Those of You With Power, Fear Us! Those of You Without It, Rally Behind Us! (PEACH)

[NeoSeraphi]

The Knight

http://i615.photobucket.com/albums/tt233/macriz05/_CODE%20GEASS/1260132251499.jpg
The cape isn't necessary, but it is definitely encouraged



"We of the Black Knights stand with all those who have no weapons to wield…regardless of whether they be Elevens or Britannians! The Japan Liberation Front cowardly took innocent Britannian civilians hostage, and they mercilessly executed them! It was a wanton and meaningless act; therefore, they have been punished just as former Viceroy Clovis was punished for ordering the slaughter of countless unarmed Elevens. We cannot stand by and allow such cruelty to be carried out, and so we made him pay for his actions. I will not repudiate battle on a fair and level field, but neither will I tolerate a one-sided massacre of the weak by the strong. The only ones who should kill are those who are prepared to be killed! Wherever oppressors abuse their power by attacking those who are powerless, we shall appear again, no matter how mighty or formidable our foe may be! Those of you with power, fear us! Those of you without it, rally behind us! We, the Black Knights, shall be the ones who stand in judgment of this world!"- Zero, Code Geass


Alignment: Any
HD: d12
Class Skills: The knight's class skills are Autohypnosis, Bluff, Climb, Concentration, Craft, Diplomacy, Gather Information, Intimidate, Jump, Knowledge (Nobility and Royalty), Listen, Profession, Sense Motive, Spot, and Swim.
Skill Points: 4+Int per level, x4 at 1st level

{table=head]Level|Base Attack Bonus|Fort Save|Ref Save|Will Save|Special

1st|+1|+2|+0|+2|Knight's Challenge, Strike of Virtue +1d10

2nd|+2|+3|+0|+3|Stance of the Vanguard

3rd|+3|+3|+1|+3|Guided Strike, Fearful Smite

4th|+4|+4|+1|+4|Mettle

5th|+5|+4|+1|+4|Defensive Rebuke, Strike of Virtue +2d10

6th|+6/+1|+5|+2|+5|Chivalrous Reactions, Heart of Valor

7th|+7/+2|+5|+2|+5|Blade of Conviction, Weakening Blow

8th|+8/+3|+6|+2|+6|Superior Tactics

9th|+9/+4|+6|+3|+6|Strength of Body

10th|+10/+5|+7|+3|+7|Lockdown Strike, Strike of Virtue +3d10

11th|+11/+6/+1|+7|+3|+7|Improved Mettle

12th|+12/+7/+2|+8|+4|+8|Preemptive Retribution

13th|+13/+8/+3|+8|+4|+8|Ring the Bell

14th|+14/+9/+4|+9|+4|+9|I'll Save You!

15th|+15/+10/+5|+9|+5|+9|Don't Touch Them!, Strike of Virtue +4d10

16th|+16/+11/+6/+1|+10|+5|+10|Enfeebling Assault

17th|+17/+12/+7/+2|+10|+5|+10|Stance of the Aegis

18th|+18/+13/+8/+3|+11|+6|+11|Tactical Interruption

19th|+19/+14/+9/+4|+11|+6|+11|Black Blade of Disaster

20th|+20/+15/+10/+5|+12|+6|+12|Flurry of Steel, Strike of Virtue +5d10

[/table]

Class Features: All of the following are the knight's class features.

Weapon and Armor Proficiency: Knights are proficient with all simple and martial weapons, and with light, medium, and heavy armor, as well as all shields (including all exotic shields and tower shields).

Knight's Challenge (Ex): A knight's devotion to his allies allows him to protect them more easily. By issuing a challenge to his foe, a knight is able to distract it enough that it hesitates. As a swift action, a knight may target one enemy creature within 60 ft. The creature must be able to see or hear the knight's challenge. Thereafter, the creature takes a penalty on its attack rolls against the knight's allies (but not the knight himself) equal to half the knight's class level (minimum -1). This ability lasts for one round per class level. A knight can affect multiple creatures with his challenge at the same time, but only one per swift action (Just because the duration for one creature's challenge is up doesn't mean that the knight can't challenge a different creature next round). This penalty does not stack with itself. This ability is neither mind-affecting nor language dependent.

Strike of Virtue (Ex): When a knight lashes out against his foes in order to protect his friends, his blade is charged with righteous fury. Whenever a knight makes an attack of opportunity against a creature who threatens one or more of the knight's allies (not including the knight), he deals an extra +1d10 points of damage. This damage is not multiplied on a critical hit. This damage is not precision damage, and creatures immune to Sneak Attacks or critical hits are not immune to Strike of Virtue. At 5th level, and every 5 levels after that, the damage from Strike of Virtue increases by another +1d10, to a maximum of +5d10 at 20th level.

Stance of the Vanguard (Ex): A knight's stance is very threatening, and he is able to use that power to draw attention to himself. Starting at 2nd level, whenever a knight flanks a creature with his ally, the creature he flanks takes a morale penalty on attack rolls made against the ally the knight is flanking with equal to half the knight's class level (minimum of -1).

Guided Strike (Ex): Beginning at 3rd level, a knight may add his Constitution modifier to his attack rolls instead of his Strength modifier.

Fearful Smite (Ex): A knight is a deadly warrior, and with a single blow he can strike fear into the hearts of other creatures. Starting at 3rd level, as a standard action, a knight may make a single melee attack at his highest attack bonus. If his attack hits and deals damage, he may make a demoralize check against the creature as a free action, with a +4 bonus on the check. If his demoralize check succeeds, the creature is shaken for the duration of the encounter. After a knight uses this ability, he may not attempt his Fearful Smite attack against that same creature for 24 hours.

Mettle (Ex): A knight's brute toughness and his strong will allow him to shrug off magical effects that target his body and mind with ease. Starting at 4th level, whenever the knight succeeds on a saving throw with a Fortitude Partial or Will Half (or vice versa) effect, he instead takes no effect.

