Using the base class Knight.

[Arc_knight25]

Is there any build that can save this class?

I don't see much use in the Knights Challenge until later levels when you can just keep spending them not to die(lvl 20) and to remake a save v.s a mind effecting spell(lvl16).

The extra mobility it gives you in armour as well as the extra sheild bonuses is nice as well.

Bulwark of Defense is nice too, enemies treat the area around you as difficult terrain.

Even the Knights saves are bad for a supposed melee tank. Only getting will as a good save.

I can see a taking a 5 lvl dip as being somewhat advantages for armour wearers.

Just wondering what peoples thoughts were?

[NeoPhoenix0]

It all depends on your optimization level and what you want to play.

It can do some things the fighter can't do, It's mainly for some niche low optimization roles. Mainly, a tank that specializes in tanking and tries to draw some attacks.

On the other hand it can be great for role playing. It is a lot different from the paladin. You can be any lawful alignment, but you mainly serve or protect one person usually. the code is a little more flexible with the ability to just spend a challenge if you really need to break it.

[Fax Celestis]

"Save"? It's actually one of the few ways one can actually play a defender-type in D&D.

I would say Knight 4 would be a good jump-off point for a Cha-based gish.

Simple build: Knight 4/Sorc 4/EK 10/Spellsword 1/Abj Cham 5
Complicated, weird divine build: Knight 4/Duskblade 3/Divine Champion 1/Sovereign Speaker 9/something 3
Even-more-out-there build: Knight 4/Monk 2/Sorc 4/Eldritch Knight 10 with Ascetic Mage.

[Big Fau]

Knight's Challenge is actually decent at keeping your enemies from attacking the more squishy members of your party. I just kinda wish the Crusader had that feature instead of getting Smite, since the Crusader could actually survive taking a few hits.

[Fax Celestis]

If you want to go initiator, Knight/Crusader/Deepstone Sentinel is pretty awesome.

[Chronos]

Am I the only one who thinks that the Knight class really ought to have been a chain of fighter bonus feats?

[Person_Man]

Knight Handbook (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?p=5998764)

Every Knight optimization tip I know is there.

I'm a fan of the class, because they have a cool core concept and unique mechanic. But it's Tier 4, and everyone knows it. You can optimize it to make it a really cool Tier 4 class, or go into a Tier 3+ prestige class to make up for it, but it is what it is.


I have a heavily houseruled version that adds a bunch of stuff in addition to all their normal class abilities:

Level 1: Your Knight Code can be anything you want it to be, and does not impose a mechanical penalty.
Level 1: Tower or exotic shield proficiency (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=123630).
Level 1:You can also use Handle Animal and Ride as free actions (not the Move/Standard actions specified in the Skills).
Level 1: Allies also gain the benefits of your Fighting Challenge bonus.
Level 2: You can take any Bonus Feat you qualify for, not just Mounted Combat. And once per day after 10 minutes of training, you may retrain every Knight Bonus Feat to another Feat of your choice that you qualify for, but cannot retrain Feats that are pre-reqs for other Feats.
Level 2: Shield Block bonus is increased to the listed amount + 1/4 your Knight class level. If you wield your shield in a hand (as opposed to using an Animated Shield or some other workaround) your Shield AC bonus (including Shield Block) applies to your Touch AC and to resist opposed checks (Trip, Bull Rush, Grapple, etc).
Level 6: Shield Ally can be used as a free action (instead of immediate action) however often you like. If you wield your shield in a hand, all of the benefits of your Shield (including your Shield Block abilities and any defensive enhancements your shield might have) also applies to adjacent allies and your mount.
Level 7: You gain the Paladin Special Mount ability, Druid Animal Companion, or any alternate equivalent alternate class ability, and levels of Knight stack with levels of other classes or prestige classes that grant a Special Mount OR Animal Companion (but not both).
Level 8: Call to Battle allows you to grant yourself and all allies (not 1 ally) a second save on any ongoing mind affecting effect (not just Fear).
Level 9: You are granted land, a fort/keep/castle, a noble title and level of authority, within your area of command, and appropriate followers. (Basically the 2nd edition AD&D 9th level Fighter ability).
Level 11: Bonus Feat.
Level 12: Daunting Challenge effects enemies of any Challenge Rating or Intelligence that can be effected by Fear. Enemies that fail their Save become Frightened.
Level 13: Bonus Feat.
Level 16: Bond of Loyalty works against any ongoing effect that allowed a Save (not just mind affecting)
Level 17: Impetuous Endurance also allows you to spend a Knight's Challenge to auto-succeed on any Saving Throw. You can do this after the results of the Save are determined as a Free Action.
Level 18: Bonus Feat.
Level 19: You gain DR 10/-. Whenever you are wielding a shield, this also applies to any adjacent allies and your mount. If you have DR /- from another source (like armor, a shield, or a racial ability) it stacks.


