Knight, the playground's opinion? [Archive] - Giant in the Playground Forums

Adamantrue

2012-09-07, 12:54 AM

From the Tier 5 (http://brilliantgameologists.com/boards/index.php?topic=4869.0) explanation:
Cons: Like the Healer, the Knight was designed to only fill a single role: tanking. Unlike the Healer, tanking is at least a solid and useful role for the party from levels 1-20. However, tanking is the only role that the Knight can fill well, as he has almost no damage-related abilities and no social skills except for Intimidate (like a fighter) and Knowledge (Nobility). If he had been given 4 skills/level and Bluff, Diplomacy, and Sense Motive, the Knight's natural Charisma synergy would have helped him to be on par in that role with a paladin or a crusader - but unfortunately he isn't. So he fits into T5 by virtue of lack of versatility - he does one thing quite well, but very little else.

Many of his feats and abilities are also slightly unfocused - he gets Mounted Combat and Ride, but no other mounted-related abilities; and he gets Shield Block but is unable to use tower shields. In any encounter that needs a solid tank, he'll shine - unless that party already has a crusader, warblade, druid, binder, etc. In encounters that don't require a tank (spell-casting opponents, archers, mass combat, traps, anything RP-related), the Knight will generally be of little help to the party as well. -Akalsaris

Pros: Bulwark of Defense is awesome. Too bad there's a maneuver that does basically the same thing, and most of the rest of their abilities are poor. But Bulwark is awesome, and don't forget Diplomacy as a class skill. -JaronK I sorta became a big fan of the Knight. I do enjoy lower Tier play, and ToB is often not an option in my playgroups anyways. I don't think they are a bad Class, they just lack versatility, unable to do much else well outside a very specific niche. I think if they got even a quarter of the support other Classes got in splatbooks, they would have a better reputation, even if it didn't pull them out of Tier 5.

As a side note, My Homebrew Knight Stuff (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?p=9827267)

ILM

2012-09-07, 04:01 AM

It's not even worth taking 4 levels if you're not going to take the rest, since Test of Mettle's DC is based on class levels. I strongly suggest a houserule there (in fact, personally I've houseruled that most base class abilities keying off class levels use HD instead).

Gnome Alone

2012-09-07, 04:18 AM

Seems like it'd be fun in Gestalt; you could pick something flashier for the other side, like Duskblade or Binder or Wizard or what have you.

DarkEternal

2012-09-07, 04:54 AM

Kelb_Panthera

2012-09-07, 05:01 AM

Turtle mode gets kind of old after a while.

I find the class entertaining, but mostly from a role-playing perspective.

One of the more entertaining characters I put together was a Knight/OA samurai/Paladin. So much CoC I needed a reference manual to go to the bathroom. :smallamused:

Gwendol

2012-09-07, 05:58 AM

I like the class, despite its shortcomings. My advice is to go for a lock- down build when on foot and make use of the mounted combat when outdoors. Also, to have fun playing out the code of conduct.

Heliomance

2012-09-07, 06:11 AM

Kelb_Panthera

2012-09-07, 06:24 AM

The capstone, however, is one of the two greatest abilities WotC have ever printed, from a flavour perspective. The other one is Say My Name And I Am There, the capstone of the even more useless Truenamer.

Yeah, but unfortunately crusader did it better with a stance, and 5 levels sooner at that. :smallfrown:

prufock

2012-09-07, 06:41 AM

Person_man should be here soon!

I kind of like the knight for low-mid tier games. Currently I'm DM for a campaign involving a knight, rogue, and warlock/wizard (going Eldritch Theurge without early entry tricks). The group works pretty well, everyone has a role, nobody is really stepping on any toes, and everyone contributes.

Knight is NOT a dipping class, for sure. Depending on your level of play it's generally ok to dip 1-2 levels in other classes, but maintaining knight as your basis. Good dips are

Now, all this said, I've actually applied my own "fix" to the knight, giving it 4 skill points per level, a few additional skills, an extra bonus feat (dead level at 18, why???), and Wild Cohort as a free feat to get a good mount. These changes give it a slight bump, but aren't necessary.

Answerer

2012-09-07, 09:14 AM

The Knight's Code is ridiculously restrictive, too. It sounds like it makes sense, except that flat-footed is used by way more mechanics than just catching people off-guard.

