Retiering the Classes: Knight, Noble, Swashbuckler

[heavyfuel]

This round is for those mundane classes that didn't fit anywhere else. Because of their mundane nature, I don't expect them to get high tiers but we've had worse. Don't know what to say about these guys as a group, so let's see our contenders.

Knight: One of the few "Tank" classes in D&D. The "tanking" concept doesn't usually work because, unlike in a video-game, enemies will usually ignore the guy with 50 AC that deals 0 damage. But this class is one of the few in D&D that can actually force enemies into focusing you, either directly or indirectly. Unfortunately, the class pretty much locks you in a Sword & Board fighting style, which we all know is not optimal for damage, so the Knight can't smash face as well as its Fighter or Barbarian counterpart. Overall, they can do 1 thing and 1 thing only, tanking, and even then they don't do it so well. Tier 5.

Noble: I've never seen this class in an actual game and I think there are two pretty good reasons for it. Number 1, it's from Dragonlance Campaign Setting which is not exactly a popular book, and number 2, it appears to suck hard, especially for PCs. Your main schtick is asking NPCs for favors, but they are explicitly under DM's purview, and DM's even get a word of warning to not let nobles break the game with Favors. Favors aside, they get a decent skill list, and can inspire allies in a worse way than the Bard. Because this class is so DM dependant, I honestly can't think a good tier for it. A lenient DM might make it Tier 3, but a restrictive one would make it Tier 5, as a decent skill list alone isn't enough for Tier 4. I'm averaging both and saying the Noble is Tier 4.

Swashbuckler: I think this class was trying pretty hard to emulate Inigo Montoya, a swordsman who has actually studied fencing and can use his intellect to help in combat. Problem is, that's all they do. I've never seen anyone take more than 3 levels in this class. They come, get Insightful Strike, and leave. 4+Int skill points and Int focus would make them great secondary skill monkeys, if only they had better class skills. The Arcane Stunt ACF is really good compared to Grace and, overall, they can do more than smash stab face, but not much more. I'm reluctant to give this class a Tier 5 rating, but it's not a full on Tier 4. My oficial vote is Tier 4.8, which, as usual, I'm rounding here to Tier 5


What are the tiers?

The simple answer here is that tier one is the best, the home of things on the approximate problem solving scale of wizards, and tier six is the worst, land of commoners. And problem solving capacity is what's being measured here. Considering the massive range of challenges a character is liable to be presented with across the levels, how much and how often does that character's class contribute to the defeat of those challenges? This value should be considered as a rough averaging across all levels, the center of the level range somewhat more than really low and really high level characters, and across all optimization levels (considering DM restrictiveness as a plausible downward acting factor on how optimized a character is), prioritizing moderate optimization somewhat more than low or high.

A big issue with the original tier system is that, if anything, it was too specific, generating inflexible definitions for allowance into a tier which did not cover the broad spectrum of ways a class can operate. When an increase in versatility would seem to represent a decrease in tier, because tier two is supposed to be low versatility, it's obvious that we've become mired in something that'd be pointless to anyone trying to glean information from the tier system. Thus, I will be uncharacteristically word light here. The original tier system's tier descriptions (http://brilliantgameologists.com/boards/index.php?topic=5293.0) are still good guidelines here, but they shouldn't be assumed to be the end all and be all for how classes get ranked.

Consistent throughout these tiers is the notion of problems and the solving thereof. For the purposes of this tier system, the problem space can be said to be inclusive of combat, social interaction, and exploration, with the heaviest emphasis placed on combat. A problem could theoretically fall outside of that space, but things inside that space are definitely problems. Another way to view the idea of problem solving is through the lens of the niche ranking system (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?314701-Person_Man-s-Niche-Ranking-System). A niche filled tends to imply the capacity to solve a type of problem, whether it's a status condition in the case of healing, or an enemy that just has too many hit points in the case of melee combat. It's not a perfect measure, both because some niches have a lot of overlap in the kinds of problems they can solve and because, again, the niches aren't necessarily all inclusive, but they can act as a good tool for class evaluation.

Tier one: Incredibly good at solving nearly all problems. This is the realm of clerics, druids, and wizards, classes that open up with strong combat spells backed up by utility, and then get massively stronger from there. If you're not keeping up with that core trio of tier one casters, then you probably don't belong here.

Tier two: We're just a step below tier one here, in the land of classes around the sorcerer level of power. Generally speaking, this means relaxing one of the two tier one assumptions, either getting us to very good at solving nearly all problems, or incredibly good at solving most problems. But, as will continue to be the case as these tiers go on, there aren't necessarily these two simple categories for this tier. You gotta lose something compared to the tier one casters, but what you lose doesn't have to be in some really specific proportions.

Tier three: Again, we gotta sacrifice something compared to tier two, here taking us to around the level of a swordsage. The usual outcome is that you are very good at solving a couple of problems and competent at solving a few more. Of course, there are other possibilities, for example that you might instead be competent at solving nearly all problems.

Tier four: Here we're in ranger/barbarian territory (though the ranger should be considered largely absent of ACF's and stuff to hit this tier, as will be talked about later). Starting from that standard tier three position, the usual sweet spots here are very good at solving a few problems, or alright at solving many problems.

Tier five: We're heading close to the dregs here. Tier five is the tier of monks, classes that are as bad as you can be without being an aristocrat or a commoner. Classes here are sometimes very good at solving nearly no problems, or alright at solving a few, or some other function thereof. It's weak, is the point.

Tier six: And here we have commoner tier. Or, the bottom is commoner. The top is approximately aristocrat. You don't necessarily have nothing in this tier, but you have close enough to it.



The Threads

Tier System Home Base (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?568771-Retiering-the-Classes-A-new-home)

The Icarnum Classes: Incarnate, Soulborn, Totemist (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?568774-Retiering-the-Classes-Incarnate-Soulborn-Totemist&p=23358636#post23358636)

The Auraists (Re-Done): Divine Mind, Dragon Shaman, Marshal (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?569997-Retiering-the-Classes-Divine-Mind-Dragon-Shaman-and-Marshal-(re-done)&p=23392694#post23392694)

Completing the Psionics: Ardent, Erudite, Lurk, Psychic Rogue (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?570457-Retiering-the-Classes-Ardent-Erudite-Lurk-Psychic-Rogue)


The Rankings

Knight: Tier 5

Noble: Tier 4

Swashbuckler: Tier 5

[Troacctid]

You put Swashbuckler at 4? That's a really aggressive rating. And what does sneak attack have to do with it? They don't get sneak attack.