Though obviously, homebrew can save anything, and has nothing to do with the class itself.

[Fax Celestis]

The Knight's Challenge ability easily could've been, or a paladin ACF: drop spellcasting, get Knight's Challenge.

[TengYt]

I always wished that the Paladin class had all the Knight class features. That way you'd have one pretty decent class rather than a couple of half assed ones. I once played a game with a homebrewed Paladin with most Knight features and it worked fairly well.

[DR27]

Am I the only one who thinks that the Knight class really ought to have been a chain of fighter bonus feats?That, and Rage. Really, there are multiple examples of situations where "should have been a feat" things become class features, probably for book-padding reasons.

[NeoPhoenix0]

I think the knight class should be it's own class. It's flavor, while similar too, doesn't mesh up well with the paladin class. Fighters are defined by how they do offense, knights are defined by their defense.

Edit: Also a lot of you seem to think making it a feat tree is acceptable. That takes away from dnd in general. Dnd is a class based system. Major abilities like this shouldn't be turned into feats, which are a secondary system.

[DR27]

I think the knight class should be it's own class. It's flavor, while similar too, doesn't mesh up well with the paladin class. Fighters are defined by how they do offense, knights are defined by their defense.

Edit: Also a lot of you seem to think making it a feat tree is acceptable. That takes away from dnd in general. Dnd is a class based system. Major abilities like this shouldn't be turned into feats, which are a secondary system.Or, fluff defining mechanics takes away from DnD in general. Saying that you can't be a peerless defender if you are a Holy Warrior/Veteran Fighter, or Hulk out unless you come from the wilds and are an ignorant savage is not exactly character creation freedom. Uncoupling fluff from crunch is usually a good thing for players who want that freedom. This ("major ability," i.e. knight class features) is a fighting style, and should be capable of being applied to multiple fighter concepts.

I'm not saying one way is right, but that there will be personal preferences for one or the other.

[Chronos]

Reinforcing the importance of classes shouldn't mean rendering one of the iconic core classes useless. The real problem with the fighter is just people saying that class features ought to be more interesting/worthwhile than feats. But if we did have feats that were as interesting and worthwhile as two levels worth of class features, the fighter would suddenly become a great class for its versatility.

[Big Fau]

Reinforcing the importance of classes shouldn't mean rendering one of the iconic core classes useless. The real problem with the fighter is just people saying that class features ought to be more interesting/worthwhile than feats. But if we did have feats that were as interesting and worthwhile as two levels worth of class features, the fighter would suddenly become a great class for its versatility.

The problem is those feats would be available to everyone unless you make them exclusive to a few classes, at which point you are just forcing them to spend a class feature to get a class feature.

That's actually my major complaint about the Ranger, Monk, and Dungeoncrasher: Their main features are little better than feats, but disguised as class features (in the Ranger's case, the only real benefit is that you can ignore prereqs).

[DR27]

The problem is those feats would be available to everyone unless you make them exclusive to a few classes, at which point you are just forcing them to spend a class feature to get a class feature.

That's actually my major complaint about the Ranger, Monk, and Dungeoncrasher: Their main features are little better than feats, but disguised as class features (in the Ranger's case, the only real benefit is that you can ignore prereqs).Ideally, those things are feats, but the base class features would synergize with some feats better than others. Sure everybody else has access to Knight's Challenge (or whatever), but my class chasis/features make the feat shine brighter than your class features do. Maybe the Beguiler can take that same feat, but can't use it quite as well as the Paladin/Crusader/Fighter.