Defensive Rebuke (Ex): A knight's quick thinking can allow him to strike his foe before his foe has a chance to finish off an ally. Beginning at 5th level, whenever a creature the knight threatens attacks one of the knight's allies (but not the knight himself), the creature provokes an attack of opportunity from the knight. This applies once to each attack a creature makes against a knight's ally per round (so a creature making three attacks would provoke three separate attacks of opportunity from the knight).

Chivalrous Reactions (Ex): Starting at 6th level, a knight adds his Constitution modifier (if positive) to the number of attacks of opportunity he is able to make per round. Additionally, the knight may add his Constitution modifier to his initiative modifier instead of his Dexterity modifier. The knight may also qualify for feats and prestige classes as if he had the Combat Reflexes feat, and may also substitute his Constitution score for any minimum Dexterity score requirements in those feats. (If the knight actually has the Combat Reflexes feat, the bonus attacks of opportunity per round from that feat stack with the bonus attacks from this class feature)

Heart of Valor (Ex): A knight will never retreat and never surrender, unless it is a tactically advantageous option. Beginning at 6th level, the knight is immune to fear, magical or mundane.

Blade of Conviction (Ex): Beginning at 7th level, the knight may add his Constitution modifier to his melee weapon damage rolls instead of his Strength modifier.

Weakening Blow (Ex): A knight's strike can cut so deep it causes a creature to lose all its strength. Starting at 7th level, as a standard action, a knight may make a single melee attack at his highest attack bonus. If his attack hits and deals damage, the creature must make a Fortitude save (DC 10+1/2 the knight's class level+the knight's Constitution modifier) or be nauseated for 1 round. A successful save renders the creature merely sickened for 1 round. After using Weakening Blow, a knight must wait 1d4 rounds before attempting it again. Even if the knight's attack roll missed or his attack dealt no damage, he must still wait 1d4 rounds before attempting Weakening Blow again.

Superior Tactics (Ex): Starting at 8th level, enemy creatures treat all squares the knight threatens as difficult terrain. Enemy creatures may not run or charge through these squares, nor may they take 5' steps while occupying one of these squares. Additionally, no creature the knight threatens may take the Cast Defensively option.

Strength of Body (Ex): The knight's natural healthiness is extraordinary, and extends to both his reflexes and his ability to resist mental control. From 9th level on, the knight adds his Constitution modifier to all his saving throws (he adds it to his Fortitude saving throw twice).

Lockdown Strike (Ex): Starting at 10th level, as a standard action, a knight may make a single melee attack at his highest attack bonus. If he hits and deals damage, the creature he struck must make a Reflex saving throw (DC 10+1/2 the knight's class level+ the knight's Constitution modifier) or take a penalty to all forms of its movement speed equal to -10' per 2 class levels (minimum -10', maximum -100' at level 20). A flying creature whose fly speed is reduced to 0' begins to fall. This penalty to movement speeds lasts for 1 round, +1 round per 4 class levels (maximum of 6 rounds at level 20). After using Lockdown Strike, a knight must wait 1d4 rounds before using it again. Even if the knight's attack roll missed or he dealt no damage, he must wait the required 1d4 rounds before attempting Lockdown Strike again.

Improved Mettle (Ex): As Mettle, except that the knight takes only the Partial or Half effect on a failed save.

Preemptive Retribution (Ex): A knight's reflexes are truly legendary. Starting at 12th level, a creature provokes an attack of opportunity from the knight for entering a square he threatens (in addition to moving through or leaving squares the knight threatens).

Ring the Bell (Ex): As a standard action, a knight of 13th level or higher may make a single melee attack at his highest attack bonus. If the attack hits and deals damage, the creature the knight struck must make a Will save (DC 10+1/2 the knight's class level+his Constitution modifier) or be dazed for 1 round. After using this ability, even if the attack missed or dealt no damage, the knight must wait 1d4 rounds before attempting Ring the Bell again.

I'll Save You! (Ex): As an immediate action, a knight of at least 14th level may spend an attack of opportunity to move towards an ally within his movement speed (so up to 30' away for a human knight in light or no armor, etc). As part of this action, the ally may take a 5' step, and the knight occupies his ally's former square(s) (as many of them as he can). If the knight used this ability to interrupt a creature's attack, the knight becomes the new target of the attack, and gains a +4 morale bonus to his AC and saving throws against this one attack due to his strong passion to protect his friends. If the ally refuses to move, the knight occupies the square(s) closest to him/her and the ability ends.

Don't Touch Them! (Ex): Beginning at 15th level, whenever a knight makes an attack of opportunity that qualifies for and uses his Strike of Virtue ability, the knight may use any of the following special attacks as part of that attack of opportunity: Fearful Smite, Weakening Blow, Lockdown Strike, Ring the Bell, Enfeebling Assault, Black Blade of Disaster. The knight must be able to use the ability normally in order to add it to his attack of opportunity (he must be of a high enough level to already have the class feature, and it must be available and not currently in cooldown).

Enfeebling Assault (Ex): A high-level knight's strikes remove a creature's last shreds of fighting spirit and bring it to its knees. Starting at 16th level, as a standard action a knight may make a single melee attack at his highest attack bonus. If the attack hits and deals damage, the creature must make a Fortitude save (DC 10+1/2 the knight's class level+the knight's Constitution modifier) or become exhausted. If the creature makes its saving throw, it instead becomes fatigued, or exhausted if it was already fatigued. If an exhausted creature fails its saving throw against Enfeebling Assault, the creature falls unconscious for one minute. After using Enfeebling Assault, even if the attack missed or dealt no damage, the knight must wait 1d4 rounds before attempting it again.