Swashbuckler is frankly just straight-up bad. I actually think it will very often wind up behind Warrior, because the optimal way to play it is really to just ignore your class features and two-hand a greatsword with Strength as your primary stat. Because if you're trying to use Dex to attack and Int for damage, all you're doing is using more stats to do less damage than a Strength-based character. And that's your whole class right there. Not only is it a 5, it's one of the lowest 5s. I put it at 5.4.

Knight is also a solid 5. They're just not great at the thing they're trying to do. They're pretty bad. Worse than Fighter for sure, reasonably close to Soulborn or Dragon Shaman.

I'll come back to Noble.

*muttering to self* Swashbuckler at 4? Really? *shakes head*

[Luccan]

I'm not rating Noble, I don't have the book nor do I know much about it.

Swashbuckler is probably a 5.2, not a 4. Arcane Stunt can be useful, but is extremely limited. Grace itself sucks: the designers of CW were afraid a martial class with two good saves and sparse class features would be too much for some reason. The class is fairly MAD, but I don't think I've weighed that in any of my few previous rankings: the way I see it, if you have the stats to run the Swashbuckler, it's not the worst Tier 5 class. Though with this class, I have to wonder if some of the designers in 3.X thought not having magic was somehow an advantage.

Knight is a 5.2. They have restrictions that make them worse in combat and unlike the paladin these have real and specified drawbacks. It's a lose-lose code, where following it makes you worse off at what you're supposed to do and breaking it means you get to do less with your class. What class abilities they do have aren't great, not because the ideas are bad but because they either give limited bonuses (Wow, +4 to attack and damage at 20th level vs a single opponent!) or are way too specific (Increase the DC of enemy Tumble checks when they attempt to avoid AoO from moving through an area you threaten. Dwarven Defender eat your heart out). Most of their cool abilities come at much later levels.

[heavyfuel]

You put Swashbuckler at 4? That's a really aggressive rating. And what does sneak attack have to do with it? They don't get sneak attack.

*muttering to self* Swashbuckler at 4? Really? *shakes head*

It's not a 4, it's a 4.5 and I don't think they deserve worse than 5. They have decent skills, decent class features, above average chassis, can deal pretty good damage with an Elven Courtblade (finesse, 2h power attack, insightful strike, great crit range which multiplies both sources of extra damage).

Note that when I say "decent" I mean just that, not "great", but "hey, it's cool that I can do that now" . That's enough for better than Tier 5.

As for Sneak Attack, you're right that I shouldn't have considered it. Re-reading the Home Base OP, it tells us to ignore other classes, even if the Daring Outlaw build is famous, so I'm scratching it off this thread's OP and lowering the Swashbuckler to Tier 4.8 as my official vote

[liquidformat]

It's not a 4, it's a 4.5 and I don't think they deserve worse than 5. They have decent skills, decent class features, above average chassis, can deal pretty good damage with an Elven Courtblade (finesse, 2h power attack, insightful strike, great crit range which multiplies both sources of extra damage).

Note that when I say "decent" I mean just that, not "great", but "hey, it's cool that I can do that now" . That's enough for better than Tier 5.

As for Sneak Attack, you're right that I shouldn't have considered it. Re-reading the Home Base OP, it tells us to ignore other classes, even if the Daring Outlaw build is famous, so I'm scratching it off this thread's OP and lowering the Swashbuckler to Tier 4.8 as my official vote

I am not sure if you should be ignoring 'other classes' in this case, since the standard way to use swashbuckler is dipping rogue taking Daring Outlaw and twf sneak attack. In this case Daring Outlaw adds a dramatic amount of strength to the class and shield of blades; even better if your dm allows you to still use arcane stunt with it. I am not arguing that swashbuckler should be a true tier 4 much less tier 3 but Daring Outlaw + shield of blades + rogue dip+ arcane stunt makes the traditional melee rogue build work. In this case a large amount of the class' power comes from Daring Outlaw and it seems wrong to discount especially since it is the standard way most people will be using the class. I will go with 4.5 (tier 5)

Knight 5.4 at the highest, this thing is horrible even if it is ok at 'pulling' that is all it can do and their are better ways to do its job such as any bfc period. Plus it is loosing the ability to do damage because of its specialty, that is a major issue. Heck the longer I think about the more I think this is a tier 6 class, its class features make a warrior better melee than knight and that is an issue.

Noble, I have actually never heard of this class and will now go read up on it and see what I think. However, from the description it appears to purely be a diplomancer which has always struck me as tier 5 at the highest since it is so dm dependent on functionality...

[SLOTHRPG95]

Oh, the Swashbuckler, how much I want to like you. Fine for low-OP gish builds, I guess, except a 3-level dip is a bit on the deep end. If you're not multiclassing though, they're okay-ish for early play? Then they rapidly fall behind on the whole melee combat thing, which is supposed to be their whole deal, until high levels when their weakening/wounding can make crit-fishing somewhat more rewarding. I'd say their saving grace is slightly more skill points on a class that already cares about Int, allowing them to be a backup face or what have you. The fact that they have any out-of-combat utility baked in makes them better than fighters in some ways, although their main shtick is still stabbing and they aren't that good at it at mid-level play. My vote is Tier 4.8.

The Knight is easier. It's worse at its job than a similarly-focused Fighter at most levels, and more MAD to boot. The d12 hit dice and (meager) class abilities still keep it in the "technically a PC class" category, but given that the optimal Fighter isn't sword and board anyways... low-ish Tier 5, let's say Tier 5.6.

The funny thing about the Noble is that they take an NPC class (Aristocrat) and try to turn it into a PC class. The expert gets turned into the rogue, the adept into the cleric. The warrior turns into the fighter, and honestly that's about the same differential that we have here. Granted, in some campaigns you might have either (a) a lenient DM when it comes to favors, or (b) a DM who heavily emphasizes the importance of feudal rank, in which case the mere act of being a Noble makes you a better diplomancer than an optimized (peasant) Bard. Still, those aren't really mechanics considerations, and as such the Noble comes off as a Bard with no spells, fewer skills, and worse inspiration. In return it gets martial weapons and one more hit point a level, plus a favor mechanic, the class text for which explicitly advises DMs to make it as weak as possible. I think that if not for RP considerations, I'd often end up playing an Expert if forced to choose between the two. So congrats, you tried to turn Aristocrat into a PC class, but my vote is still for Tier 6, but maybe near the top of that tier (for whatever that's worth).

[Troacctid]

So the thing I will say about Noble is that it's clearly worse than Marshal by a significant amount. Now, I actually had Marshal in the 4 range, but I know a lot of people put it as a 5. Well, either way, Noble should be ranked lower. In fact, it's probably also worse than Dragon Shaman, honestly.

I put Noble at 5.3.


