up "A little lock build for you". It is better than the knight in spades and is a fighter20 build to boot (and it requires most of those 20 levels to work though you can give up 4 levels for other stuff or try to buil off of another class that gives double damage). Essentially the fighter can be built to deal double damage punishment on almost any action an enemy takes (or doesn't take too). If you attack the fighter take a double damage AoO. Don't attack the fighter take AoO. Move away AoO. Don't move AoO. Tumble AoO. If you try to get away eat AoO that requires a reflex save to move that is equal to the damage that would have been dealt +10 (which remember is double damage so the save is huge). Cast a spell AoO. Supernatural ability AoO (if you add that feat) or even item use (with a different feat).

The build is nasty. So long as the build can get you in its reach you are in trouble. The best defense against it is to keep yourself out of his reach. This is superior to anything I have ever seen using the knight as the base.

[Gwendol]

Not remotely. A well built Barbarian serves the party role of Overwhelming Damage. The knight serves the role of Movable Wall. Overwhelming Damage is useful to all but the very highest optimization levels. Movable Wall is decent, but not necessary at low levels when enemies are likely to engage Movable Wall, and it becomes steadily worse as levels/options available to intelligent enemies increase.


Let's break the classes down then shall we:

BAB: same
HP: Same HD, but the Barb is likely coming out on top
AC: Knight, by far. Even gets a (minor) shield bonus without using a shield
Mobility: Evens out, though the Knight edges ahead at higher levels when gaining heavy Armor mastery

EDIT: Skills: Barbarian gets more skillpoints

Other class features:

Barbarian
Rage: Iconic Barbarian feature which is the source of overwhelming damage
UD/IUD: Helps with the AC, and against flankers
Trap sense: That's what rogues are for
DR: again, helps with the AC

Knight
Mounted combat (and three more feats along that line): Situational, but highly effective when used. Source of overwhelming damage and superior mobility
Shield block: Minor AC improvement, but since it's shield AC it typically stacks with everything else
Bulwark of defence: Extremely efficient and frustrating for the opposition, especially at the low level it comes into play. Has to be combined with reach to be effective.
Armor mastery: Keeps speed up and thus helps to qualify for feats like leap attack
Vigilant defender: Helps with tumblers, combined with Bulwark of defence it increases the DC and doubles the movement cost, thus making it near impossible for the threatened rogue to reach a flanking position. Not quite as good as IUD.
SA/ISA: Situational, but can be a life saver. Good for keeping the mount alive.
Impetuous endurance: Meh
Knight's challenge: Aggro. Combined with mounted combat or the Knight's relatively decent mobility even on foot, it is used to kite the enemy. It works at "long" (100') range and on everyone able to see or hear the knight (they also need to be "intelligent" and have a language, thus decreasing the utility considerably). The fighting challenge is nice but far from game breaking. The others are ok, but generally better covered by other classes (Cleric, Marshall, Dragon Shaman, etc)


I don't see the major advantage of the barbarian over the knight. The knight gets 4 of the mounted combat feats for free, while the barbarian gains rage. Both are sources of overwhelming damage, and both are somewhat situational.

[Gwendol]

Nope look up "A little lock build for you". It is better than the knight in spades and is a fighter20 build to boot (and it requires most of those 20 levels to work though you can give up 4 levels for other stuff or try to buil off of another class that gives double damage). Essentially the fighter can be built to deal double damage punishment on almost any action an enemy takes (or doesn't take too). If you attack the fighter take a double damage AoO. Don't attack the fighter take AoO. Move away AoO. Don't move AoO. Tumble AoO. If you try to get away eat AoO that requires a reflex save to move that is equal to the damage that would have been dealt +10 (which remember is double damage so the save is huge). Cast a spell AoO. Supernatural ability AoO (if you add that feat) or even item use (with a different feat).

The build is nasty. So long as the build can get you in its reach you are in trouble. The best defense against it is to keep yourself out of his reach. This is superior to anything I have ever seen using the knight as the base.

Looked it up: uses the Thicket of Blades stance from ToB to emulate the Bulwark of defence ability. That's two feats needed for something that is strictly worse than BOD. And it kicks in at level 10, while the Knight has it at level 3. And without aggro, the fighter might find himself standing all alone swinging his ridiculous chain.

But yes, as fighters go it's a good build!