Stance of the Aegis (Ex): Beginning at 17th level, all allies within 30 feet of the knight who can see and hear him (excluding himself) receive a morale bonus to their AC equal to the knight's Constitution modifier (minimum +0)

Tactical Interruption (Ex): From 18th level on, whenever a knight successfully hits and deals damage to a creature with an attack of opportunity, that creature is unable to use full-round actions for 1 round. (It still has a swift, move, and standard/move action, but cannot use a full-round action, such as to make a full attack action or to cast a spell with a casting time of longer than 1 standard action).

Black Blade of Disaster (Ex): At 19th level, a knight learns his deadliest skill. As a standard action, the knight may make a single melee attack at his highest attack bonus. If he hits and deals damage, the creature must make a Fortitude save (DC 10+1/2 the knight's class level+the knight's Constitution modifier) or die. On a failed saving throw, the creature instead takes an extra 20d6 points of damage. A knight may only use Black Blade of Disaster once per encounter.

Flurry of Steel (Ex): The master knight is a ferocious warrior who is able to slay a creature before its jaws ever reach him or his allies. At 20th level, whenever a creature provokes an attack of opportunity from the knight, the knight may make a full-round attack against the creature. This still only consumes one of the knight's attacks of opportunity for the round.

[NeoSeraphi]

No one has an opinion?

[Maquise]

Mind you, I'm still fairly novice, but here's my thoughts:

All and all, looks a good tanking class, including abilities to "draw aggro." No dead levels, so that's good. A bit weird that it gets autohypnosis as a skill despite not being psionic, but I'm not sure if that's bad, just different. Flurry of Steel seems kind of weak as a capstone, though.

[NeoSeraphi]

Mind you, I'm still fairly novice, but here's my thoughts:

All and all, looks a good tanking class, including abilities to "draw aggro." No dead levels, so that's good. A bit weird that it gets autohypnosis as a skill despite not being psionic, but I'm not sure if that's bad, just different. Flurry of Steel seems kind of weak as a capstone, though.

Have you actually looked at the Autohypnosis skill (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/psionic/skills/autohypnosis.htm)? It involves using force of will to resist dying or fear, as well as to resist poison. I personally see no reason why it should be psionic-only (and it's not). I think it makes much more sense in the hands of a skillful, disciplined warrior than a psion.

[katarl]

Constitution to attack, damage, initiative, saves, ac?

I really don't like that idea, not only does it lead to SAD (single-attribute dependency), but it doesn't really fit the knight concept at all, except maybe from a mmo perspective. Lelouch is an ironic choice for an example, in this case, given his levels of stamina.

It's a beautifully written class in other ways, but it doesn't just stray from the fluff- it makes a hasted full action running in another direction. A battlefield-controlling tank is a great idea, but there is too much focus on constitution, and too little on being a 'knight'. Charisma would be a better choice than constitution, but adding any ability to attack/damage/initiative/saves/ac, all at once is never going to be a good idea.

Concerning the core theme of protecting your allies- with all the penalties a knight gives an opponent- why would they attack them? Every class feature linked to this only reinforces this, rather than punishing the opponent for doing what you want them to. Give the knight one powerful deny/control ability to protect allies, and supplement this with a few similar abilities at later levels- everything else should be thematic, improve tanking or punish an opponent for attacking you.

Abilities such as weakening blow and black blade are neither related to the knight theme, or the controller/tank role, and aren't needed.

Maquise said it first, but Autohypnosis? Really?

4+ skills, d12, good bab and two good saves are also a bit high, given the power of the class features, as well. Perhaps not after ToB, though, come to think of it, if that's your benchmark.

There's a really excellent class here, but the concept is schizophrenic, and the abilities definitely need some trimming down.

[NeoSeraphi]

Constitution to attack, damage, initiative, saves, ac?

I really don't like that idea, not only does it lead to SAD (single-attribute dependency), but it doesn't really fit the knight concept at all, except maybe from a mmo perspective. Lelouch is an ironic choice for an example, in this case, given his levels of stamina.

I personally feel like a tank should be SAD. If you're going to spend your entire build focusing around protecting your allies, you deserve to get cut a little slack. And yeah, Lelouch doesn't really fit that whole Con-based persona, I just think he's a pretty cool guy.

Edit: Stance of the Aegis does not apply to the knight himself, by the way. Updated the OP to reflect this, but he does not get Con to AC.




It's a beautifully written class in other ways, but it doesn't just stray from the fluff- it makes a hasted full action running in another direction. A battlefield-controlling tank is a great idea, but there is too much focus on constitution, and too little on being a 'knight'. Charisma would be a better choice than constitution, but adding any ability to attack/damage/initiative/saves/ac, all at once is never going to be a good idea.


Charisma is a terrible ability score. It does nothing for a warrior except influences Intimidate. Constitution is a much better score to focus on, as it allows the knight to be SAD (which was my goal) and represents the power of a bulky, strong character rather than a strong-willed character. This guy isn't divine, he doesn't draw power from his "force of personality" or anything like that.



Concerning the core theme of protecting your allies- with all the penalties a knight gives an opponent- why would they attack them? Every class feature linked to this only reinforces this, rather than punishing the opponent for doing what you want them to. Give the knight one powerful deny/control ability to protect allies, and supplement this with a few similar abilities at later levels- everything else should be thematic, improve tanking or punish an opponent for attacking you.


Why should you punish an enemy for attacking you? If the enemy attacking you is bad for them, they won't be attacking you, and that's what you want them to do! You want them to attack you, so you make it practically impossible to attack your allies instead. As long as the enemy focuses on you, your allies can mop him up while staying alive, and you have plenty of options for knocking him down a few pegs.



Abilities such as weakening blow and black blade are neither related to the knight theme, or the controller/tank role, and aren't needed.


They are definitely needed. If you don't have any active abilities, you just sit around and full attack. It's boring and pointless.



Maquise said it first, but Autohypnosis? Really?