It's not a 4, it's a 4.5 and I don't think they deserve worse than 5. They have decent skills, decent class features, above average chassis, can deal pretty good damage with an Elven Courtblade (finesse, 2h power attack, insightful strike, great crit range which multiplies both sources of extra damage).

Note that when I say "decent" I mean just that, not "great", but "hey, it's cool that I can do that now" . That's enough for better than Tier 5.

As for Sneak Attack, you're right that I shouldn't have considered it. Re-reading the Home Base OP, it tells us to ignore other classes, even if the Daring Outlaw build is famous, so I'm scratching it off this thread's OP and lowering the Swashbuckler to Tier 4.8 as my official vote
You just described a Thug variant fighter that takes Weapon Specialization as their only bonus feat and then forgets to write the rest down on their character sheet.


I am not sure if you should be ignoring 'other classes' in this case, since the standard way to use swashbuckler is dipping rogue taking Daring Outlaw and twf sneak attack. In this case Daring Outlaw adds a dramatic amount of strength to the class and shield of blades; even better if your dm allows you to still use arcane stunt with it. I am not arguing that swashbuckler should be a true tier 4 much less tier 3 but Daring Outlaw + shield of blades + rogue dip+ arcane stunt makes the traditional melee rogue build work. In this case a large amount of the class' power comes from Daring Outlaw and it seems wrong to discount especially since it is the standard way most people will be using the class. I will go with 4.5 (tier 5)
This project is tiering classes, not builds. If you could multiclass anything with a couple levels of Crusader and count it in that class's rankings, there probably wouldn't be any classes below Tier 3. So assuming Daring Outlaw is off the table, what's your ranking for a single-class Swashbuckler?

[Gnaeus]

Swashbuckler is 5. Even the better PF swashbuckler is probably still 5. It’s a small dip in other builds. Like the Samurai, it has a few interesting features, but it’s a fighter that forces you into suboptimal weapon/Armor/feat choices. A trap that leads to more traps.

Knight is 5. It MIGHT hit 4 without the stupid code of conduct. It’s bad at what it is supposed to do. And it tempts newbies into sword and board. So, again, a trap option leading thematically to other trap options.

[zfs]

Well, since I asked for Noble in the main thread, may as well tier it.

I can't see Noble being any higher than Tier 5. You know how there are NPC classes? Noble strikes me as a DMPC class. It's got a middle of the road chassis (d8, 3/4 BAB, 2 good saves, 4 + int skills, martial weapon prof). It has zero active abilities that would let it outshine other party members. Its signature ability is "ask the DM." It gets a couple minor party buff abilities that are inferior to what a Marshall and Dragon Shaman get, as pointed out by Troacctid. It can get any one skill as a class skill, but if you really want to grab an obscure class skill you would just play a Factotum.

Obviously, Favor has the potential to do more than most Tier 5's could do. Favor can get results that I can't imagine a Swashbuckler or Knight being able to get with their mechanical abilities. But even though it's a codified class mechanic, it still boils down to "ask the DM nicely and roll a d20."

On the other hand, Favor seems like a great way for DM's to introduce new characters and plot hooks. I think that a well-played Noble that coordinates well with the DM would be great for world building. I also think the Noble player would be bored out of his mind in everything that isn't an RP situation using Favor/facilitated by a use of Favor, especially since at low levels you're talking about only being able to use Favor a few times a week.

Knight is Tier 5 but I disagree that it's bad at its job. Knight is undoubtedly one of the best base classes for the Tank role. It just so happens that the Tank archetype doesn't really work in 3.5. But it has high HP, the mechanical ability to draw aggro, can take hits for teammates, do some minor BFC by imposing difficult terrain...to the extent that tanking exists at all in 3.5, Knight gets the tools to attempt it out of the box. I've always said that Knight is a good example of a class that is well-designed but not powerful. I'd say one big problem with Knight is that a lot of its class features clearly incentivize planting your feet into the ground with allies adjacent (Bulwark of Defense, Shield Ally) but the only Knight builds I've seen that do anything resembling decent damage are mounted combat builds.

[Felhammer]

I have always thought the Marshal and the Knight should be combined into one class. It would be much more attractive and useful but still relatively niche.

[Sian]

Yeah, much as I love Knight it’s only t5 ... but it’s not because it’s bad at what it does, but rather because the intented playstyle is rather at odds with the system at large.

[AnimeTheCat]

I think that the Knight is being sold a bit short. For me, I've never considered the Knight a damage dealer, unless they're a mounted combat focused Knight, which can be pretty solid in terms of damage, if only an inefficient way of getting there. When I have played Knights in the past, I've only had a 10 strength (maybe 12 if I've got the points or rolled well) and I use a Small race, such as halfling or, my preference, Gnome. With a d12 HD, they can take a hit and keep trucking, and they posess the class abilities to protect themselves a little better than something like a barbarian. So, same HD but better defensive measures. Even with a defensive-focused Knight, you can still deal a pretty acceptable amount of damage via Mounted Combat, without giving up your shield/defensive bonuses. With the strength at 10 or 12, you can usually afford to sink more points in to Constitution and Charisma leading to better outcomes from your Knight's Challenge class feature, and incresing the amount of beating you can take. I think the biggest downside to the Knight is the utter and total lack of any and all alternate class feature and splat support. If the Knight got even 1/4 of the love that the Barbarian got, with it's multitude of totem and spirit totem lines, i feel it would absolutely hold up much better. As it is though, I don't think it's all that bad at what it's designed to do which is 1) defend, 2) take damage, and 3) mounted combat. Because it can do all 3 of those, plust it comes with some additional features that allow it to support allies (vs fear) or attempt to make every creature within 100 feet of you shaken as a swift action which are pretty neat, if not a little late to the party. All in all, I think that it's been sold short and can contend with a barbarian decently well, at least well enough to be in the same tier, and I would say that it gets a 4.8.

Largely I agree with the sentiment of Swashbuckler... If only it was more... Swashbuckly... oh well. I agree with the 4.8 assessment in the OP.

Noble sounds like an NPC class... and I've never seen it in play so I can't give any assessment on it.

[Sto]

Assuming that we're ignoring Daring Outlaw, Swashbuckler is one of the better T5 classes. I'm not sure what it would be with Daring Outlaw, maybe a high T4.

[liquidformat]

This project is tiering classes, not builds. If you could multiclass anything with a couple levels of Crusader and count it in that class's rankings, there probably wouldn't be any classes below Tier 3. So assuming Daring Outlaw is off the table, what's your ranking for a single-class Swashbuckler?

After milling this over I agree with you but it still leaves a bad taste in my mouth. It is like saying judge a druid without nature spell for me. Sure you can make a druid without nature spell and it would still be functional but nature spell might as well be a class feature of the druid. I have similar feelings about melodic casting though not as many people seem to know about that one.