Flickerdart

2012-09-07, 09:43 AM

Seems like it'd be fun in Gestalt; you could pick something flashier for the other side, like Duskblade or Binder or Wizard or what have you.
Yeah, it's a pretty good Gestalt class - full BAB, d12 HD, mostly passive or swift action abilities. Shame that the attack and damage bonus is morale, though.

Kelb_Panthera

2012-09-07, 09:53 AM

Yeah, it's a pretty good Gestalt class - full BAB, d12 HD, mostly passive or swift action abilities. Shame that the attack and damage bonus is morale, though.

Don't forget the good will save. Not everybody picks a caster for the other side of their gestalt after all.

Answerer

2012-09-07, 02:09 PM

One of my friends is playing a Knight at the moment, specced in Tower Shield. At level 3, he's got like 26 AC or something which is pretty nice since I can't hit him with anything, plus he took those feats that gives him more touch AC(shield bonus). Of course, he'll be useless against casters, but against melee combatants he is good, arrows basically can't hit him either.

The drawback is that he pretty much always fights in total defense or whatever that's called, so the chances of him hitting are also very, very small. Still, it's a fun melee class.
Why does any enemy ever try to hit him?

Seriously, he can't hit anything, he doesn't have any significant damage boosts, and he's got super-high AC and probably quite a few Hit Points. There is no excuse for any monster he hasn't used Test of Mettle on to ever do anything but ignore him.

I mean, imagine fighting some undead. OK, Test of Mettle is out of the question. Assume they're either intelligent, or an intelligent undead is commanding the mindless ones. Assume also that this fight is actually intended to be challenging and that the DM is actually playing the intelligent undead intelligently.

You know what happens? The undead ignore him completely. His party fights, effectively, down a man. Since the battle was intended to be challenging for N PCs, the N-1 sized party struggles. Maybe they have a bit of bad luck; maybe the Knight's not the only one ruing the Mind-Affecting immunity of the undead. Something goes wrong, and his party starts to die, and he cannot do anything about it.

As partymates die, the odds turn farther and farther against the remaining party members, until the Knight is the only one standing. He's at full HP; no one has even bothered to make an attack roll against him. He's also only hit one or two of the monsters, and only for piddly damage. At this point, his options are to run (though, of course, that might conflict pretty heavily with the Knight's Code depending on the character), or to die trying to accomplish something. At this point, sheer numbers overwhelm him, since even if they need a nat-20, they're attacking way, way more often than he is, and he's not particularly more likely to hit them.

And all of this is assuming there isn't even a single enemy who can target something other than AC. The first spellcaster who hits his Will save is going to screw him over hard.

The Knight's a decent class for what it is. But going for crazy AC, to the point where you're completely destroying any chance of being successful offensively, is not a smart way to play them. Your friend's character is not a good example of a decent Knight.

If Test of Mettle were better, this could work, but it's not.

Roguenewb

2012-09-07, 02:18 PM

Because HP is a metagame construct. If you get hit for 5, you're still pissed that you get hit.

Answerer

2012-09-07, 02:24 PM

Because HP is a metagame construct. If you get hit for 5, you're still pissed that you get hit.
Mindless undead don't. Sufficiently intelligent undead don't, either. How many undead are there with human-like intelligence, anyway? Most are -- or fairly high, in my experience. And regardless, undead, even those smart enough to get "pissed," probably don't feel pain the same way the living do, and are unlikely to throw obvious tactics to the wind the first time the Knight gets slightly lucky.

Now, a campaign that tailored itself to the Knight's strengths (giving him only hot-headed morons to fight), sure, maybe it's worth something (though I'd still rather someone who can kill an enemy than someone who can take an enemy's attack), but most campaigns aren't like that.

Person_Man

2012-09-07, 02:49 PM

Even though it's Tier 4 or 5, I've always loved the Knight and have written a handbook (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=109429) on the subject. Test of Mettle, Vigilant Defender, and Loyal Beyond Death are unique and very useful abilities. And his ability to generate aggro is mostly unique within the 3.5 realm. (The only other way I'm aware of is the Goad Feat, and maybe social Skills).