[NeoPhoenix0]

But you want to make class features feats to allow more freedom. You could just take those class features that shine as feats then. Where do you stop making things into feats? If you want to do this than you should play a feat based game that doesn't include classes. or just use the generic classes only. What you're suggesting just destroys class identity.

[Chronos]

It's not that I think all class features should be made into feats. I just think that those class features which fit into the framework of what a fighter ought to be able to do should be feats. And yes, everyone could take them. So what? The fighter still gets over twice as many feats as anyone else, so he'd have more of them.

[Big Fau]

It's not that I think all class features should be made into feats. I just think that those class features which fit into the framework of what a fighter ought to be able to do should be feats. And yes, everyone could take them. So what? The fighter still gets over twice as many feats as anyone else, so he'd have more of them.

It still means classes like the Warblade, Duskblade, and Crusader are better. Even if the Fighter gets twice as many feats, the fact is his best ones are open to classes that are just more efficient at what he does.

Making the weak guy better doesn't help when you give those same toys to the guys who are already strong.

[DR27]

But you want to make class features feats to allow more freedom. You could just take those class features that shine as feats then. Where do you stop making things into feats? If you want to do this than you should play a feat based game that doesn't include classes. or just use the generic classes only. What you're suggesting just destroys class identity.Where is the line drawn that things shouldn't be restricted to classes? Should Defensive Sweep (http://dndtools.eu/feats/players-handbook-ii--80/defensive-sweep--557/) be rolled into the Knight class because it fits the flavor? Maybe Manyshot should have been Ranger-only? Not that this should be an argument, as it's really an opinion thing, but using reductio ad absurdum is hardly the way to go about it. There's a limit, and it's arbitrary. The developers chose their limit, and I don't think it went far enough in giving modular options, especially in cases such as the Knight. It feels like it was a book-padding option (they needed a 4th class), because the features contained within are distributed in limited form elsewhere (e.g. Goad (http://dndtools.eu/feats/complete-adventurer--54/goad--1237/), Thicket of Blades (http://dndtools.eu/spells/tome-of-battle-the-book-of-nine-swords--88/thicket-blades--3616/), Shield Block (http://dndtools.eu/spells/tome-of-battle-the-book-of-nine-swords--88/shield-block--3613/), etc - there was a realization that several things the Knight gets shouldn't be exclusive). Maybe there is a unique class there, and it was pretty cool as a first real attempt at drawing aggro, but it should be a fighting style others can get if they want.

[NeoPhoenix0]

But dnd is modular. You can multiclass all you want.

[Midnight_v]

Person man likely answered the ops question with that link to his handbook. Person man that is an awesome resource, thank you for putting in the time like that.

I wanted to add that, on the corrections/brew side one of the best basic fixes to the knight class I first saw in frank and k's tome changed or addendum knights challenge to something like this:

Designate Opponent (Ex): As a Swift Action, a Knight may mark an opponent as their primary foe. This foe must be within medium range and be able to hear the Knight's challenge. If the target creature inflicts any damage on the Knight before the Knight's next turn, the attempt fails. Otherwise, any attacks the Knight uses against the opponent during her next turn inflict an extra d6 of damage for each Knight level. This effect ends at the end of her next turn, or when she has struck her opponent a number of times equal to the number of attacks normally allotted her by her Base Attack Bonus.

Example: Vayn is a 6th level Knight presently benefiting from a haste spell, granting her an extra attack during a Full Attack action. On her turn she designates an Ettin as her primary opponent, and the Ettin declines to attack her during the ensuing turn. When her next turn comes up, she uses a Full Attack and attacks 3 times. The first two hits inflict an extra 6d6 of damage, and then she designates the Ettin as her opponent again. It won't soon ignore her!
At first I wondered about the power level of something like that but that was before the tob came out, but MORE importantly before 4th edition came out in which they came up with the ability of "MARKING".

Officially: Marked is a new condition that defenders and some soldier monsters can apply to their enemies. By itself, it gives a penalty to your target if it attacks anyone but you, which helps defenders and soldiers fulfill their role on the battle grid.