But as a whole I agree that the play style you are forced into with a swashbuckler doesn't yield itself well to being successful since power attack is such a great source of bonus damage. The best build I can think of for a single classed swashbuckler would be a crit fisher though even that is hindered by what the class features try and push you into. As a whole I think arcane stunt does boost the class up quite a bit compared to other tier 5s and if you are going two weapon fighting shield of blades also helps quite a bit.



I have always thought the Marshal and the Knight should be combined into one class. It would be much more attractive and useful but still relatively niche.

That is a really cool idea, I think I will start looking at how to combine them.




Yeah, much as I love Knight it’s only t5 ... but it’s not because it’s bad at what it does, but rather because the intented playstyle is rather at odds with the system at large.

tank+drawing agro is a form of battle field control, my argument is and has been it is the worst form of bfc in the 3.5 play style and therefore the knight is bad at their job. A properly built tripper is hands down better at bfc than a knight and does more damage to boot.

[AnimeTheCat]

Knight 5.4 at the highest, this thing is horrible even if it is ok at 'pulling' that is all it can do and their are better ways to do its job such as any bfc period. Plus it is loosing the ability to do damage because of its specialty, that is a major issue. Heck the longer I think about the more I think this is a tier 6 class, its class features make a warrior better melee than knight and that is an issue.


How exactly do you figure for the underlined portion?
D12 HD vs D8 HD. Knight
Full BAB vs Full BAB. Tie
Class Ability to Increase Attack vs No class abilities. Knight
Bonus Feats vs No Bonus Feats. Knight
Increased Defensive Capabilities vs Nothing. Knight
Code of Conduct that doesn't actually remove any form of combat function vs nothing. Tie

The code of conduct prevents you from receiveing a +2 to hit and from attacking flat footed opponents. That's really not all that cumbersome. As for not inflicting lethal damage to helpless opponents, so what? The knight doesn't fall when the rogue does it, not does the knight class care at all.

What's more for the Knight, there's no reason they can't ignore their Knight's Challenge class feature and focus on a 2-handed weapon, then later apply their shield bonus to an Animated Shield. Or they can get the bonus from a buckler (it doesn't state that you can't in the class feature after all).

That's just my opinion, but I am interested in yours Liquidformat.
__________________________________________________ ___________
You posted again before I sent this so here's another question/converstaion piece:

tank+drawing agro is a form of battle field control, my argument is and has been it is the worst form of bfc in the 3.5 play style and therefore the knight is bad at their job. A properly built tripper is hands down better at bfc than a knight and does more damage to boot.
Why can't a Knight also be a tripper? Ultimately all that's needed is Combat Reflexes, a reach weapon, and Improved Trip (unless I'm mistaken, that is the core of the trip build). That can be accomplished by level 3 with a human or with flaws. It's no worse a tripper than a fighter, possibly even better because it can cause enemies to enter AAO range if they try to melee attack and they don't have reach weapons. Sure, it's MAD, but hardly incompatable with Tripping.

[liquidformat]

How exactly do you figure for the underlined portion?
D12 HD vs D8 HD. Knight
Full BAB vs Full BAB. Tie
Class Ability to Increase Attack vs No class abilities. Knight
Bonus Feats vs No Bonus Feats. Knight
Increased Defensive Capabilities vs Nothing. Knight
Code of Conduct that doesn't actually remove any form of combat function vs nothing. Tie

The code of conduct prevents you from receiveing a +2 to hit and from attacking flat footed opponents. That's really not all that cumbersome. As for not inflicting lethal damage to helpless opponents, so what? The knight doesn't fall when the rogue does it, not does the knight class care at all.

What's more for the Knight, there's no reason they can't ignore their Knight's Challenge class feature and focus on a 2-handed weapon, then later apply their shield bonus to an Animated Shield. Or they can get the bonus from a buckler (it doesn't state that you can't in the class feature after all).

That's just my opinion, but I am interested in yours Liquidformat.

Code of Conduct has no plus side only negative so code of conduct vs no code of conduct isn't a tie it is a win for the warrior.
I forgot about the bonus feats as I haven't looked at the class in a while, so ya that in and of itself gives them an advantage and so does d12 vs d8 compared to the warrior. However, if you have to drop 90% of your class features until you can get an animated shield or start adding in extra feats to make the class functional that is a sign there is an issue. In the end you are right the knight does come out on top over the warrior, though it takes thought to make them work right.

Its not that Knights were designed to be mounted it is that their abilities happen to not conflict with it, which is an important distinction. It is the one way to make them functional in melee without loosing or needing over coming their class features. So in that way yes they are a good choice for mounted combat since it synergies with their abilities.

Finally passive defense isn't a winning strategy in 3.5 the only reason this is strictly better than a defensive focused monk is because you can draw agro as long as you focus on pumping knight's challenge. So sure the barbarian isn't as tanky as the knight but the barbarian also can actually kill things and far out classes the knight in bfc so it doesn't need to be tanky as much as the knight does. I agree with you that the knights got no love or splats to help boost them but the same is true for other classes like duskblade and they are a solid tier 3 and from the same book.

[AnimeTheCat]

Code of Conduct has no plus side only negative so code of conduct vs no code of conduct isn't a tie it is a win for the warrior.
I forgot about the bonus feats as I haven't looked at the class in a while, so ya that in and of itself gives them an advantage and so does d12 vs d8 compared to the warrior. However, if you have to drop 90% of your class features until you can get an animated shield or start adding in extra feats to make the class functional that is a sign there is an issue. In the end you are right the knight does come out on top over the warrior, though it takes thought to make them work right.

Its not that Knights were designed to be mounted it is that their abilities happen to not conflict with it, which is an important distinction. It is the one way to make them functional in melee without loosing or needing over coming their class features. So in that way yes they are a good choice for mounted combat since it synergies with their abilities.

Finally passive defense isn't a winning strategy in 3.5 the only reason this is strictly better than a defensive focused monk is because you can draw agro as long as you focus on pumping knight's challenge. So sure the barbarian isn't as tanky as the knight but the barbarian also can actually kill things and far out classes the knight in bfc so it doesn't need to be tanky as much as the knight does. I agree with you that the knights got no love or splats to help boost them but the same is true for other classes like duskblade and they are a solid tier 3 and from the same book.

On the topic/note of duskblades, it's a commonly accepted fact that in the argument of no magic vs magic (even limited magic), magic wins. Isn't the adept considered a T3 or something strange like that?

