Is the Knight's dificult terrain ability counterproductive?

[Starbuck_II]

http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/ex/20060501a&page=2


Bulwark of Defense (Ex): When you reach 3rd level, an opponent that begins its turn in your threatened area treats all the squares that you threaten as difficult terrain. Your strict vigilance and active defensive maneuvers force your opponents to move with care.

This was said (near me):
"For example: you're not allowed to attack people who are flat footed. On a first pass, that might seem fine, because it goes to some sort of hubris where the knight never attacks first because he's noble or likes to give his enemies a sporting chance or something.
But did you know that you're flat footed "while balancing" (3.5 PHB, page 67). So the Knight can't attack an enemy who is standing in a grease effect, but if they fail their roll and fall down (giving the Knight an even larger bonus in most instances), they are under no such restriction?

Obviously neither did the Knight's author. Or how about the fact that you are considered to be balancing when you are standing on a surface that is "difficult" and the Knight's own class features transform the ground next to them into "difficult terrain". Gosh, that sounds like an interaction that should probably have some explanatory text, doesn't it?"

Is that true: Are you prevented from attacking those under your bulwark without breaking code?

[BowStreetRunner]

Or how about the fact that you are considered to be balancing when you are standing on a surface that is "difficult"...

I'm not sure where you got the impression that you are considered to be balancing when standing on difficult terrain. The terrain costs double when moving into it, but as far as I know, you can stand in difficult terrain just fine without having to balance.

Edit: I think I may have figured out where you got that impression. Some of the DCs listed under Balance are for difficult terrain, but if you read the footnote it stresses these DCs are only for running or charging across difficult terrain such as uneven flagstone, hewn stone floor, or a sloped or angled floor. Otherwise, you don't need to balance on these surfaces.

[Flickerdart]

"Difficult terrain hampers movement. Each square of difficult terrain counts as 2 squares of movement. (Each diagonal move into a difficult terrain square counts as 3 squares.) You can’t run or charge across difficult terrain."

What was that about balance, again?

[Urpriest]

Difficult terrain is not the same as a surface that is difficult to stand on in the sense of balance. One is a game term, the other is descriptive.

[GoodbyeSoberDay]

I wonder if someone who knew about knights (martial lore maybe?) might intentionally put themselves in situations where they're flat-footed. "Whoops, I dropped my marbles! I guess I'll have to be caught off-guard balancing on these for the rest of the fight!"

[Flickerdart]

I wonder if someone who knew about knights (martial lore maybe?) might intentionally put themselves in situations where they're flat-footed. "Whoops, I dropped my marbles! I guess I'll have to be caught off-guard balancing on these for the rest of the fight!"
The Knight only loses a use of Knight's Challenge for breaking his code, while the enemy gets a sword in the chest. It's not a good trade-off.

[SowZ]

"Difficult terrain hampers movement. Each square of difficult terrain counts as 2 squares of movement. (Each diagonal move into a difficult terrain square counts as 3 squares.) You can’t run or charge across difficult terrain."

What was that about balance, again?

The Knight's Code should only really apply against other Knights of noble birth who share the same religion.

[willpell]

The Knight's Code should only really apply against other Knights of noble birth who share the same religion.

That's like saying the Paladin is free to ignore his Code against anyone who's not Lawful Good. It doesn't work like that. If you hold yourself to a high ethical standard, it has to apply even when it's at your expense, or it doesn't mean anything. It doens't matter if your opponents are too unprincipled to share your values, or even not capable of understanding them - you know that you have failed to live up to your own expectations of yourself, and so your confidence is undermined and you lose access to your superlative abilities. You can't escape your own harshest critic.

[SowZ]

That's like saying the Paladin is free to ignore his Code against anyone who's not Lawful Good. It doesn't work like that. If you hold yourself to a high ethical standard, it has to apply even when it's at your expense, or it doesn't mean anything. It doens't matter if your opponents are too unprincipled to share your values, or even not capable of understanding them - you know that you have failed to live up to your own expectations of yourself, and so your confidence is undermined and you lose access to your superlative abilities. You can't escape your own harshest critic.

I'm just being facetious about how the code of chivalry was never really observed toward the average joe.

[Arcanist]

I'm just being facetious about how the code of chivalry was never really observed toward the average joe.

That is because unlike the Knight, the Average Joe was "free" to dig ditches and sell fish or whatever to get his family through Winter. He didn't have time to think of stupid rules to bolster his street cred.

[SowZ]

That is because unlike the Knight, the Average Joe was "free" to dig ditches and sell fish or whatever to get his family through Winter. He didn't have time to think of stupid rules to bolster his street cred.

I mean that the knights themselves didn't observe them when dealing with average people. Of course, maybe you gathered my intent. Hard to tell over the internet.

[Gwendol]

In short: difficult terrain doubles movement cost for those enemies starting their turn within reach (threatened squares). While it's true that the knight's code is a little hampering, it isn't that much of a damper. It's not a paladin code, and the penalty for breaking the code is rather mild. Besides, many DM do allow for "breaking" the code freely in certain circumstances: fighting mindless creatures for example, or those without honor (like goblins). It's worthwhile bringing up with your DM.

[Kobold Esq]

It always entertains me that we spend so much time arguing over Paladin and Knight codes. Meanwhile WotC churned out all sorts of feats, special materials, class features, and magic items to enable classes like druids and wizards to completely negate their mechanical fluff penalties (dragon hide armor for druids, various arcane spell failure reducers for wizards/sorcerers).