I think it's a perfectly fitting skill. It has absolutely nothing to do with psionics, other than being printed in that book.



4+ skills, d12, good bab and two good saves are also a bit high, given the power of the class features, as well. Perhaps not after ToB, though, come to think of it, if that's your benchmark.


It is, in fact.

[Othesemo]

hmm... looks good. Sorry that I can't give any more than that, but I'm on a schedule. Maybe I'll have more when I get back.

Now I can't wait to make an arctic dwarven Knight 9/Deepwarden 2.

[NeoSeraphi]

hmm... looks good. Sorry that I can't give any more than that, but I'm on a schedule. Maybe I'll have more when I get back.

Now I can't wait to make an arctic dwarven Knight 9/Deepwarden 2.

Why thank you! Enjoy the class, let me know how it goes.

[katarl]

I personally feel like a tank should be SAD. If you're going to spend your entire build focusing around protecting your allies, you deserve to get cut a little slack. And yeah, Lelouch doesn't really fit that whole Con-based persona, I just think he's a pretty cool guy.

Charisma is a terrible ability score. It does nothing for a warrior except influences Intimidate. Constitution is a much better score to focus on, as it allows the knight to be SAD (which was my goal) and represents the power of a bulky, strong character rather than a strong-willed character. This guy isn't divine, he doesn't draw power from his "force of personality" or anything like that.

Why should you punish an enemy for attacking you? If the enemy attacking you is bad for them, they won't be attacking you, and that's what you want them to do! You want them to attack you, so you make it practically impossible to attack your allies instead. As long as the enemy focuses on you, your allies can mop him up while staying alive, and you have plenty of options for knocking him down a few pegs.

They are definitely needed. If you don't have any active abilities, you just sit around and full attack. It's boring and pointless.

I think it's a perfectly fitting skill. It has absolutely nothing to do with psionics, other than being printed in that book.

It is, in fact.

1 and 2: 'course, but I don't understand why a knight should specialise in constitution specifically, fluff-wise it's no more important than strength. In the case of Lelouch, the example, it doesn't fit either, clearly an INT type. Charisma would be the better fit for the class, even if it's suboptimal from a power-building perspective, or better still, drop the SAD, and be level-based instead.

3 and 4 are related, you definitely can't have a post ToB class dealing full attacks without help, can you? However, one-off abilities aren't the answer, they step on other classes' toes, running around without a concept, and leave the player in doubt about what he's playing. If this is a tank class, and given the existing class features, then retributive attacks are the obvious choice.

5: Not the biggest problem here, but an odd choice nonetheless, and a thri-kreen leap out of the way of canon.

6: No problems here.

Overall, it does an awful lot more than tank and control, and doesn't sacrifice anything to be able to do it. It has good skills and a superb list, d12, full bab, SAD like a mage, does tons of DPS and debuff, is highly mobile, controls the opponent with intimitank abilities and lockdown and buffs his allies at the same time. It's everything at once, and it isn't a bard, so that can't be good.

[NeoSeraphi]

1 and 2: 'course, but I don't understand why a knight should specialise in constitution specifically, fluff-wise it's no more important than strength. In the case of Lelouch, the example, it doesn't fit either, clearly an INT type. Charisma would be the better fit for the class, even if it's suboptimal from a power-building perspective, or better still, drop the SAD, and be level-based instead.

I absolutely do not see why Charisma would be a better fit for the knight, at all. Charisma is a skill used by characters with divine gifts or people who are engaging in social activities. Why would a completely mundane character be able to draw on his force of personality to be able to hit better? Please, explain why you feel that Charisma is a "better fit", because it's really not.



3 and 4 are related, you definitely can't have a post ToB class dealing full attacks without help, can you? However, one-off abilities aren't the answer, they step on other classes' toes, running around without a concept, and leave the player in doubt about what he's playing. If this is a tank class, and given the existing class features, then retributive attacks are the obvious choice.


So then what is the answer, huh? Take all the abilities out and leave the character with nothing to do but a single boring attack every round? He's already got retributive attacks, but retributive attacks are completely foe-dependent, which means you'd be relying on your DM to enjoy yourself, and if your DM is playing the monster intelligently, it's attacking you, which is what you want it to do, and then you can't punish it at all.

Having abilities that both punish it for attacking you and your opponent, that would leave the player in doubt about what he's playing. So really, there's no way to solve this other than giving him some nice debuffing attacks, at least as far as I can see.


Overall, it does an awful lot more than tank and control, and doesn't sacrifice anything to be able to do it. It has good skills and a superb list, d12, full bab, SAD like a mage, does tons of DPS and debuff, is highly mobile, controls the opponent with intimitank abilities and lockdown and buffs his allies at the same time. It's everything at once, and it isn't a bard, so that can't be good.

Actually, I think that's great. It's everything a knight needs to be effective. Melee control, with a very small amount of buff (one ability), a few debuffs to keep your opponents down, enough DPS to be relevant at high levels, and skills to be relevant out of combat. Sounds like a total success to me.

Seriously, it's pretty much just like a crusader, but without using maneuvers. I don't see why you think it's "overpowered".

[Yitzi]

What's a class based on that quote doing with Alignment: Any? It is pretty much anathema to Lawful Evil, and so at the very least that alignment should be banned. I'd say require Chaotic or Good.

[NeoSeraphi]

What's a class based on that quote doing with Alignment: Any? It is pretty much anathema to Lawful Evil, and so at the very least that alignment should be banned. I'd say require Chaotic or Good.

I actually seriously considered an alignment restriction, but in the end I decided that all alignments could have the desire and drive to protect their friends. Really, that quote is just there to give the feel of the class, standing up for what you believe is justice (which encompasses all alignments but neutral, really) and protecting the weak and the innocent, while punishing the strong.