With the Code of Conduct, it's still not really a negative though. You're not having to take penalties to anything because of it is what I'm getting at. From my experience, a Kinght typically will have a lower Dex, and thus a lower initiative. As such, they usually go later in the order anyway. On top of that, a Knight doesn't HAVE to attack if they go before an opponent. They can use the action for something else or delay until they can attack a non-flat footed foe. What's more, against heavily armored opponents, that flat-footed bit isn't helping or hindering, it's just a thing. The last part, about not being able to target helpless foes with lethal damage, isn't an issue either as it doesn't negatively impact combat. An incapacitated or helpless foe isn't a threat anyway, and if it is then a boot kick or other form of non-lethal attack will suffice too. It's just not impactful, positive or negative. I agree, however, that codes of conduct in general are just no fun and force players to play a certain way.

What is the standard Trip build? If it can be accomplished as a Knight, how is the Knight any less effective than a Fighter if it can do all the Fighter things AND pull creatures to it to provoke MORE AAOs and thereby trip more. Test of Mettle is a Swift Action, so it's hardly worthless to just try it regularly. Damage Denial is absolutely a valid form of combat as well. Ultimately, that's what a Trip build is focusing on is Damage and Action denial. By having that High passive defense and being able to draw opponents in as well as tripping them innately will serve to be better at damage denial and action denial.

Again, this is just my opinion shaped by what i've experienced so it is, without a doubt, biased.

[liquidformat]

So most basic tripper build is fighter 6 (combat expertise, improved trip,knock-down,quick draw, ewp(spiked chain), Power attack, combat reflexes) fill in race with whatever str is most important con is next followed closely by dex due to combat reflexes, you need to hit 13 int for combat expertise, wis for saves and cha is dump, enlarge perm'ed. 20' trip range, str is probably 22+ by lvl 6 including gear so sitting at trip mod of: +6 st +4 imp trip +4 size+6bab= +20 or so

then barbarian (wolf totem) 2/fighter 4 ( Power attack, wolf berserker, Improved trip(bonus), knock-down, quick draw, ewp(spiked chain), combat reflexes, open feat) now human so you qualify for wolf berserker, str is most important con is next followed closely by dex due to combat reflexes, , wis for saves and cha/int are dump stats, enlarge perm'ed. probably grab endurance+ steadfast determination to de-emphasize wis and other rage feats. 20' trip range, after rage and gear looking at 26+ str so sitting at trip mod of +8 str + 4 wolf bers +4 imp trip +4 size +6 bab= +26 or so.

in either case you can start tripping from level 1 or 2 and be fully up and running by six, there are other more powerful more complicated versions but these are pretty basic setups for tripper. Just comparing fighter to knight there are some issues with getting a pure knight to be an up and running tripper. First off as we talked about before you have to overcome knight's class features to be two handed so either imp buckler or animated shield. So feat tax or money tax to overcome that hurdle. Second, though knight does have bonus feats even for a mounted knight they are all garbage after level 5 and the only that will be useful is quick draw, so you are looking at around level 9-12 before you have enough feats to really start tripping. Finally, you are making knight as mad as can be. You are making str con and dex just about equally important, you need min 13 int, cha is your focus ability score, and wis is your closest thing to a dump due to ok will saves. Knights are just not there to be good trippers unless you are starting high leveled with good point buy even then I would question it.

[Luccan]

The Knight's Code may not be the worst thing imaginable, but it only makes you worse on a class that already isn't that great. It's worth considering in their rating since it has a real mechanical effect. It's still better than a Warrior though.

[Troacctid]

After milling this over I agree with you but it still leaves a bad taste in my mouth. It is like saying judge a druid without nature spell for me. Sure you can make a druid without nature spell and it would still be functional but nature spell might as well be a class feature of the druid. I have similar feelings about melodic casting though not as many people seem to know about that one.

But as a whole I agree that the play style you are forced into with a swashbuckler doesn't yield itself well to being successful since power attack is such a great source of bonus damage. The best build I can think of for a single classed swashbuckler would be a crit fisher though even that is hindered by what the class features try and push you into. As a whole I think arcane stunt does boost the class up quite a bit compared to other tier 5s and if you are going two weapon fighting shield of blades also helps quite a bit.
What would your revised rating be, then? Just a 5?

[liquidformat]

What would your revised rating be, then? Just a 5?

Hmm, the more I think about it the more I am not sure, I think hexblade is probably at the top of the 5 (not sure why magewright is listed at tier 5) and things like soulknife are at the bottom. Swashbuckler even with arcane trick isn't up to snuff with things at the top like hexblade but isn't as dysfunctional as the bottom of the bucket soulknife either. I guess after looking everything over I am good with the 4.8 (tier 5) score.

[weckar]

Let me try and make a case for the knight:
Bulwark of Defense & Armor Mastery. They also qualify easily for the Mage Slayer feat. In combination, this means that any caster that gets into melee range of them (not hard if you're not slowed by armor at all) is effectively screwed: They cannot cast defensively nor can they use 5-foot steps to move away from you. Were you smart and picked up tumble somehow? Too bad; I have Vigilant Defender.
They are, basically, a hard counter to a good number of low to mid-op caster builds. Does this lift them a tier? Probably not. Does this put them near the top of their tier? Most certainly.

[Gnaeus]

They are, basically, a hard counter to a good number of low to mid-op caster builds. Does this lift them a tier? Probably not. Does this put them near the top of their tier? Most certainly.

😂.

I eat your AOO and your damage after stoneskin doesn’t prevent me from casting. No.
I’m flying. No.
I’m invisible. No.
Quickened anything that moves me or stops you. No.
I have wands. No.
Abrupt Jaunt. Blink. Darkness. Minions to block you from walking next to me. No. No. No.

A mid op knight (and you are at least mid op, since your martial is dumpster diving for feats in complete arcane) isn’t remotely a counter for a mid op wizard. Any wizard for whom this is a problem is easier dealt with by a charger who can just murder them with damage.

[weckar]

😂.

I eat your AOO and your damage after stoneskin doesn’t prevent me from casting. No.
I’m flying. No.
I’m invisible. No.
Quickened anything that moves me or stops you. No.
I have wands. No.
Abrupt Jaunt. Blink. Darkness. Minions to block you from walking next to me. No. No. No.

A mid op knight (and you are at least mid op, since your martial is dumpster diving for feats in complete arcane) isn’t remotely a counter for a mid op wizard. Any wizard for whom this is a problem is easier dealt with by a charger who can just murder them with damage.How do quickened, wands, or AJ help? They still provoke, as far as I know.
I'll accept your miss chances or simply being out of reach, but actually having those up before combat is joined is... well, from my experience not to be assumed.