The thing is in 3.5 as a non tob 4th tier melee guy the first (and easiest) thing that needs to be addressed is damage. Followed immediately by movement... but that's neither here nor there.
Adding damage to the effect of him being ignored is likely the first best step.

Sadly the tob is doing elaborate things that likely outshines the knight just all over the place but being able to do equal (if conditional) would be the first balm.

[Big Fau]

But dnd is modular. You can multiclass all you want.

That still doesn't change the fact that a certain class is bad at what it's supposed to do, it just means that another class offers something better.

[NeoPhoenix0]

And that still doesn't justify homebrewing classes into oblivion by turning their distinctive features into feat chains.

Edit: I admit to this being a sore issue for me. I very much do not like any homebrew/"fix" that replicates core class features.

[Big Fau]

And that still doesn't justify homebrewing classes into oblivion by turning their distinctive features into feat chains.

Edit: I admit to this being a sore issue for me. I very much do not like any homebrew/"fix" that replicates core class features.

I wasn't advocating that. I was arguing against it.

[NeoPhoenix0]

I was saying that turning class features into feats for the sake of being modular doesn't make sense when dnd is already modular. You can multiclass to get the class features you want. sorry if there was any confusion on that point.

[Fax Celestis]

I was saying that turning class features into feats for the sake of being modular doesn't make sense when dnd is already modular. You can multiclass to get the class features you want. sorry if there was any confusion on that point.

Sure, but there are some classes that are, frankly, terrible classes that should probably just be feat chains. Like Samurai. Oh wait, that class already is a feat chain.

[NeoPhoenix0]

The samurai and fighter were poorly designed classes. Especially the samurai, which is pretty much just a fighter with significantly less options.

[Chronos]

Quoth Big Fau:

It still means classes like the Warblade, Duskblade, and Crusader are better. Even if the Fighter gets twice as many feats, the fact is his best ones are open to classes that are just more efficient at what he does.

Making the weak guy better doesn't help when you give those same toys to the guys who are already strong.
It does when you give over twice as many toys to the weak guy.

[russdm]

But you want to make class features feats to allow more freedom. You could just take those class features that shine as feats then. Where do you stop making things into feats? If you want to do this than you should play a feat based game that doesn't include classes. or just use the generic classes only. What you're suggesting just destroys class identity.

They are already did this all with fighters, making any wizard can burn feats to become a spiked chain tripper. That essentially explains why fighters suck.


It does when you give over twice as many toys to the weak guy.

No it doesn't if you give them as feats that any class can pick up. Thats just rubbing his nose into the mud while shouting "my wizard can still kick your ass while using those things because you still can't get more stuff to use those new toys!" and then dumping pie on his head afterward.

[DR27]

I admit to this being a sore issue for me. I very much do not like any homebrew/"fix" that replicates core class features.I don't know why this should be a thing, core classes aren't necessarily unique. It amounts to irrational faith in whatever WotC puts out as "correct." "Core class" is a construct that is made at the developer level - they could have made a better Goad (http://dndtools.eu/feats/complete-adventurer--54/goad--1237/) feat, and that would suffice for Knight's Challenge, Test of Mettle, and Daunting Challenge. Call to Battle is equivalent to a Paladin's Aura of Courage, and Bond of Loyalty is in that vein. Loyal Beyond Death? It's a capstone, so is actually pretty unique. Pretty much everything else can be found in ToB (Devoted Spirit (http://dndtools.eu/spells/schools/devoted-spirit/)), because they realized those are good abilities that should be accessible to multiple fighting-types. There's no reason to put this much faith in "official publishers" - they came up with the original idea, and were amazing in creative ability, but didn't playtest to see if things were actually correct come printing time.

Basically, they made the core concept for the class elsewhere originally, realized that the options they created sucked, then powered those options up slightly and made a base class because they needed 4 classes for the PHBII. After, the publishers realized that the goal of having a melee draw aggro was still unrealized, and made the Crusader, goal achieved. The Knight was mostly defunct at that point. Homebrewers realize this sequence of events and are pointing out that you could separate the Knight out into it's component features so that it would still be useful - but because something was already published by WotC, people feel that it shouldn't ever be superseded.