Edit: By the way, it may shock you to learn this, but the class isn't actually based on the quote. :smallbiggrin: I wrote this entire class before I found a quote for it, so yeah...I didn't like, base the knight off Lelouch specifically or anything.

[katarl]

I absolutely do not see why Charisma would be a better fit for the knight, at all. Charisma is a skill used by characters with divine gifts or people who are engaging in social activities. Why would a completely mundane character be able to draw on his force of personality to be able to hit better? Please, explain why you feel that Charisma is a "better fit", because it's really not.

So then what is the answer, huh? Take all the abilities out and leave the character with nothing to do but a single boring attack every round? He's already got retributive attacks, but retributive attacks are completely foe-dependent, which means you'd be relying on your DM to enjoy yourself, and if your DM is playing the monster intelligently, it's attacking you, which is what you want it to do, and then you can't punish it at all.

Having abilities that both punish it for attacking you and your opponent, that would leave the player in doubt about what he's playing. So really, there's no way to solve this other than giving him some nice debuffing attacks, at least as far as I can see.

Actually, I think that's great. It's everything a knight needs to be effective. Melee control, with a very small amount of buff (one ability), a few debuffs to keep your opponents down, enough DPS to be relevant at high levels, and skills to be relevant out of combat. Sounds like a total success to me.

Seriously, it's pretty much just like a crusader, but without using maneuvers. I don't see why you think it's "overpowered".

1. ToB is a fairly good example of how mental characteristics can improve combat abilities- the swordsage's wisdom, and the warblades intelligence are two examples of this. For a tank, having charisma improve abilities that help you survive- like the paladin's saves- can make just as much sense from a gaming perspective, and from a fluff perspective, it's a better fit.

2. Naturally, but abilities that have nothing to do with the source material aren't the answer either. Just calling a debuff or a massive attack chivalrous or knightly won't give the player any real sense they're playing a knight at all. Replacing the rogue's abilities, for example, with that of a barbarian, but keep the names, and you risk just leaving the player scratching his head in confusion. Not a great way to play.

3. The problem is, it's an adventuring party in a can. Why bother with anyone else? Why not just solo (with hireling commoners to gain access to the class features)? Good classes must have weaknesses as well as strengths, or the others at the table won't want to play- and DMs won't want to allow the home-brew material, which is always the litmus test for classes like these.

4. It's a good point, ToB was a significant departure from ordinary game balance, which is why many groups disallow it, but individual manoeuvres the crusader take don't represent the same level of investment as a class feature. For a class that doesn't rely on a choice of multiple abilities to fit a player's theme, rather than an overall archetype, having such a range of different class features in a core class would be unprecedented in any WotC book, if it were official, and completely unnecessary- the concept of 'knight' doesn't need it, it's pretty well defined already.

[NeoSeraphi]

1. ToB is a fairly good example of how mental characteristics can improve combat abilities- the swordsage's wisdom, and the warblades intelligence are two examples of this. For a tank, having charisma improve abilities that help you survive- like the paladin's saves- can make just as much sense from a gaming perspective, and from a fluff perspective, it's a better fit.


Yes, but not Charisma. Charisma is for hexblades (arcane), paladins (divine) and crusaders (divine). It does not make "as much sense" from a gaming perspective, and it definitely doesn't make sense from a fluff perspective. "I'm so passionate that I don't die without blessing" versus "I'm so buff and strong that I shrug off fireballs and deal lots of damage". And since you're quoting ToB, I will too. The Diamond Mind discipline involves replacing your saves with Concentration checks, as well as your damage with Concentration checks. So adding Constitution to your saves and damage already exists.



2. Naturally, but abilities that have nothing to do with the source material aren't the answer either. Just calling a debuff or a massive attack chivalrous or knightly won't give the player any real sense they're playing a knight at all. Replacing the rogue's abilities, for example, with that of a barbarian, but keep the names, and you risk just leaving the player scratching his head in confusion. Not a great way to play.


So? Then what do you suggest I do?



3. The problem is, it's an adventuring party in a can. Why bother with anyone else? Why not just solo (with hireling commoners to gain access to the class features)? Good classes must have weaknesses as well as strengths, or the others at the table won't want to play- and DMs won't want to allow the home-brew material, which is always the litmus test for classes like these.


Like I already said, this is a crusader without maneuvers. Everything this guy can do, a crusader or a warblade can do, and a crusader can heal himself and smite as well. This guy can't replace a rogue or a wizard or a cleric at all. Just because he can stop people from getting hurt doesn't mean he can heal, and he can't fly.

Want to know his weaknesses? It's the same as all melee: Damage Reduction, Regeneration, Flying creatures, Invisible creatures, Incorporeal creatures, Large creatures with Swallow Whole, Swarms, and of course, magic in all forms. There. Plenty of weaknesses for the rest of the party to cover. He can't disarm traps, can't open locks, can't read ancient texts, can't use or untie rope, can't track creatures in the wild...



4. It's a good point, ToB was a significant departure from ordinary game balance, which is why many groups disallow it, but individual manoeuvres the crusader take don't represent the same level of investment as a class feature. For a class that doesn't rely on a choice of multiple abilities to fit a player's theme, rather than an overall archetype, having such a range of different class features in a core class would be unprecedented in any WotC book, if it were official, and completely unnecessary- the concept of 'knight' doesn't need it, it's pretty well defined already.

Just because you want to play a knight doesn't mean you should be bored in battle and ineffective. If you can't control effectively or deal enough damage to hurt a creature with just 10 DR, there's no reason for you to play this class over a crusader that you just refluffed as a knight.

I don't compare my classes to core classes. If I thought the core classes were appropriate for balancing, I wouldn't homebrew in the first place. In my opinion, they're all terrible, even though some of them have great fluff. I don't consider a single core class from the Player's Handbook to be balanced. They all have too many options or too few.