[Troacctid]

How do quickened, wands, or AJ help? They still provoke, as far as I know.
I'll accept your miss chances or simply being out of reach, but actually having those up before combat is joined is... well, from my experience not to be assumed.
Swift and immediate actions don't provoke, nor do spell trigger items. Always-on flight becomes common around level 9 or 10 when overland flight comes online, but if they're gonna cast fly during combat, they'll probably do so on the first round, which will more likely than not be before you close into melee.

[liquidformat]

Swift and immediate actions don't provoke, nor do spell trigger items. Always-on flight becomes common around level 9 or 10 when overland flight comes online, but if they're gonna cast fly during combat, they'll probably do so on the first round, which will more likely than not be before you close into melee.

especially since dex is probably 10-14 for the average knight and improved initiative is more or less useless for them. Also any caster that is going into melee range of the knight is either a melee gish or is someone that doesn't know what they are doing... In the former case the knight is probably SOL and in the later they probably aren't much of a threat anyways and pretty much any other melee build will take them down quicker.

[OgresAreCute]

Even if Knights were particularly good at killing spellcasters, most spellcasting enemies aren't going to be wizards. They're going to be strong mobs with a bunch of spell-likes (Ogre Mage, Balor, any mid-level outsider really). These kinds of monsters also often have wings or other means of flight. I don't really think "is moderately good at annoying crappy spellcaster humanoids" is worth much of a tier adjustment.

[zfs]

Even if Knights were particularly good at killing spellcasters, most spellcasting enemies aren't going to be wizards. They're going to be strong mobs with a bunch of spell-likes (Ogre Mage, Balor, any mid-level outsider really). These kinds of monsters also often have wings or other means of flight. I don't really think "is moderately good at annoying crappy spellcaster humanoids" is worth much of a tier adjustment.

It wouldn't be a tier adjustment anyway because I think it's already well acknowledged that Knights can do decent BFC especially for a mundane. What's keeping them in Tier 5 is their inability to contribute in any other niche besides tank/meat shield and melee attacker.

[AnimeTheCat]

It wouldn't be a tier adjustment anyway because I think it's already well acknowledged that Knights can do decent BFC especially for a mundane. What's keeping them in Tier 5 is their inability to contribute in any other niche besides tank/meat shield and melee attacker.

I mean... if that's what's keeping Knight in T5, why is the barbarian T4? Near as I can tell they hit thing. Albeit hard, but what else do they do? Heck, knights can even use their Knights Challenges to assist the party as well by providing fear save bonuses which directly helps the party in a way Barbarians can't.

[Troacctid]

I mean... if that's what's keeping Knight in T5, why is the barbarian T4? Near as I can tell they hit thing. Albeit hard, but what else do they do? Heck, knights can even use their Knights Challenges to assist the party as well by providing fear save bonuses which directly helps the party in a way Barbarians can't.
Well, barbarians are actually decent at their job, whereas knights are just okay. Barbarians also have more skills, so they can contribute better out of combat, and lots of splat support, which gives them a higher ceiling and a correspondingly higher average.

[zfs]

I mean... if that's what's keeping Knight in T5, why is the barbarian T4? Near as I can tell they hit thing. Albeit hard, but what else do they do? Heck, knights can even use their Knights Challenges to assist the party as well by providing fear save bonuses which directly helps the party in a way Barbarians can't.

I'd give two reasons, which Troacctid also touched on:

1. Not all niches are created equal. In a game where lots of problems can be solved by direct HP damage, it's better to be able to do lots of damage than take lots of damage.

2. Barbarian is higher in its primary niche than Knight is in its few niches. Barbarian is excellent at melee damage, whereas Knight is merely pretty good at being a meat shield and some BFC.

[liquidformat]

I mean... if that's what's keeping Knight in T5, why is the barbarian T4? Near as I can tell they hit thing. Albeit hard, but what else do they do? Heck, knights can even use their Knights Challenges to assist the party as well by providing fear save bonuses which directly helps the party in a way Barbarians can't.

Its also worth noting that barbarian is just better at the knight's apparent job than a knight is. Sure the knight can pull agro but only sometimes and it then slowly whittles away at the enemies life. Whereas the barbarian can actually kill said enemy at a faster speed, or use tripping for bfc, heck you could even go track and trapfinder with a barbarian. I think barbarian starts out slightly above the knight to begin with then with all the splat book love they out do the knight.

[weckar]

Swift and immediate actions don't provoke, nor do spell trigger items. I... did not know this. Huh. Hm. This will require general pondering.

[Bucky]

Knight, unlike most of the low tier mundanes, actually gets level-appropriate abilities at a couple of high levels - 17 and 20. "Don't autofail saves on a natural 1" and "don't die (for 10+ rounds) from HP damage even when caught unprepared" are very useful defenses.

These are sufficiently useful to make the knight class very strong in high-Epic once there's room to also have epic casting.

However, by level 16 the knight's fallen far enough behind in terms of getting stuff done that staying alive longer doesn't do much to let them solve more problems, nor do they have the save bonuses or self-healing that they'd need to make full use of their powerful passive defenses.

[Zaq]

Noble: Abstain. I've never read the class. One of the few books I don't have access to.

Swashbuckler: After level 3, every level of Swashbuckler increases the CR of things you're fighting without really meaningfully increasing your ability to fight things of higher CR. So, you know, the general martial problem, just a particularly nasty case of it. I can't see this above a low T5. You have a couple semi-decent early levels (Arcane Stunt is legitimately fun), but after that, it gets stuck in "it's very nice, but what does it do?" hell and doesn't have a class-based way out. There are worse dips for very specific builds, but we aren't judging the tiers based on how well you can stick your toe into a class in an otherwise unrelated build.

Knight: I want to love the Knight. It's trying so hard. It really is. A number of semi-interesting class features, some of which look like they could potentially be meaningful! An honest-to-Heironeous hard aggro mechanic! A number of uses of your key mechanic that isn't insultingly low at level 1 but that still manages to scale with level! In-class uses for swift actions! A cool capstone! Actual attention paid to position-based battlefield control! It really should be a legitimately cool and interesting class. And it just fails in practice in such a disappointing way.

It's a martial that never stops being a martial, which is problem one, so it eventually just gets scaled out because it can't muster the oomph it needs. It also doesn't have a meaningful baked-in damage-boosting mechanic (Fighting Challenge scales way too slowly to matter). I know that we're supposed to pretend that we're all taking 20 levels in the class being rated (and, to be fair, Knight 20 is a legitimately interesting level, even if Knight 19 isn't), but the fact that only levels in Knight make you better at being a Knight (i.e., at using your challenge ability) means that you can't easily dip out or go into PrCs, which is a real downside on a fightin'-man class. The hard-aggro mechanic is nice, but heavy armor proficiency and a d12 HD only go so far towards actually staying alive long-term, especially if you're also using your "soak damage from adjacent ally" ability. Lack of good Fort isn't a dealbreaker on its own but is weird enough to call out. Basically, the Knight has only one unique-ish trick, and it doesn't have much to do once it gets an enemy aggro'd on itself (either to deal with the heat or to contribute to the combat by doing more than just face-tanking). That's not really sustainable long-term.