[Tvtyrant]

Let's break the classes down then shall we:

BAB: same
HP: Same HD, but the Barb is likely coming out on top
AC: Knight, by far. Even gets a (minor) shield bonus without using a shield
Mobility: Evens out, though the Knight edges ahead at higher levels when gaining heavy Armor mastery

Other class features:

Barbarian
Rage: Iconic Barbarian feature which is the source of overwhelming damage
UD/IUD: Helps with the AC, and against flankers
Trap sense: That's what rogues are for
DR: again, helps with the AC

Knight
Mounted combat (and three more feats along that line): Situational, but highly effective when used. Source of overwhelming damage and superior mobility
Shield block: Minor AC improvement, but since it's shield AC it typically stacks with everything else
Bulwark of defence: Extremely efficient and frustrating for the opposition, especially at the low level it comes into play. Has to be combined with reach to be effective.
Armor mastery: Keeps speed up and thus helps to qualify for feats like leap attack
Vigilant defender: Helps with tumblers, combined with Bulwark of defence it increases the DC and doubles the movement cost, thus making it near impossible for the threatened rogue to reach a flanking position. Not quite as good as IUD.
SA/ISA: Situational, but can be a life saver. Good for keeping the mount alive.
Impetuous endurance: Meh
Knight's challenge: Aggro. Combined with mounted combat or the Knight's relatively decent mobility even on foot, it is used to kite the enemy. It works at "long" (100') range and on everyone able to see or hear the knight (they also need to be "intelligent" and have a language, thus decreasing the utility considerably). The fighting challenge is nice but far from game breaking. The others are ok, but generally better covered by other classes (Cleric, Marshall, Dragon Shaman, etc)


I don't see the major advantage of the barbarian over the knight. The knight gets 4 of the mounted combat feats for free, while the barbarian gains rage. Both are sources of overwhelming damage, and both are somewhat situational.

The issue with this is your forgetting we assume the Barbarian has traded fast movement for pounce. This makes it automatically better then 90% of melee.

[Gwendol]

Does it? I did not forget it, but Pounce needs a successful charge to kick in, which is situational. Also, I fail to see how Pounce (Full attack, needing to roll X amount of (successively worse) attack rolls) is that much (90%) better than spirited charge (3x damage, one attack roll).

It also means the knight has better mobility.

Besides, taking a page from Jack B. Quick (and similar): Pounce is not necessarily better than forcing all around you to provoke AoO's. And having access to Aggro helps with that as well.

[Wings of Peace]

I'd like to give a shout out to those Sorcerers using True Naming magic from Ultimate Magic. True Naming feels right on a Sorcerer and makes you feel less like wizard-lite and more like a gifted prodigy who weaves spells together based on intuition rather than understanding.

[Greenish]

Looked it up: uses the Thicket of Blades stance from ToB to emulate the Bulwark of defence ability. That's two feats needed for something that is strictly worse than BOD.Thicket of Blades isn't worse than BoD. Sure, it doesn't penalize movement, but it doesn't require the enemies to start their turn in your threatened area to work, either.

Claiming Knight has better mobility than Barbarian is a joke, surely?


Anyway, knight is straight downgrade from crusader. I wouldn't bother porting the former over to PF when you already got the latter.

[Gwendol]

Thicket of Blades isn't worse than BoD. Sure, it doesn't penalize movement, but it doesn't require the enemies to start their turn in your threatened area to work, either.

Claiming Knight has better mobility than Barbarian is a joke, surely?


Anyway, knight is straight downgrade from crusader. I wouldn't bother porting the former over to PF when you already got the latter.


Quite right about ToB, which puts them about equal in utility. My point was really that the fighter build emulates a feature of the Crusader class by burning two feats, while still not being better than the knight. If going for stances then better take levels in Crusader, as it is better than both the fighter and the knight.

If the barbarian trades fast movement for pounce he will have worse mobility, unless in light armor. If, for some reason, the barbarian does not go for pounce, he will still not be more mobile than the knight unless he carries light armor. The knight however can move around in full plate mithral unimpeded (at high enough level).

The subject line of the OP suggests looking at solid base classes from both 3.5 and 3.P. I suggest the Knight is a solid 3.5 base class on par with the barbarian.

[Greenish]

Quite right about ToB, which puts them about equal in utility. My point was really that the fighter build emulates a feature of the Crusader class by burning two feats, while still not being better than the knight.Well, they are fighter bonus feats, and it's not like fighter has any real class features, so if you're comparing it to knight, better to take them into account.


If the barbarian trades fast movement for pounce he will have worse mobility, unless in light armor. If, for some reason, the barbarian does not go for pounce, he will still not be more mobile than the knight unless he carries light armor. The knight however can move around in full plate mithral unimpeded (at high enough level).Why wouldn't the barbarian use light armour?

Anyhow, knight's "armoured mobility" is a 2000 gp slotless item, woohoo.