In my games, I personally allow players to hand wave the mechanical effects of the Knight's code, and allow anyone willing to play low Tier classes free gestalt with another low Tier class, or they can just fill in the dead and dead-ish levels with bonus Feats or comparable abilities. Knight//Healer in particular is a fun combo.

Gnaeus

2012-09-07, 04:27 PM

Why does any enemy ever try to hit him?

If Test of Mettle were better, this could work, but it's not.

Actually, at level 3, Knight works fine. Animals and vermin are still CR appropriate threats, and even your humanoid types may not have the intelligence and skills to realize he is a non-threat. You can often tank just by standing in front. Yes, you could get a low level evil cleric commanding skeletons, but most encounters you should work fine.

The problem is that it is a trap. The higher level you go, the more likely you are going to run up against highly intelligent opponents who can fly over you, teleport past you, cast around you or otherwise ignore you. This is the Dwarven Defender problem.

Frosty

2012-09-07, 11:55 PM

What if the Knight got a Special Mount-esque animal companion (that must be a Horse or similar creature) starting at level 1, AND got the ability to "mark" a target for an encounter, dealing bonus damage (not bonus dice. Just bonus, so you can multiple it on a crit) to that target for the rest of the encounter? The latter ability starts with 1/day and you get more uses as you get more levels in Knight?

Togath

2012-09-08, 01:42 AM

then you have basically the cavalier from pathfinder(though at that point it's probably better to just use the cavalier itself, sinc eit's on the pathfinder srd)

Frosty

2012-09-08, 03:39 AM

Cavaliers don't have "Aggro" mechanics and only one build can really Tank or protect allies. Not *quite* the same as Knight.

Kuulvheysoon

2012-09-08, 09:40 AM

Yeah, but unfortunately crusader did it better with a stance, and 5 levels sooner at that. :smallfrown:

Not quite - the Knight gets it for free. Take another look at the Crusader's stance progression. You need to use one of your precious feats to get the Stance of Immortal Fortitude, as you can never get an 8th level stance naturally without either the feat or dipping.

I'd also argue that the Knight's Loyal Beyond Death is better than the stance. But to each his own, I guess.

Kelb_Panthera

2012-09-17, 06:02 AM

Not quite - the Knight gets it for free. Take another look at the Crusader's stance progression. You need to use one of your precious feats to get the Stance of Immortal Fortitude, as you can never get an 8th level stance naturally without either the feat or dipping.

I'd also argue that the Knight's Loyal Beyond Death is better than the stance. But to each his own, I guess.

Upon reflection, both the knight's loyalty beyond death and the crusader's stance of immortal fortitude are about even.

FB's deathless frenzy beat them both at level 10 anyway. What's that you say? He can't be killed by hp damage until his frenzy wears of?! ****!

LordBlades

2012-09-17, 06:15 AM

Because HP is a metagame construct. If you get hit for 5, you're still pissed that you get hit.

Even if you go by the view that HP is purely a metagame construct (with which I disagree for a multitude of reasons but that's beside the point), I'd expect any person/monster to be able to tell in character how much a hit hurts.

The ogre you're just fighting can probably tell that the knight's solid hit (for 1d8+str) barely scratched him whereas the raging barbarian's solid hit (2d6+much higher str+power attack x multipliers) almost cleaved him in half.

I'd expect an experienced warrior with a few fights under his belt to realize that guys with shields and one-handed weapons don't hit very hard and therefore aren't very dangerous.

Ranting Fool

2012-09-17, 07:00 AM

Decent, but disappointing.

Test of Mettle is one of only a handful of true tanking abilities in all of 3.5, but it's got a ton of limitations on it.

Otherwise, Knights make decent lockdown meleers thanks to Bulwark of Defense.

It's a bit difficult to justify more than Knight 4 though.

I tend to agree with this, making it harder for people to tumble past you is great in dungeons for protecting people. But the Knight in my campaign has found his challenge to be massively underwhelming and it only effecting your CR +/- 2 means when being attacked by larger numbers you can never effectively challenge. Does work nice enough on BBEG's who aren't TOO much more powerful then you.