Again, this isn't really an argument since it's a matter of opinion - but the opinion that says replication of "core class features" is incorrect becomes silly when looked at in a wider context. Was the CW Samurai unique? Why do the Knight's class features constitute some sort of special thing that nobody else should be able to do? Especially considering that fighters currently can only fulfill two of the roles the fluff says they do (they don't defend):

Fighters can be stalwart defenders of those in need, cruel marauders, or gutsy adventurers.

Look no further than the acid-breathing (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/SharkPool) shark (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=193765) if you somehow think that just because WotC put it out, it must be right. :p

[NeoPhoenix0]

If that is what you think dnd isn't the game for you. Dnd's mechanics are class based first. After rolling up ability scores the first thing you pick that makes your character different is class. It is the main thing that will set your character apart from other characters. Taking the primary mechanic of a class and turning it into feats destroys this. Classes having features other class can't get is the entire point, and always has been. WotC just made a horrible class when they designed the fighter without any class features.

[Fax Celestis]

The samurai and fighter were poorly designed classes. Especially the samurai, which is pretty much just a fighter with significantly less options.

...which invalidates my point how?

[Namfuak]

If that is what you think dnd isn't the game for you. Dnd's mechanics are class based first. After rolling up ability scores the first thing you pick that makes your character different is class. It is the main thing that will set your character apart from other characters. Taking the primary mechanic of a class and turning it into feats destroys this. Classes having features other class can't get is the entire point, and always has been. WotC just made a horrible class when they designed the fighter without any class features.

I think that you are right that D&D is a class based game. However, we see that in almost every single case, classes that have inherent flexibility tend to be more powerful and more fun than those that don't. Wizards, sorcerers, warlocks, crusaders - these classes are all various tiers, and yet all of them are fun because their primary class feature (spellcasting, maneuvers, etc) is pretty much based around being modular and flexible. The only class that's similarly modular that isn't well regarded (at least as a full level 20 class) is a fighter, the reason being that they do not have any good options. However, my main point becomes the fact that over time, as WoTC learned what people want, they saw that making classes that inherently have options to differentiate themselves from others of the same class was a winning strategy. The thing to take away from this is that regardless of how 3.5 was envisioned when the PHBI came out, the developers realized that modularity in classes was fun and interesting, moreso than making static classes that would always play the same way. So, taking classes that are static and breaking up their class features to be used as feats by other classes could have a net positive impact on the game.

[NeoPhoenix0]

...which invalidates my point how?

It doesn't. WotC just didn't put any effort into making them. I might almost say they aren't really classes, but the fighter does get some ok alternate class features by giving up their feats, mainly dungeon crasher. Fighter is kinda like 3rd edition's classless class, just like a lot of d20 systems have adopted. Just because I'm defending classes actually being classes doesn't mean I can't admit WotC goofed up big time here and there.

edit:

*snip*

Fine, homebrew some fighter feat chains or alternate class features that don't just cherry pick other class's abilities.

[DR27]

If that is what you think dnd isn't the game for you. Dnd's mechanics are class based first. After rolling up ability scores the first thing you pick that makes your character different is class. It is the main thing that will set your character apart from other characters. Taking the primary mechanic of a class and turning it into feats destroys this. Classes having features other class can't get is the entire point, and always has been. WotC just made a horrible class when they designed the fighter without any class features.At this point, I think you must be trolling considering that you aren't addressing the fact that I'm specifically talking about the Knight and how it's class features can be weakly replicated elsewhere in publications prior to it's existence, and that it's features are based on those failed attempts to create an aggro mechanic. WotC tactically acknowledged they failed with the creation of the Devoted Spirit discipline. Your class sets you apart, but trap classes just trick new players into thinking they are picking something for a reason when it's not actually that thing. The Knight is a trap in that regard. Being mad at people for wanting to part out the failed class makes no sense when you consider the context and history.

[NeoPhoenix0]

At this point, I think you must be trolling considering that you aren't addressing the fact that I'm specifically talking about the Knight and how it's class features can be weakly replicated elsewhere in publications prior to it's existence, and that it's features are based on those failed attempts to create an aggro mechanic. WotC tactically acknowledged they failed with the creation of the Devoted Spirit discipline. Your class sets you apart, but trap classes just trick new players into thinking they are picking something for a reason when it's not actually that thing. The Knight is a trap in that regard. Being mad at people for wanting to part out the failed class makes no sense when you consider the context and history.