I don't think that the downsides of the Code are really necessary to impose on a class that isn't very good already, but if you weren't relying on Sneak Attack or something, it's not likely to be a make-or-break sort of thing. The class wouldn't be bumped up a tier even without the Code.

The class skill list is even worse than I remembered. Even Fighters get Craft and Profession. And no Diplomacy? You're a freakin' Knight! Diplomacy should have been a no-brainer for the skill list! But no. You get squat. Probably Ride, I guess, if you want to use your bonus feats?

I remember seeing a Knight played in a live mid-level game for quite some time once. The player knew what they were doing and still ended up disappointed more often than not. The class just doesn't live up to its promise. (That player eventually retired the character and brought in a Crusader, who was explicitly the Knight's brother who simply believed more fervently that martial prowess deserves to take advantage of nice things when possible. That went better.) I think I'm stuck in T5 for this one. I don't think it gets up to Rogue levels of efficiency, and that's about my baseline for T4.

[Gnaeus]

especially since dex is probably 10-14 for the average knight and improved initiative is more or less useless for them. Also any caster that is going into melee range of the knight is either a melee gish or is someone that doesn't know what they are doing... In the former case the knight is probably SOL and in the later they probably aren't much of a threat anyways and pretty much any other melee build will take them down quicker.

Also heightened awareness or nerveskitter. Init bonus familiars are common, as are UMD familiars with a wand of benign transposition.

[Pleh]

I will say this for the Knight, there is one build I've seen on a handbook that I might want to play some day: Person Man's Sir Didymus. (All class levels are knight; dipping is optional).

Strongheart halfling with a lance and a riding dog. It's a Kiting Tank build. You don't build for damage output, but tripping/knockdown. Test of Mettle, ride out of range, force enemies to waste their actions trying to move towards you.

If you must needs have Damage in the equation, try Ping Pong Pete. Goliath variant with a Large lance.

Probably doesn't lift the class tier by itself, but it shows that the Knight probably shouldn't be ranked on DoT, but on Battlefield Control. It just seems better equipped for it.

[liquidformat]

Swashbuckler: After level 3, every level of Swashbuckler increases the CR of things you're fighting without really meaningfully increasing your ability to fight things of higher CR. So, you know, the general martial problem, just a particularly nasty case of it. I can't see this above a low T5. You have a couple semi-decent early levels (Arcane Stunt is legitimately fun), but after that, it gets stuck in "it's very nice, but what does it do?" hell and doesn't have a class-based way out. There are worse dips for very specific builds, but we aren't judging the tiers based on how well you can stick your toe into a class in an otherwise unrelated build.

This is my issue with rating swashbuckler without accounting for daring outlaw. Without a 3 level rogue dip and that one feat swashbuckler is left in a goofy spot where your best choice is to try and become a crit fisher and maybe struggle while trying to twf. However, rogue 3/swashbuckler 17 is actually pretty good especially if your dm lets you take daring outlaw and arcane stunt. I have gone rogue 3/swashbuckler 17 with education, knowledge devotion, craven and twf line penetrating strike, arcane stunt, and shield of blades dumping str with high dex, con, and int and found it quite enjoyable and powerful. That class and feat mix is the the benchmark for melee rogue and I believe hits low tier 4.

But as said before swashbuckler by itself falls short because you have to overcome its inherent issues. Though education+knowledge devotion works extra well for swashbuckler since it is already built around int.



Probably doesn't lift the class tier by itself, but it shows that the Knight probably shouldn't be ranked on DoT, but on Battlefield Control. It just seems better equipped for it.

For the most part I have been comparing it to a tripper build, however, the tripper does as good if not better bfc and more damage which is the issue.

[Dr_Dinosaur]

A bit outside the discussion perhaps, but what tier would you place a tristalt of these three classes at? Seems like together they form one decent representation of the "noble-born, practiced warrior" archetype: an accomplished duelist (that total +7 dodge AC at 20), an inspiring presence on the battlefield, a mobile defender (Armor Mastery+Acrobatic Charge=Hard to slow down), able to call in favors but can function without them, etc.

Knight's Shield Block doesn't seem to actually require a shield (increasing +0 to +1 is still an increase, right?) so one could even play it as the lightly armored swordsman effortlessly parrying the attack

[OgresAreCute]

A bit outside the discussion perhaps, but what tier would you place a tristalt of these three classes at? Seems like together they form one decent representation of the "noble-born, practiced warrior" archetype: an accomplished duelist (that total +7 dodge AC at 20), an inspiring presence on the battlefield, a mobile defender (Armor Mastery+Acrobatic Charge=Hard to slow down), able to call in favors but can function without them, etc.

Knight's Shield Block doesn't seem to actually require a shield (increasing +0 to +1 is still an increase, right?) so one could even play it as the lightly armored swordsman effortlessly parrying the attack

Haven't looked at Noble but I think you can gestalt every single tier 5 class together and still not break out of tier 4.

[liquidformat]

A bit outside the discussion perhaps, but what tier would you place a tristalt of these three classes at? Seems like together they form one decent representation of the "noble-born, practiced warrior" archetype: an accomplished duelist (that total +7 dodge AC at 20), an inspiring presence on the battlefield, a mobile defender (Armor Mastery+Acrobatic Charge=Hard to slow down), able to call in favors but can function without them, etc.

Knight's Shield Block doesn't seem to actually require a shield (increasing +0 to +1 is still an increase, right?) so one could even play it as the lightly armored swordsman effortlessly parrying the attack

swashbuckler and knight would be dysfunctional together, noble really doesn't have enough going for it to add anything to the table outside a dm focused ability.

I think knight marshal could be really cool, full bab good fort and will d12 hd and all the abilities from both, but I think would would just hit tier 4 and still be quite behind crusader.

Similarly you could just smash rogue together with swashbuckler add in all knowledge skills for good measure and be at the front end of tier 4 but probably not hit tier 3.

I have always found it strange that noble and aristocrat don't have any magical aptitude, the premise of both these class are the rich elite and nobility of a magical world and they are supposed to be a nod to the renaissance ideal of elite. In a magical world why wouldn't they at least have dabbled in magic?...

[Gnaeus]

Haven't looked at Noble but I think you can gestalt every single tier 5 class together and still not break out of tier 4.