[katarl]

Yes, but not Charisma. Charisma is for hexblades (arcane), paladins (divine) and crusaders (divine). It does not make "as much sense" from a gaming perspective, and it definitely doesn't make sense from a fluff perspective. "I'm so passionate that I don't die without blessing" versus "I'm so buff and strong that I shrug off fireballs and deal lots of damage". And since you're quoting ToB, I will too. The Diamond Mind discipline involves replacing your saves with Concentration checks, as well as your damage with Concentration checks. So adding Constitution to your saves and damage already exists.

So? Then what do you suggest I do?

Like I already said, this is a crusader without maneuvers. Everything this guy can do, a crusader or a warblade can do, and a crusader can heal himself and smite as well. This guy can't replace a rogue or a wizard or a cleric at all. Just because he can stop people from getting hurt doesn't mean he can heal, and he can't fly.

Want to know his weaknesses? It's the same as all melee: Damage Reduction, Regeneration, Flying creatures, Invisible creatures, Incorporeal creatures, Large creatures with Swallow Whole, Swarms, and of course, magic in all forms. There. Plenty of weaknesses for the rest of the party to cover. He can't disarm traps, can't open locks, can't read ancient texts, can't use or untie rope, can't track creatures in the wild...

Just because you want to play a knight doesn't mean you should be bored in battle and ineffective. If you can't control effectively or deal enough damage to hurt a creature with just 10 DR, there's no reason for you to play this class over a crusader that you just refluffed as a knight.

I don't compare my classes to core classes. If I thought the core classes were appropriate for balancing, I wouldn't homebrew in the first place. In my opinion, they're all terrible, even though some of them have great fluff. I don't consider a single core class from the Player's Handbook to be balanced. They all have too many options or too few.

1. From a gaming perspective, adding any attribute, whether it is charisma or constitution to any particular ability would be feasible using the books we have as a base- weapon finesse and divine grace come to mind. However, the problem with becoming overly dependent on a single ability score is not one that official material-based warriors suffer from: a paladin may gain his charisma to his saves, but not to damage, attacks, ac etc. (without utilising magic items, spells or prestige classes, at least, such as the slippers of battledancing, gauntlets of heartfelt blows, sirine's grace etc.). From a fluff perspective, using constitution to resist attacks could make sense- but why would a knight resist blows that a fighter or barbarian- or warblade- could not?

2. The core theme of a class isn't just the titles you give each ability- the ideal class has a theme that it sticks to, and only varies occasionally. You've got a good tanking/control theme, which will work, but many of the abilities don't fit, including these CON=X abilities. If you removed a few of the anomalies, and tightened up the core, that would go a long way to remedying this class' identity issue.

Alternatively, you might keep everything and still accomplish the above, introducing an element of choice into the class, as the crusader does with manoeuvres, or the fighter does with feats, allowing the player to customise into different 'kinds' of knight that stick fit with the core theme- ie. tanking/debuffing, tanking/dps, control/dps and so on.

3. A white raven using warblade might well have comparable controlling abilities, and damage, but it would certainly would not have the same kind of permanent bonuses coming it's way. Consider the warblade's INT based abilities. These include the ability to add INT to a single save, to confirm criticals, on AoO and combat manoeuvres. These could not be possibly compared to the ability to adding INT to all relevant combat-related rolls. If the strike of virtue/varied combat abilities used by the knight are roughly equivalent in power to manoeuvres (as you say), then- even assuming this- the class still has a problem with balance.

4. Even assuming these things are insurmountable for the knight of requisite level, everything listed is, of course, situational, making the knight the class to go for in every normal adventuring situation. Combat encounters, with or without these things, is the bread and butter of many games, meaning that a class that excels in that field without requiring any backup, even if it can do nothing else, has exceeded it's role in the party. The warblade can do damage, and take it, but it doesn't have or give the sheer stat bonuses the knight does, and the core classes that others play would never even come close to a comparison.

5. Of course, no good class, whether warrior or not, should be useless! However, there's a lot more to killing monsters than doing damage, as any mage that passes over magic missile for grease can tell you. Assuming the knight receives it's strike of virtue, though, this shouldn't be a problem either.

6. That's quite an extreme view to take- I suppose balance depends on what you use. If everyone at the table plays wizard or warblade, even the goliath barbarian's output is going to look weak. I assume most players will be playing with at least one person who isn't ultra-optimized, but even if everyone is playing ToB or tier 0.1, they'll likely still be screaming shenanigans at the knight's bonuses and abilities, on a 16 point buy, and no worse off, and with no real theme or flavour to show for it.

[NeoSeraphi]

1. From a gaming perspective, adding any attribute, whether it is charisma or constitution to any particular ability would be feasible using the books we have as a base- weapon finesse and divine grace come to mind. However, the problem with becoming overly dependent on a single ability score is not one that official material-based warriors suffer from: a paladin may gain his charisma to his saves, but not to damage, attacks, ac etc. (without utilising magic items, spells or prestige classes, at least, such as the slippers of battledancing, gauntlets of heartfelt blows, sirine's grace etc.). From a fluff perspective, using constitution to resist attacks could make sense- but why would a knight resist blows that a fighter or barbarian- or warblade- could not?

Dunno. Why does the PHB II knight get Mettle when the warblade, fighter, and barbarian don't? I assume that's what you mean by "resist blows", since my knight doesn't get Con to AC or as Damage Reduction. Adding Constitution to hit and damage is just a sign of the knight's ability to focus and deliver blows based on concentration and muscle rather than physical strength.



2. The core theme of a class isn't just the titles you give each ability- the ideal class has a theme that it sticks to, and only varies occasionally. You've got a good tanking/control theme, which will work, but many of the abilities don't fit, including these CON=X abilities. If you removed a few of the anomalies, and tightened up the core, that would go a long way to remedying this class' identity issue.