The subject line of the OP suggests looking at solid base classes from both 3.5 and 3.P. I suggest the Knight is a solid 3.5 base class on par with the barbarian.Well, aside from not being as good as barbarian in it's respective role, knight's role is also less useful than barbarian's. Not to mention that barbarian is perhaps the best class in it's niche, while knight pales in comparison to the contenders in it's own niche.

[Gwendol]

Well, they are fighter bonus feats, and it's not like fighter has any real class features, so if you're comparing it to knight, better to take them into account.

I did. And it is still not better.


Why wouldn't the barbarian use light armour?

I don't know. Maybe he wants better AC?


Well, aside from not being as good as barbarian in it's respective role, knight's role is also less useful than barbarian's. Not to mention that barbarian is perhaps the best class in it's niche, while knight pales in comparison to the contenders in it's own niche.

How is that? You are stating opinions without bothering present anything to support them. I made a comparison of the two classes a few posts back; you are welcome to disect it.
What role do they fullfil, and what is a niche? I compare the knight to the barbarian, (and fighter, but that's not really the point here) why start discussing the possibility of dragging in other classes?

[Gnaeus]

:smallfurious:
Must refute Gwendol! Must prepare for court!

OK, hold that thought. Back later.

[Greenish]

I did. And it is still not better.Well, it's a fighter, what did you expect? :smalltongue:

I'm not convinced it's worse than knight, though.

I don't know. Maybe he wants better AC?Meh, medium armour isn't significantly better than light*, and he isn't proficient with heavy anyway.

*By the time you can afford mithral full plate, stacking AC isn't very efficient, especially for a facesmasher like barbarian. Also, chain shirt + dastana + chahar-aina > breastplate, but that's really not here nor there.


How is that? You are stating opinions without bothering present anything to support them. I made a comparison of the two classes a few posts back; you are welcome to disect it.Knight has two relevant class features (three with the capstone), geared for tanking. Barbarian really only has one relevant class feature, Rage, geared for smashing face, but as a core class they've got ACFs coming out of their ears.

That seems to be in knight's favour, right? Well, yeah, if defense was as valuable as offense. It's not.

What role do they fullfil, and what is a niche?Why do you even have to ask? Barbarian is an offensive face-smasher, knight is a defensive tank. Those are their basic roles (though barb can branch out) and their respective niches.


I compare the knight to the barbarian, (and fighter, but that's not really the point here) why start discussing the possibility of dragging in other classes?Because the other classes are already on the table. The OP has said, for example, that Duskblades won't be making it to the list since there is already a superior option, magus, and he doesn't want trap options. So, what excuse do you have for not dragging in other classes, especially when one of them occupies the exact same role as knight, but does it way better?


[Edit]: Now, don't get me wrong, I actually kinda like the knight. I just don't feel it'd be a useful addition to OPs game, as the things stand.

[Gwendol]

And I suggest that the Knight fulfills the role of face smasher when mounted. Including aggro and mobility. And tank. He's more versatile in that respect (though the barbarian has other advantages as well, like more skill points).

Aggro and free mounted combat: those are not defensive options. They are tactical and offensive, respectively.

BoD is defensive, sure, but you'll enjoy it three levels before Pounce can come into play.

I enjoy playing both classes, I just don't see how rage/pounce can be that superior to mounted combat/battlefield control/aggro.

Edit: Noted. I'm stopping here as I've really exhausted my arguments :-)

[Greenish]

Fighting with a mount trained to war is DC 5 ride check. Many, many classes have Ride as a class skill. That's hardly unique to knight (okay, burning your bonus feats for it, you'll get Spirited Charge at level 10, congratulations).

The taunt mechanic is, defined narrowly enough, unique, but as a control option something that offers a save, doesn't actually hinder opponents' offense and stops working when any of your allies so much as touches the target leaves much to be desired. In other words, it's neat but not that big a deal.

BoD comes online two levels after Pounce. Iteratives aren't the only source of extra attacks. :smalltongue:

[Frosty]

Even if Crusader isn't being ported over, I think Knight and Cavalier will step on each other's toes too much anyways. the Knight is not needed in PF.

[BlueInc]

...wow, did not expect this much of a debate to have risen XD

What book is the Knight in? I feel like it's got enough support that it's worth a look.

[Dsurion]

...wow, did not expect this much of a debate to have risen XD

What book is the Knight in? I feel like it's got enough support that it's worth a look.That'd be Player's Handbook 2. See for yourself (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/ex/20060501a&page=2).

[BlueInc]

Hmm...it's not that bad a class, all said and done. It needs a little work (maybe replace Mounted Combat with "any bonus feat; you must meet the requirements of this feat"), but it's definitely usable.