The thing is dislike most (Not the weakness of the class, that just makes me sad) is all the feats based around mounted combat (which isn't always that useful, and I've had to go a bit out of my way to make sure there is some for the players) though if you go dragon rider as well all the mounted feats are fun to use.

darkdragoon

2012-09-17, 09:59 AM

Frankly the best use of the challenge is to burn them to recharge a shield of vigor (or perhaps the other parts of the Knight set in MIC.)

Bulwark of Defense is fairly nice, but the other aspects are otherwise minor.

Voidling

2012-09-18, 01:25 PM

I play a knight and I really enjoy the class, I've found it fun to role play. I went with 6 level of knight (for shield other) and 2 levels of warrior and a house rule to make it's main ability work from player level not knight level. I found it's one of the few class that can really tank and protect other members of the party.

Answerer

2012-09-18, 01:58 PM

2 levels of warrior
The NPC class? Why on earth are you taking levels in that?

Midnight_v

2012-09-18, 02:46 PM

allow anyone willing to play low Tier classes free gestalt with another low Tier class, or they can just fill in the dead and dead-ish levels with bonus Feats or comparable abilities. Knight//Healer in particular is a fun combo.
Hmph. I gotta give it to you, that actually sounds pretty reasonable. Knight//Healer sounds good.

When I saw this thread I was gonna hop in and say "PersonMan made a handbook" as that already been covered. . .

I find myself in the group of people who think that class is really pretty bad. It's one of those prime examples that illustrate how both unsure and conservative about making non-casters strong.
Point of fact it came out printed right on the very next page following duskblade. I found it somewhat irksome.

So for my games, If somone wants to play a knight I generally suggest that they play This Version (http://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/Knight,_Tome_(3.5e_Class)) or as PM mentions I basically let them scavenge the mechanics they they want from the two.
Designate opponent and Knights challenge can coexist or be rolled into each other, and the difficult terrain thing works to.

On the board that I play-by-post on the dm did a lot of work with his chargen, house rules etc. I was impressed, his knight read.
*Knight -- gain Crusader maneuver progression (Iron Heart, Stone Dragon, White Raven) and a special mount like a paladin (at level 5).

I think I'd have said "White Raven/StoneDragon and one more school of your choosing. So if someone wanted to be a "Shadow Knight" it wouldn't be an issue at all.
Essentially making it a variant crusader I guess. Seemed good, in theory.

The 3.5 class though? Playing it straight I just tend to think of it as an optimization challenge.

Gnaeus

2012-09-18, 06:40 PM

I play a knight and I really enjoy the class, I've found it fun to role play..

Unless putting Sir in front of your name is a class feature of which I am unaware, I don't see anything you can do roleplaying a knight that you couldn't do with any other class with heavy armor and a horse.

I went with 6 level of knight (for shield other) and 2 levels of warrior and a house rule to make it's main ability work from player level not knight level.

So your DM found the class to be inadequate and gave it a buff to make it work with multiclassing. That was nice of him.

I found it's one of the few class that can really tank and protect other members of the party.

Paladin, Cleric, Druid, Crusader, Warblade and Barbarian are all better at this than the knight. Especially at high levels where mobile, intelligent opponents are the norm not the exception, the best way to hold aggro is to be a big enough threat that enemies realize that not targeting you is very dangerous. Knights are worse at this than most comparable classes.

DarkEternal

2012-09-18, 07:47 PM

Why does any enemy ever try to hit him?

Seriously, he can't hit anything, he doesn't have any significant damage boosts, and he's got super-high AC and probably quite a few Hit Points. There is no excuse for any monster he hasn't used Test of Mettle on to ever do anything but ignore him.

I mean, imagine fighting some undead. OK, Test of Mettle is out of the question. Assume they're either intelligent, or an intelligent undead is commanding the mindless ones. Assume also that this fight is actually intended to be challenging and that the DM is actually playing the intelligent undead intelligently.

You know what happens? The undead ignore him completely. His party fights, effectively, down a man. Since the battle was intended to be challenging for N PCs, the N-1 sized party struggles. Maybe they have a bit of bad luck; maybe the Knight's not the only one ruing the Mind-Affecting immunity of the undead. Something goes wrong, and his party starts to die, and he cannot do anything about it.