That's not true of the monk, the barbarian, the bard, the fighter, the wizard, the sorcerer, the cleric, or the druid. None of those classes have a "core theme". The casters all have hundreds of different "class features" that all do different things, the fighter doesn't have a single class feature, the monk's feature are all over the place...I don't know what you want me to say. Current classes that exist do not support your argument at all, while my reasoning, which is that SAD will help a knight deal with WBL and stay relevant at higher levels without having to sacrifice survivability, is quite founded.



Alternatively, you might keep everything and still accomplish the above, introducing an element of choice into the class, as the crusader does with manoeuvres, or the fighter does with feats, allowing the player to customise into different 'kinds' of knight that stick fit with the core theme- ie. tanking/debuffing, tanking/dps, control/dps and so on.


That's not something I want to do. I like the abilities I have, if I wanted to offer choice I'd have to go back and write some different abilities to offer, which would all vary in terms of power, and that would come down to "system mastery" and other things. Varied options are far too difficult to balance, in this situation I'd rather just lock the player in to some powerful abilities and give him options for his standard attacks.



3. A white raven using warblade might well have comparable controlling abilities, and damage, but it would certainly would not have the same kind of permanent bonuses coming it's way. Consider the warblade's INT based abilities. These include the ability to add INT to a single save, to confirm criticals, on AoO and combat manoeuvres. These could not be possibly compared to the ability to adding INT to all relevant combat-related rolls. If the strike of virtue/varied combat abilities used by the knight are roughly equivalent in power to manoeuvres (as you say), then- even assuming this- the class still has a problem with balance.


So your problem is with my Guided Strike, Mettle, Chivalrous Reactions, Blade of Convictions, Fearful Smite, Weakening Blow, Strength of Body, Lockdown Strike, Improved Mettle, Ring the Bell, Don't Touch Them!, Enfeebling Assault, Stance of the Aegis, and Black Blade of Disaster class features. Realize that you are asking me to remove half of my class features and have offered not a single suggestion as to what I might replace them with (other than more abilities that you wouldn't agree with, as long as I had other options and wrote my own system of granting class features at specific levels like maneuvers)



4. Even assuming these things are insurmountable for the knight of requisite level, everything listed is, of course, situational, making the knight the class to go for in every normal adventuring situation. Combat encounters, with or without these things, is the bread and butter of many games, meaning that a class that excels in that field without requiring any backup, even if it can do nothing else, has exceeded it's role in the party. The warblade can do damage, and take it, but it doesn't have or give the sheer stat bonuses the knight does, and the core classes that others play would never even come close to a comparison.


A knight is not better than a wizard, druid, cleric, or sorcerer. A druid is the most SAD class in existence, and even if it still has to rely on three different stats in melee, it can arbitrarily boost those stats by +16, +2, +8 with a single spell (bite of the werebear). By "core classes", I assume you mean the fighter, barbarian, paladin, monk and ranger here, which, as I already said, are too weak in my opinion.



5. Of course, no good class, whether warrior or not, should be useless! However, there's a lot more to killing monsters than doing damage, as any mage that passes over magic missile for grease can tell you. Assuming the knight receives it's strike of virtue, though, this shouldn't be a problem either.


Strike of Virtue only works during the enemy's turn. It doesn't change the fact that the knight would be dealing no damage during his own turn and all it does is deal damage. (A small amount, as well, an average of +27 damage per hit at level 20) You said "there's a lot more to killing monsters than dealing damage, but as long as you're dealing 27 extra damage per round, this isn't a problem!" so I don't know how to argue against you. There's a lot more to killing monsters than doing damage, which is why the knight has Fearful Smite, Weakening Blow, Lockdown Strike, Ring the Bell, and Enervating Assault.



6. That's quite an extreme view to take- I suppose balance depends on what you use. If everyone at the table plays wizard or warblade, even the goliath barbarian's output is going to look weak. I assume most players will be playing with at least one person who isn't ultra-optimized, but even if everyone is playing ToB or tier 0.1, they'll likely still be screaming shenanigans at the knight's bonuses and abilities, on a 16 point buy, and no worse off, and with no real theme or flavour to show for it.

You do realize the wizard, druid, cleric and sorcerer are all extremely SAD classes themselves, right? Someone who's playing a wizard and complains because the knight gets Con to attacks, damage, hit points, and saves, instead of Str to attacks and damage, and Con to hit points and Fortitude saves, well, I would probably point out how they got their Int to skill points, all Knowledge checks, Spellcraft checks, DC of their spells, and bonus spells per day.

[chando]

this is absolutelly one of the best melee class homebrews i have ever seen it, especially without using maneuvers, or better yet, transforming some maneuvers in abilities.
this is great, and I will borrow (i.e. steal shamelessly) its abilities for my games and my own unplublished homebrews :)

honestly, this class isn't overpowerd in any way, its a class that can contribute to the game and combat regardless of the build or level, and a class that has some build variety without losing most of its power or reliying in spells/maneuvers. This class is pure awesome.

not sure if black blade of disaster needs a once/encounter limitation. A warbalde could basically spam 9th level strike maneuvers at that level without missing a beat. Sure, he isn't a warblade, but he doesn't get four 9th level maneuvers either. he gets the equivalent of one. I think maybe restricting ot once per opponent every 24 hours if you are afraid of him just spaming BBoD on the BBEG, and giving it a 1d4 rounds delay like his other 'strikes' would be a bit better.
You will probably only use this twice/encounter at mosnt, honestly, by that level it isn't likely to matter anyway.

[Noctis Vigil]

Now, I've looked this class over a couple of times now, and then a couple more after reading katarl's posts. I must admit, I see absolutely no problem with anything he's hollering about. Frankly, I'd probably rate this guy as underpowered if the goal was to let him compete with T1-2, and about average if you put him against T3-4. This guy sounds pretty fun to play, all said and done. Well done, NeoSeraphi, it makes my Knight fix pale in comparison.