[Gnaeus]

Let's break the classes down then shall we:

BAB: same
HP: Same HD, but the Barb is likely coming out on top
AC: Knight, by far. Even gets a (minor) shield bonus without using a shield
Mobility: Evens out, though the Knight edges ahead at higher levels when gaining heavy Armor mastery

EDIT: Skills: Barbarian gets more skillpoints

Other class features:

Barbarian
Rage: Iconic Barbarian feature which is the source of overwhelming damage
UD/IUD: Helps with the AC, and against flankers
Trap sense: That's what rogues are for
DR: again, helps with the AC

Knight
Mounted combat (and three more feats along that line): Situational, but highly effective when used. Source of overwhelming damage and superior mobility
Shield block: Minor AC improvement, but since it's shield AC it typically stacks with everything else
Bulwark of defence: Extremely efficient and frustrating for the opposition, especially at the low level it comes into play. Has to be combined with reach to be effective.

Vigilant defender: Helps with tumblers, combined with Bulwark of defence it increases the DC and doubles the movement cost, thus making it near impossible for the threatened rogue to reach a flanking position. Not quite as good as IUD.
SA/ISA: Situational, but can be a life saver. Good for keeping the mount alive.
Impetuous endurance: Meh
Knight's challenge: Aggro. Combined with mounted combat or the Knight's relatively decent mobility even on foot, it is used to kite the enemy. It works at "long" (100') range and on everyone able to see or hear the knight (they also need to be "intelligent" and have a language, thus decreasing the utility considerably). The fighting challenge is nice but far from game breaking. The others are ok, but generally better covered by other classes (Cleric, Marshall, Dragon Shaman, etc)


I don't see the major advantage of the barbarian over the knight. The knight gets 4 of the mounted combat feats for free, while the barbarian gains rage. Both are sources of overwhelming damage, and both are somewhat situational.

1. It is much easier for the barbarian to charge than it is for the knight.

A charging barbarian needs level ground and a straight line. If he has flight, he can skip the level ground. There are multiple feats, skill tricks, etc that let him ignore the straight line.

A charging mounted knight needs the same things, + a mount. Therefore, he cannot charge in most dungeons, castles, tombs, or any of the other places where adventurers go where he cannot take a mount. He also needs his mount to be ALIVE, and aside from making ride checks, he has no particular ability to keep his heavy warhorse from being obliterated from an AOE attack. In fact, the likelihood that enemy casters may be forced to include him in their AOEs means that his horse is unusually likely to die.

(Compare with the paladin, who can magically pull a special mount out of his pocket when he needs to go into battle, and whose mount is naturally hardier than the Knight's horse, and whose mount has evasion, the paladin's saves, and SR, and who has a spell to allow his mount to fly. Mounted charge paladins are good, mounted charge knights aren't.)

2 A charging Barbarian is more effective than a charging mounted Knight. The basic shock-trooper barbarian makes multiple attacks on a charge with full power attack at his full base attack bonus, while dealing huge damage multipliers without significantly reducing his chance to hit. The knight, relying on one attack at triple damage, is significantly more vulnerable to a single low roll. The barbarian can kill multiple nearby enemies with one charge. The Knight...can't. The Barbarian can tumble while charging, avoiding AOOs. The Knight's horse probably can't, and when it dies or gets yanked out from beneath you you have turned back into a worthless hunk of metal. Assuming that the Knight has fallen into the default trap for the low-op Knight, the knight is likely to be using a shield, dropping his damage through the floor (the high op Knight will have a buckler or animated shield). If the barbarian gets into combat, he can also deal devastating full round attacks with his rage induced strength and 2h weapon. The knight is much more likely to be relying on the charge to be an effective damage dealer.

3. Dipping classes and PRCs is the easiest way to make a powerful melee character. The barbarian is very good at this, with a number of formidable rage-type PRCs, and few real drawbacks to dipping. The Knight class abilities, like his challenge, are level based, so any significant dipping makes his special abilities even more useless than they are to begin with.

4. Aside from rage, the barbarian really only needs strength, and to a lesser extent constitution, to do his job. The knight requires those same stats, + charisma. That means that the barbarian is likely to have a higher to hit and damage than the knight even before raging.

5. The barbarian benefits significantly from several core combat buffs, like polymorph or enlarge person. If you polymorph a Barbarian into a huge giant, he becomes a tower of rage demolishing your enemies. If you polymorph a Knight into a huge giant, he can no longer do his mounted combat schtick.