As partymates die, the odds turn farther and farther against the remaining party members, until the Knight is the only one standing. He's at full HP; no one has even bothered to make an attack roll against him. He's also only hit one or two of the monsters, and only for piddly damage. At this point, his options are to run (though, of course, that might conflict pretty heavily with the Knight's Code depending on the character), or to die trying to accomplish something. At this point, sheer numbers overwhelm him, since even if they need a nat-20, they're attacking way, way more often than he is, and he's not particularly more likely to hit them.

And all of this is assuming there isn't even a single enemy who can target something other than AC. The first spellcaster who hits his Will save is going to screw him over hard.

The Knight's a decent class for what it is. But going for crazy AC, to the point where you're completely destroying any chance of being successful offensively, is not a smart way to play them. Your friend's character is not a good example of a decent Knight.

If Test of Mettle were better, this could work, but it's not.

You mentioned it yourself, why. If the attacker is a beast, or a mindless thing like a construct or an undead(non intelligent), then he will attack the first one there. A seven foot tall human who is basically a walking tank will look pretty threatening, and since he's always the first one on the line(the others are more or less casters-ranged combatants), he will be the turtle they will try to get out of it's armor.

Of course, when you fight disciplined fighters, or someone with an actual brain, they will learn how to ignore him(or immobilise him via various spells), but for beating on beasts, he's okay. Or some ogre-giant-something that just wants to beat on the puny thing and would think it as an insult to it's awesome strength if he just "ignored" it.

Answerer

2012-09-18, 11:44 PM

Idiot bruisers are, as a rule, not real threats. Just look at how trivially the Tarrasque can be taken down, thanks to its Int 3 (and lack of flight, but even if it could fly, that could be worked around).

Ranting Fool

2012-09-19, 07:27 AM

The NPC class? Why on earth are you taking levels in that?

he means fighter. He just calls all fighters warriors:smallbiggrin: the same way that I rarely use the term Wizard and am stuck on Mage.

Ranting Fool

2012-09-19, 07:32 AM

Unless putting Sir in front of your name is a class feature of which I am unaware, I don't see anything you can do roleplaying a knight that you couldn't do with any other class with heavy armor and a horse.

He enjoys playing a character with a strong code of conduct, which granted could just as easily be a fighter with a strong code of conduct. Some people just like fluff.

So your DM found the class to be inadequate and gave it a buff to make it work with multiclassing. That was nice of him.
Yes, Yes it was nice of me :smallbiggrin: and I do think the knight is a weak class.

Paladin, Cleric, Druid, Crusader, Warblade and Barbarian are all better at this than the knight. Especially at high levels where mobile, intelligent opponents are the norm not the exception, the best way to hold aggro is to be a big enough threat that enemies realize that not targeting you is very dangerous. Knights are worse at this than most comparable classes.

Sadly I very much agree, the best way to tank is to be a big scary guy that everyone wants to kill first. That said Voidling's Knight has gone for very very high AC and if he fights in tight spaces (sometimes by chucking down a few walls of force from the helpful caster) a large amount of stuff can't get past him (He also has a lot of items that help vs bullrush ect).

But yes still a Barbarian doing 3-5 times more damage would be more scary to most people and I personally feel that the knights challenge is limited and weak.

Midnight_v

2012-09-19, 12:40 PM

I agree. Which I can only imagine no one clicked that link I posted.

Just add the Designate Opponent feature to the knights challenge and the extra damage problem is at least solved.

Gwendol

2012-09-19, 04:09 PM

Even if you go by the view that HP is purely a metagame construct (with which I disagree for a multitude of reasons but that's beside the point), I'd expect any person/monster to be able to tell in character how much a hit hurts.

The ogre you're just fighting can probably tell that the knight's solid hit (for 1d8+str) barely scratched him whereas the raging barbarian's solid hit (2d6+much higher str+power attack x multipliers) almost cleaved him in half.

I'd expect an experienced warrior with a few fights under his belt to realize that guys with shields and one-handed weapons don't hit very hard and therefore aren't very dangerous.

Why is the knight only hitting for 1d8+ str mod? He can take all the feats the barbarian has and be nearly as effective (will typically have less strength, which decreases damage potential somewhat). There is practically nothing lost from not using THF also for the knight.