[Elfstone]

Now, I've looked this class over a couple of times now, and then a couple more after reading katarl's posts. I must admit, I see absolutely no problem with anything he's hollering about. Frankly, I'd probably rate this guy as underpowered if the goal was to let him compete with T1-2, and about average if you put him against T3-4. This guy sounds pretty fun to play, all said and done. Well done, NeoSeraphi, it makes my Knight fix pale in comparison.

I agree.

Infact this is PERFECT for any gestalt game... *lightbulb*

[NeoSeraphi]

Thanks guys. The intended balance point was Tier 3-4, by the way. (And since the only T3 in Core is the bard, it's kind of hard to balance against if you're just looking at the PHB classes)

[Noctis Vigil]

Bard is T3? Dang, I'd have put it at 4. I suppose it could hit 3 with good optimization; maybe I've just never seen one player right. Most of my groups think they're pretty useless.

[NeoSeraphi]

Bard is T3? Dang, I'd have put it at 4. I suppose it could hit 3 with good optimization; maybe I've just never seen one player right. Most of my groups think they're pretty useless.

It's the skills, man. The intense skill points along with the amazing skill list and the nice spell list. There's a ton of utility in the bard spell list that no one knows about.

One example of "optimizing", though, is having a bard with some good Inspire Courage who casts summon monster VI (yes, bards get summon spells), grab 1d3 celestial griffons, and start playing. That's it. You now have an attack team of flying creatures who are buffed to the point that they are relevant in combat.

Dragonfire Inspiration is a popular feat for bards, from Dragon Magic. Lets you get 1d6 points of energy damage per point of Inspire Courage to your allies. Combine that with the most unfair feat for bards in the game, Words of Creation, and you are set. You know how people say that rogues are still decent because of fistfuls of d6? Bards give the same fistfuls to every member of the party, except they're sonic damage, so they're almost irresistible (and bards get Summon 1d3 Flying Party Members as a class feature)

[nonsi]

Combining Chivalrous Reactions, Defensive Rebuke and Flurry of Steel seems just too cartoon-ish to me – especially if Combat Reflexes is taken.
(how many attacks are we getting here?)

[nonsi]

Bard is T3? Dang, I'd have put it at 4. I suppose it could hit 3 with good optimization; maybe I've just never seen one player right. Most of my groups think they're pretty useless.

I once saw a sig that made me smile and it goes like this (sort of):
Fighter: "I can kill my enemy with a full round action"
Cleric: "I can kill my enemy with a standard action"
Wizard: "I can kill my enemy with a swift action"
Bard: "I can get 3 idiots to kill stuff for me"

[katarl]

Now, I've looked this class over a couple of times now, and then a couple more after reading katarl's posts. I must admit, I see absolutely no problem with anything he's hollering about. Frankly, I'd probably rate this guy as underpowered if the goal was to let him compete with T1-2, and about average if you put him against T3-4. This guy sounds pretty fun to play, all said and done. Well done, NeoSeraphi, it makes my Knight fix pale in comparison.

Well, if you insist, I can see that this isn't going anywhere- e.g. if you say wizards are broken, and you don't balance according to core classes- then say that the knight need to be as powerful as the wizard! That's a contradiction, twice over.

But I'll stop now, I've Examined, and Critiqued Honestly, it's up to the author to make improvements, if he wanted to.

[Yitzi]

I once saw a sig that made me smile and it goes like this (sort of):
Fighter: "I can kill my enemy with a full round action"
Cleric: "I can kill my enemy with a standard action"
Wizard: "I can kill my enemy with a swift action"
Bard: "I can get 3 idiots to kill stuff for me"

Indeed. Properly played, the only core class (and I suspect the only class period) more powerful than a bard is an arcane trickster.

Of course, that sort of playstyle is far harder than the typical optimized wizard build, and perhaps more importantly usually cannot be planned ahead of time.

[NeoSeraphi]

New image, since the old one got deleted. And yes, I know that for certain, plot-related reasons it's not as relevant as the old one, but come on. Zero is Zero. And he even has a sword!

Still thinking hard about the alignment restriction (and lack of it) here. Also wondering if I should put in an extraordinary immunity to fear. What do you guys think?

[Noctis Vigil]

I think you'd better change the image again, since all I see is a "bandwidth exceeded" error.

And yes, a Knight should be immune to fear, or at the very least get a bonus to resist it. The Knight is supposed to be a stalwart defender, the first to charge and the last to retreat. How can he do that if he gets scared of what he's charging?

[NeoSeraphi]

I think you'd better change the image again, since all I see is a "bandwidth exceeded" error.

Oh, come on! Okay thanks for letting me know.



And yes, a Knight should be immune to fear, or at the very least get a bonus to resist it. The Knight is supposed to be a stalwart defender, the first to charge and the last to retreat. How can he do that if he gets scared of what he's charging?

Alright, what level do you think I should put it in at?

[Hiro Protagonest]

Bard: "I can get 3 idiots to kill stuff for me"

Come on, anyone can do that. They just have to sit in a dark corner of a tavern wearing a cloak with a hood up, and tell adventurers they can keep the loot as their reward.

...No, I don't have anything useful to add to the actual topic.

[Noctis Vigil]

I'd say either 6 or 8 (I'd suggest 7, but you already have two abilities there).

[NeoSeraphi]

Okay, added it at 6th.

[Heliomance]

I liked Loyal Beyond Death on the original Knight. It was a beautifully flavorful ability :smallfrown:

[NeoSeraphi]

I liked Loyal Beyond Death on the original Knight. It was a beautifully flavorful ability :smallfrown:

Indeed, Loyal Beyond Death is beyond any level of hardcore flavor that WotC has ever released. That said, that's a completely different class than the one I'm making now (Also, if I put Loyal Beyond Death in, I would definitely have to put the alignment restriction back in, that is the Lawfulest of Lawful)