It still acts reasonably differently from those things, unless you're saying you'd rather use this collection of stuff that the knight is based off of? If a new player wants to play a knight then inform him of what to expect. There are many optimization levels. People have used knights for what they were intended for, they are capable of it. If your argument is that other classes can pull of the roll better, that's just a symptom of the system we are all very familiar with. The druid, cleric and wizard can all pretty much pull of any role better than the class designed to do them.

If your response to a philosophical statement is to call me a troll, I have nothing more to say to you. If you call me childish for this, you called me a troll first.

Edit: Also you assume I'm mad, I am, but only at being called a troll. You have your opinion and I respect that. I have my opinion, and I expect to be allowed to express that opinion without being insulted.

[DR27]

If your response to a philosophical statement is to call me a troll, I have nothing more to say to you. If you call me childish for this, you called me a troll first.And you said I shouldn't be playing the game at all. Don't get high and mighty.

[NeoPhoenix0]

And you said I shouldn't be playing the game at all. Don't get high and mighty.

That isn't what I said. I probably could have said what I did more tactfully, but that is not what I said.

Edit: Although if you really like the idea of extremely modular feat based systems, I suggest you look for one that is feat based entirely. I know they exist. I found one once that completely gave up on the idea of classes and have BAB and saves scale with level. I can't remember a lot of the details because the system didn't really interest me, but I do remember there were prestige class like feat chains that you had to qualify for, that gave you benefits for taking in addition to the feats themselves.

In my opinion fixing the fighter is really a matter of either giving him his own class features or fixing the entire system.

[Namfuak]

Fine, homebrew some fighter feat chains or alternate class features that don't just cherry pick other class's abilities.

I think you're disagreeing with me, but you are not really giving any context for the disagreement. If taking away classes that are not as fun to play and making their class features into feats might have a positive impact on the game, why shouldn't I try it? It might be interesting to play a warblade that rages like a barbarian, or a paladin with some of the knight class features (something someone has already said they tried and that it worked well).

[Big Fau]

I think you're disagreeing with me, but you are not really giving any context for the disagreement. If taking away classes that are not as fun to play and making their class features into feats might have a positive impact on the game, why shouldn't I try it? It might be interesting to play a warblade that rages like a barbarian, or a paladin with some of the knight class features (something someone has already said they tried and that it worked well).

Because doing so isn't going to fix the low-tiers and only helps the high tiers. It isn't a solution, it's willing ignorance.

[Chronos]

Quoth russdm:

No it doesn't if you give them as feats that any class can pick up. Thats just rubbing his nose into the mud while shouting "my wizard can still kick your ass while using those things because you still can't get more stuff to use those new toys!" and then dumping pie on his head afterward.
First of all, I'm not comparing to the wizard, but to other mundane classes like the warblade. The wizard is still going to be more powerful, unless you additionally hit them with some big nerfs. And the sorts of feats a fighter would want, a wizard probably wouldn't, because a wizard is much better served taking feats that play to their strengths.

And how is "over twice as much stuff" not "more stuff"?


Quoth NeoPhoenix0:

If that is what you think dnd isn't the game for you. Dnd's mechanics are class based first. After rolling up ability scores the first thing you pick that makes your character different is class. It is the main thing that will set your character apart from other characters. Taking the primary mechanic of a class and turning it into feats destroys this.
Taking the primary mechanic of a class and turning it into feats has been a part of D&D for as long as feats themselves have, because that's exactly what 3.x fighters are. You're basically arguing that fighter suck because feats suck, and that it's OK for feats to suck because fighters suck. It's a circular argument.

And fighters do have something unique to them, that all other classes lack: Their quantity of feats. No other class has as many feats as a fighter does, and as Stalin said, quantity has a quality of its own.

[Arc_knight25]

All I think I need to say is

http://images.wikia.com/mk/images/2/25/Anchorman_well_that_escalated_quickly_966.jpg

Thank you to Person Man for the Handbook and to Fax Celestis for the build idea's.