Answerer

2012-09-19, 06:23 PM

Why is the knight only hitting for 1d8+ str mod? He can take all the feats the barbarian has and be nearly as effective (will typically have less strength, which decreases damage potential somewhat). There is practically nothing lost from not using THF also for the knight.
Well, if the Barbarian's got Pounce (which he should if Complete Champion is in play), and the Knight can't get it (which he can't that I know of, since he's just Knight/Fighter), then that's a really serious difference between them. And since we're talking about 1.5*Str for two-handed weapons (even assuming the Knight's using one), the difference in Strength is effectively 50% larger than it would be otherwise (and it would be at least 4 different in all likelihood, since that's what basic Rage offers), and the fact that the Barbarian can Power Attack more easily (assuming the Knight even has the feat) thanks to that self-same higher Str, etc. etc.... the Barbarian has all the advantages as far as damage is concerned.

Menteith

2012-09-19, 06:50 PM

Well, if the Barbarian's got Pounce (which he should if Complete Champion is in play), and the Knight can't get it (which he can't that I know of, since he's just Knight/Fighter), then that's a really serious difference between them. And since we're talking about 1.5*Str for two-handed weapons (even assuming the Knight's using one), the difference in Strength is effectively 50% larger than it would be otherwise (and it would be at least 4 different in all likelihood, since that's what basic Rage offers), and the fact that the Barbarian can Power Attack more easily (assuming the Knight even has the feat) thanks to that self-same higher Str, etc. etc.... the Barbarian has all the advantages as far as damage is concerned.

There are a few ways to gain Pounce/Full Attack + Move without dipping for a Turning Pool/Barbarian, even if it's just something crappy like Martial Study x2 + Faith Unswerving or Formation Expert (provided you've got a summoner on your side). You're right for the most part, though - the Knight isn't that great at inflicting Ubercharger damage.

They can be ok debuffers with a Captain America build (Shield Charge + Shield Slam) or lockdown characters, but they're not that strong of a class, especially if one's reliant on Knight's Challenge to solve their problems.

LordBlades

2012-09-19, 10:54 PM

Gwendol

2012-09-20, 04:20 AM

Ah, then I misread your post. I thought you had moved from discussing that build to a more general Barbarian/Knight comparison.

Answerer: Pounce only works if the barbarian can charge, which is hardly a given. As for the rest, I've already conceded that the barbarian will have greater strength, if only because of rage. Knight's challenge offsets that advantage a little, but for the rest, there is no reason for the knight not to have all the feats listed for the barbarian, including PA. They typically make excellent mounted chargers, and (as for all melee fighters in the game) are generally best served wielding a 2-handed weapon.

In short, they will fall short of the damage potential of a barbarian, but will typically have higher AC. Contrary to others in heavy/medium armor, the knights aren't likely slowed down, and so can be nearly as mobile as a barbarian on the battlefield (assuming the barbarian wears light armor).

Gnaeus

2012-09-20, 01:48 PM

Answerer: Pounce only works if the barbarian can charge, which is hardly a given. As for the rest, I've already conceded that the barbarian will have greater strength, if only because of rage. Knight's challenge offsets that advantage a little, but for the rest, there is no reason for the knight not to have all the feats listed for the barbarian, including PA..

But having a higher strength also allows a higher PA while still hitting the same armor.

They typically make excellent mounted chargers,).

So does a Warrior. Fighter does it better. Paladin can pull a warhorse out of his backside and thereby be a mounted charger where the mounted charge build Knight just cant.

and (as for all melee fighters in the game) are generally best served wielding a 2-handed weapon.).

This is true. But players drawn to the Knight class, unless they are using it as an optimization challenge, are much more likely to go with sword and board than 2h+buckler. A third of their class features are based on shields. At a low op level (and we are probably at a low op level) the barbarian typically has a 2h weapon and the knight usually has a large shield.

In short, they will fall short of the damage potential of a barbarian, but will typically have higher AC. Contrary to others in heavy/medium armor, the knights aren't likely slowed down, and so can be nearly as mobile as a barbarian on the battlefield (assuming the barbarian wears light armor).

But the damage potential is why the barbarian is a tier 4 class. He is actually good at something. Having a high AC isn't a needed party role, and if it was, a caster would still do it better.