But good thing we all keep looking for ways to keep those powerful knights and paladins in check.

[Gwendol]

LOL! Yeah, it is quite insane they way the fluff supposedly standing in the way of arcane/divine world dominance are handwaved away while for the knight... they couldn't even allow his challenges to scale in a meaningful way.

[SowZ]

It always entertains me that we spend so much time arguing over Paladin and Knight codes. Meanwhile WotC churned out all sorts of feats, special materials, class features, and magic items to enable classes like druids and wizards to completely negate their mechanical fluff penalties (dragon hide armor for druids, various arcane spell failure reducers for wizards/sorcerers).

But good thing we all keep looking for ways to keep those powerful knights and paladins in check.

Well, you know, what armors you can wear is one of the most important things in the game for balance. So you have to have SOME way to let the Druids and Wizards do it to avoid them becoming too weak at later levels.

[Kelb_Panthera]

It always entertains me that we spend so much time arguing over Paladin and Knight codes. Meanwhile WotC churned out all sorts of feats, special materials, class features, and magic items to enable classes like druids and wizards to completely negate their mechanical fluff penalties (dragon hide armor for druids, various arcane spell failure reducers for wizards/sorcerers).

But good thing we all keep looking for ways to keep those powerful knights and paladins in check.

Noone really argues over the knight's code though. It's very simple and direct. It's even self-consistent with the point it's supposed to have; the knight showing the fact that he's a better combatant than his enemy based purely on skill. It also gets a lot less discussion because its associated penalty is so mild. A knight can decide, "I need the +2 flanking bonus more than I'm going to need that next use of the knight's challenge," and he'll do just fine.

The paladin's code, on the other hand, caries a -lot- of unfortunate baggage in its language. It demands respect for legitimate authority without defining legitimate authority, it demands honorable behavior without spelling out what is meant by honorable (which is a highly subjective concept) beyond a few vague examples. It only makes one very clear demand: committing a single evil act causes you to fall.

It then imposes a very harsh penalty that requires time and resources to remove. It's really no wonder that it generates a considerably greater amount of hooplah than any of the other CoC's of this or that class.

At the risk of invoking the spirit of the stormwind fallacy, the paladin is very much a roleplayer's class, rather than a rollplayer's class. If you really only want the mechanics of the class, there are much better ways to get them than to be a paladin if the CoC is going to be an issue. A metric crap-ton of classes and prestige classes get smite abilities. Some versions of smite can even be aquired via feat. The same goes for minor spell-casting, a special mount type companion, and even divine grace is available under a few different titles. If you or your DM is going to make a big deal about the code and either of you, or your fellow players, will have less fun as a result of that, for Boccob's sake, play something else.

[Kobold Esq]

At the risk of invoking the spirit of the stormwind fallacy, the paladin is very much a roleplayer's class, rather than a rollplayer's class. If you really only want the mechanics of the class, there are much better ways to get them than to be a paladin if the CoC is going to be an issue. .

Which is of course ultimately my problem with CoC classes (we can add in the druid, wu jen, etc), as well as every alignment restricted class (bard, monk, barbarian, assassin, hexblade, etc) as well.

If you want to roleplay a "paladin" or a "knight" with a code, go for it. But as a mechanic it is terribly clunky, and makes it very difficult to use the class as a more generic building block. The fact that we had to have books waste space with things like Paladins of Tyranny/Slaughter/Freedom shows how silly it is.

If I recall, one of the original 3.0 devs said they had originally planned to release the paladin and monk without the alignment restrictions. But they were added back in not for balance, but because that was just want people thought the classes were "supposed" to have.

Personally, I just prefer my classes as building blocks. I can handle my personal codes and roleplaying without mechanical carrots and sticks.

[Darrin]

My problem with the Knight's Code: you can issue Challenges while invisible.

[Kelb_Panthera]

Not to be nitpicky but, while I personally find them distasteful, the alternate paladins in UA can hardly be called a waste of space. The entire point of the book was alternatives to the standard rules.

In any case, while a code of conduct most certainly can be handled as an entirely voluntary role-play element, adding it to a few (and do note how very few classes actually have one, much less one that's significant) classes as a mechanical element gives those classes a unique angle for the player-dm dynamic to actually make the CoC something relevant far beyond what it ever could be as a purely role-played item. This is something that the paladin's code shares with the alignment system on the whole. Neither are strictly necessary to creating a functional game and in this game in particular can be, and often are, disregarded entirely with little to no detrimental effects to the game.

If you want to look at all classes as -only- building blocks for a character concept, then you certainly can, and it's not necessarily inappropriate to disregard any alignment and/or mechanical role-play restrictions that are part of the RAW.

If, on the other hand, you want to look at -most- classes as purely building blocks, but some others as being much more fluff-oriented classes then that's exactly what classes like the paladin are for.

[Occasional Sage]

The Knight only loses a use of Knight's Challenge for breaking his code, while the enemy gets a sword in the chest. It's not a good trade-off.

It's a great trade for the knight.


That is because unlike the Knight, the Average Joe was "free" to dig ditches and sell fish or whatever to get his family through Winter. He didn't have time to think of stupid rules to bolster his street cred.

SowZ meant that knights were not chivalrous to commoners, only to other knights.