As for this other discussion. I'm gonna have to agree with NeoPhoenix0.


Original Post by NeoPhoenix0

If that is what you think dnd isn't the game for you. Dnd's mechanics are class based first. After rolling up ability scores the first thing you pick that makes your character different is class. It is the main thing that will set your character apart from other characters. Taking the primary mechanic of a class and turning it into feats destroys this. Classes having features other class can't get is the entire point, and always has been. WotC just made a horrible class when they designed the fighter without any class features.

I think this is where NeoPhoenix0 makes his point and I would have to agree with that.

[Fax Celestis]

You're basically arguing that fighter suck because feats suck

BTW, this is the reason the fighter is bad.

The fighter class isn't terrible: it's lazy design, sure, but it's not a bad class. The fighter's one class feature is one of the most widely variable features in the game.

It's just that the options to fill that variable feature are, barring a few exceptions or some very very focused investment, are terrible.

[Morty]

Fighter is a fine class concept, and Knight is a fine class concept - as long as they're not put in the same system and expected to work. The problem with D&D classes is that they're wildly inconsistent in scope. In the PHB itself we have extremely broad classes like the Fighter and the Rogue and very narrow ones like the Paladin and the Monk. Splatbooks exacerbate the problem by adding classes that are based around a specific kind of beating people with weapons, like the Knight, the Swashbuckler or the Samurai (the last one's inexcusably terrible design notwithstanding). So we end up with class features that should really be fighter feats and the nagging question of why do we even need the fighter.

[Chronos]

Splatbooks exacerbate the problem by adding classes that are based around a specific kind of beating people with weapons, like the Knight, the Swashbuckler or the Samurai (the last one's inexcusably terrible design notwithstanding).
There's really no excuse for the Samurai. Even the designers describe them as nearly as powerful as a fighter, but less versatile.

[Person_Man]

RE: Why not just combine Fighter/Samurai/Paladin/Knight

It'd be fairly easy to do. d12 hit die, full weapons and armor, strong Fort/Will, 4 Skills per level with combined Skill list. At first level you get two abilities from any of the four classes 1st level abilities (bonus feat, Smite, Challenge, etc). Every level thereafter you get one ability from any of the classes at that level or lower (For example, at second level, you could take divine grace, lay on hands, a bonus feat, shield block, etc). If you want a Paladin spell, you gain it as a spell-like ability, usable a limited number of times per day.

After 8 hours of rest, you can swap out any/all of your abilities.

Done?

[Dusk Eclipse]

"Save"? It's actually one of the few ways one can actually play a defender-type in D&D.

I would say Knight 4 would be a good jump-off point for a Cha-based gish.

Simple build: Knight 4/Sorc 4/EK 10/Spellsword 1/Abj Cham 5
Complicated, weird divine build: Knight 4/Duskblade 3/Divine Champion 1/Sovereign Speaker 9/something 3
Even-more-out-there build: Knight 4/Monk 2/Sorc 4/Eldritch Knight 10 with Ascetic Mage.

Never thought of doing that, Knight certainly doesn't screams "GISH" to me, but it does make an interesting entry for Suel Arcanamach (Knight 4/Crusader 2/Suel Arcanamach 3/Jade Phoenix Mage 10/ Suel +1?)

[Fax Celestis]

Never thought of doing that, Knight certainly doesn't screams "GISH" to me, but it does make an interesting entry for Suel Arcanamach (Knight 4/Crusader 2/Suel Arcanamach 3/Jade Phoenix Mage 10/ Suel +1?)

Really? As a melee class with CHA as a secondary stat, I think it basically fits into your typical Sorcadin build pretty easily.

[Dusk Eclipse]

I'd never really paid attention to Knight before, so I wasn't aware it is cha-based.

[Arc_knight25]

If there were feats like Devoted Performer, Daring Outlaw, the Aestetic Line.

Something that would let the Fighters Challenge increase with another class feature from another class would be kinda cool. Lots of build options then.

[Gwendol]

If there were feats like Devoted Performer, Daring Outlaw, the Aestetic Line.