6. Support. Barbarian has dozens of excellent ACF's, rage related feats, Magic Items, PRC's, Substitution Levels, ect, many of which are better than base class. Knight has very little in the way of splat support.


Armor mastery: Keeps speed up and thus helps to qualify for feats like leap attack

Which you may or may not be able to do while mounted. DM's call, YMMV.

Calling Knight's Challenge aggro is a significant overstatement. It requires charisma expenditure, more-or-less no dipping, a will save, and other limitations simply to make the enemy want to hurt you IF THEY CHOOSE TO ATTACK. Since we are talking about pathfinder, it is MUCH worse than the antagonize feat, which is much easier to optimize and actually requires the enemy to try to attack you in melee.

[ZombiePunch]

Scout
Dread Necromancer
Favored Soul

[Glimbur]

Both base classes in Magic of Incarnum are pretty flexible and can do things. Totemist competes with druid for king of natural attacks, and Totemist can't dump physical stats and isn't a full caster so they are more tame than Druids are. Incarnates can do a variety of skills with little notice, and they have interesting support and defensive abilities with soulmelds. They have a handful of offensive soulmelds, which is a little disappointing, but they have ways and means to attack regular AC despite 1/2 BAB. Soulborn never happened, I swear.

[Greenish]

Both base classes in Magic of Incarnum are pretty flexible and can do things. Totemist competes with druid for king of natural attacks, and Totemist can't dump physical stats and isn't a full caster so they are more tame than Druids are. Incarnates can do a variety of skills with little notice, and they have interesting support and defensive abilities with soulmelds. They have a handful of offensive soulmelds, which is a little disappointing, but they have ways and means to attack regular AC despite 1/2 BAB.While you are spot-on with your descriptions, both of the MoI classes were already mentioned in the OP.

[sreservoir]

ardent is fairly solid, especially if you interpret it to be able to multiclass with negligible penalty.

[Hiro Protagonest]

Soulborn never happened, I swear.

What's Soulborn? :P

Also, I know a way to improve the stealth of your text!

White Text.

Transparent Text.

[hex0]

I'll probably get some flack for this, but Dragon Shaman. Duskblade too.

[MeeposFire]

I'll probably get some flack for this, but Dragon Shaman. Duskblade too.

Duskblade sure as it could be the more martial version of the magus (just add some spells and maybe a feature or two) dragon shaman is a no. They are bad. It is better to just cannibalize their better parts and give it to the dragonfire adept.

[subject42]

Duskblade sure as it could be the more martial version of the magus (just add some spells and maybe a feature or two) dragon shaman is a no. They are bad. It is better to just cannibalize their better parts and give it to the dragonfire adept.

Has anyone figured out the Dragon Shaman's intended role? If so, is there any good homebrew for it?

[MeeposFire]

Has anyone figured out the Dragon Shaman's intended role? If so, is there any good homebrew for it?

Its role is mostly thematic but it is a party buffer, party healer/status effect remover, and cleric without spells melee combatant with a thematic breath weapon for kicks.

Take the dragonfire adept. Give it the healing touch abilities, the ability to use meta breath feats, free auras, moderate BAB, and totem dragon. Fun looking class with useful abilities.

[Shpadoinkle]

I did some tinkering to make the dragon shaman less... well, sucky. They're still fairly limited in what they can accomplish, but they have a better chance of being something close to approaching competent now.

Increase their aura bonus by 1 at every odd level, and they get their breath weapon at level 2 (1d6 damage, range is half what it is when they normally get it, but upgrades when they would normally get their breath weapon, which I think it at level 4.)

At level 5 they get the ability to take a Dragonfire Adept invocation when they would normally learn a new aura, but their caster level for it is their DS level -4.

Their number of auras known doesn't stop at 7, it continues progressing at the same rate it was.

They also get martial weapon, heavy armor, buckler, small, and large shield proficiency.

What role do dragon shamans fill? I see them as support/second string melee characters, basically what the cleric was in previous editions (and what he was supposed to be in 3.Xe.)

Doesn't this make them kind of redundant with Dragonfire Adepts? Not really. They're similar, but still different- in much the same way druids and barbarians aren't redundant because clerics and fighters exist.

[hex0]

I did some tinkering to make the dragon shaman less... well, sucky. They're still fairly limited in what they can accomplish, but they have a better chance of being something close to approaching competent now.

In my game, they get spellcasting as a half-caster like the Spellthief, Natural Armor and Aura bonuses advance one level faster, instead of skill focus they start with draconic heritage and choose any draconic feats instead (DS level counts as 1/2 sorcerer for feats). At level 10 and 20 they get +1 STR, CON, and CHA. Overpowered?