Something that would let the Fighters Challenge increase with another class feature from another class would be kinda cool. Lots of build options then.

Or, you know, base the DC off the character level. Right now the DC scales poorly even if you stick with the class all the way. Knights are really cool to play in that they off some features that feel special, but that don't work well with other classes.

[Chronos]

Or maybe base the DC on BAB, or something. That'd let you keep it up if you multiclassed to other warrior-type classes, but make it unappealing for most casters.

[Arc_knight25]

Homebrew a feat. Shouldn't be to hard

Honourable Warrior:
Your Fighter and Knight levels stack for determining the DC of your Knight's Challenge Abilities. Also your Knight and Fighter levels stack for determining your effective Fighter level for qualifying for feats

Honourable Warden:
Your Knight and Ranger levels stack for determining the DC of your Knights Challenge abilities. Also the stack for determining when you select additional favoured enemies as well as the total bonus granted against your favored enemies. In addition your Knights Challenge abilities can effect your Favoured Enemies regardless off Int and ability to see/hear/communicate.

Honourable Performer for Music and Knights Challenge stacking.

Honourable Devotee for Smite and Knights Challenge stacking.

Throw on some Preq's from both classes and boom your Knights challenge should scale much better.

If anyone can think of any others please post.

[Gwendol]

You could also consider allowing the knight to use more knight challenges to increase the DC: +2 for every additional knight's challenge expended for example.

[Kuulvheysoon]

Maybe regulate how many uses you can "stack" at a time - somehow related to their effective Knight level.

Of course, you'd have to toss on an Extra Challenges feat; something along the lines of Extra Smite/Rage?

[NeoPhoenix0]

Homebrew a feat. Shouldn't be to hard

Honourable Warrior:
Your Fighter and Knight levels stack for determining the DC of your Knight's Challenge Abilities. Also your Knight and Fighter levels stack for determining your effective Fighter level for qualifying for feats

Honourable Warden:
Your Knight and Ranger levels stack for determining the DC of your Knights Challenge abilities. Also the stack for determining when you select additional favoured enemies as well as the total bonus granted against your favored enemies. In addition your Knights Challenge abilities can effect your Favoured Enemies regardless off Int and ability to see/hear/communicate.

Honourable Performer for Music and Knights Challenge stacking.

Honourable Devotee for Smite and Knights Challenge stacking.

Throw on some Preq's from both classes and boom your Knights challenge should scale much better.

If anyone can think of any others please post.


Maybe regulate how many uses you can "stack" at a time - somehow related to their effective Knight level.

Of course, you'd have to toss on an Extra Challenges feat; something along the lines of Extra Smite/Rage?

I like both of these ideas a lot.

For honorable performer, add that you no longer need to be nonlawful to take levels in bard.

[Arc_knight25]

Original Post by Gwendol

Or, you know, base the DC off the character level. Right now the DC scales poorly even if you stick with the class all the way. Knights are really cool to play in that they off some features that feel special, but that don't work well with other classes.

I prefer the need of a feat to progress the Knights Challenge as opposed to just making it progress off of Character Level. This way there is a bit of resource used to get the ability to progress, rather then just taking 4 levels of the class to get Test of Mettle and running away from the class and getting all the perks without any real detrement to your build.

[Tokuhara]

IIRC, Knight was the cornerstone to an Exalted "Can't Touch Me" build that the enemy had to make 3 saves to even attack the guy. I think it was a Knight/Apostle of Peace build that was flat-out disgusting.

Here's a link to Person_Man's Sir Bertold (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7475478&postcount=29) build

[Gwendol]

I prefer the need of a feat to progress the Knights Challenge as opposed to just making it progress off of Character Level. This way there is a bit of resource used to get the ability to progress, rather then just taking 4 levels of the class to get Test of Mettle and running away from the class and getting all the perks without any real detrement to your build.

It's not that different from the way ToB classes work: you add half your other classes to your initiator level, after all.
But sure, a feat is a good solution.

[Person_Man]

OK, this has been nawing on me for a few days now. So I just took some time to put together a homebrew class to resolve the "why don't we just combine the Knight/Fighter/Paladin/Samurai" problem.

So here it is, the Knight Champion (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?p=16056437).