I’ve done a fair bit of analysis on this.

Almost any 2 Tier 5s that aren’t aggressively conflicting hit tier 4.

All tier 5s not only hit tier 3 but are one of the strongest tier 3s. Not tier 1 or 2 definitionally but very playable in all but the most optimized high tier environments.

[zfs]

A bit outside the discussion perhaps, but what tier would you place a tristalt of these three classes at? Seems like together they form one decent representation of the "noble-born, practiced warrior" archetype: an accomplished duelist (that total +7 dodge AC at 20), an inspiring presence on the battlefield, a mobile defender (Armor Mastery+Acrobatic Charge=Hard to slow down), able to call in favors but can function without them, etc.

Knight's Shield Block doesn't seem to actually require a shield (increasing +0 to +1 is still an increase, right?) so one could even play it as the lightly armored swordsman effortlessly parrying the attack

Still Tier 5, especially because Swashbuckler and Knight have terrible synergy. That being said, a Knight/Noble gestalt makes good fluff sense for a Knight from a prominent family and I'd probably let somebody gestalt it for free since it's almost an NPC class.

I think you're probably right on Shield Block. Strict RAW just says you designate an enemy and your shield bonus against that enemy increases by one. The only thing that actually mentions using your shield is the descriptive flavor text.

[Luccan]

I’ve done a fair bit of analysis on this.

Almost any 2 Tier 5s that aren’t aggressively conflicting hit tier 4.

All tier 5s not only hit tier 3 but are one of the strongest tier 3s. Not tier 1 or 2 definitionally but very playable in all but the most optimized high tier environments.

I don't know if they'd hit high T3, but you wouldn't be bad off. You'd have basically every skill as a class skill (Expert can cover anything not covered by the dozen or so other classes), a fair number of spells, lots of magical abilities, two magic weapons (one free, the other cheaper than normal), and a lot of abilities that key off Charisma. You'd also be very MAD, but what T5 class isn't? The main issue is some classes have opposed alignment restrictions. Actually, that might just be Battle Dancer. Pretty sure it works out to you being Lawful Evil, though, if you want most of the class features.

[zfs]

I’ve done a fair bit of analysis on this.

Almost any 2 Tier 5s that aren’t aggressively conflicting hit tier 4.

All tier 5s not only hit tier 3 but are one of the strongest tier 3s. Not tier 1 or 2 definitionally but very playable in all but the most optimized high tier environments.

Gnaeus, your analysis of the ubergestalt many years back was extremely well done, but it's worth noting that some of the heavy hitters that helped that build functionally compete with Tier 1's in realistic game scenarios have since been bumped up to higher tiers. Apologies if you've already re-done the analysis with these new tier placements.

With this exercise winding down it might be interesting to reanalyze the full-tier gestalts (all T5, all T4, etc.) with the new completed tiers.

[Gnaeus]

Gnaeus, your analysis of the ubergestalt many years back was extremely well done, but it's worth noting that some of the heavy hitters that helped that build functionally compete with Tier 1's in realistic game scenarios have since been bumped up to higher tiers. Apologies if you've already re-done the analysis with these new tier placements.

With this exercise winding down it might be interesting to reanalyze the full-tier gestalts (all T5, all T4, etc.) with the new completed tiers.

It’s a fair piece of work.

Also, while you are correct that it lost some heavy hitters, the tier 3 boundary also shifted. It isn’t trying to compete with beguiler or dread necromancer any more.

Even with revised tiers, for example, t5g still a full BAB all good saves super skill monkey with absurd initiative and free magic weapon and like 4 different auras and a giant pile of feats and a decent selection of situational immunities. It still breaks the game with diplomancy and samurai intimidate tricks. It even gets truenamer stuff now, which goes a long way to compensate for lost casting. There’s never going to be a time when it gets outdone by a swordsage.

[Troacctid]

This is my issue with rating swashbuckler without accounting for daring outlaw. Without a 3 level rogue dip and that one feat swashbuckler is left in a goofy spot where your best choice is to try and become a crit fisher and maybe struggle while trying to twf. However, rogue 3/swashbuckler 17 is actually pretty good especially if your dm lets you take daring outlaw and arcane stunt. I have gone rogue 3/swashbuckler 17 with education, knowledge devotion, craven and twf line penetrating strike, arcane stunt, and shield of blades dumping str with high dex, con, and int and found it quite enjoyable and powerful. That class and feat mix is the the benchmark for melee rogue and I believe hits low tier 4.

But as said before swashbuckler by itself falls short because you have to overcome its inherent issues. Though education+knowledge devotion works extra well for swashbuckler since it is already built around int.
I bet you that any T5 or lower class would go up at least full tier if you were allowed to add 3 levels of another class.

[zfs]

It’s a fair piece of work.

Also, while you are correct that it lost some heavy hitters, the tier 3 boundary also shifted. It isn’t trying to compete with beguiler or dread necromancer any more.

Even with revised tiers, for example, t5g still a full BAB all good saves super skill monkey with absurd initiative and free magic weapon and like 4 different auras and a giant pile of feats and a decent selection of situational immunities. It still breaks the game with diplomancy and samurai intimidate tricks. It even gets truenamer stuff now, which goes a long way to compensate for lost casting. There’s never going to be a time when it gets outdone by a swordsage.

I agree, I was referring more to that scenario where the ubergestalt was tasked with keeping up with a Tier 1 in that complicated assassination and palace intrigue scenario, though I believe that was a challenge for the build that also included Tier 4's. I have little doubt that 99% of the time the full Tier 5 gestalt can better mechanically deal with common challenges than the benchmark Tier 3's like the martial initiators, Totemist or Binder.

[Dr_Dinosaur]

Noble does grant Bard-lite inspiration, but I assume the “horrible synergy” between Knight and Swashbuckler is one requiring light armor while the other grants benefits to moving in medium and heavy armor? What if Armor Mastery “unlocked” those features to work with the appropriate armor category, and Acrobatic Charge applied to any trained mount the knight was riding? What tier then, with the glaring problems fixed?

[Bucky]

The real Knight class feature conflict isn't the armor mastery (which the character can choose to forgo when it wants Monk/Swash benefits) but the code of honor (which can't be turned off) vs Improved Flanking (Swashbuckler), Deceptive Strike (Mountebank) etc.

[Lans]

Still Tier 5, especially because Swashbuckler and Knight have terrible synergy. That being said, a Knight/Noble gestalt makes good fluff sense for a Knight from a prominent family and I'd probably let somebody gestalt it for free since it's almost an NPC class.

I think you're probably right on Shield Block. Strict RAW just says you designate an enemy and your shield bonus against that enemy increases by one. The only thing that actually mentions using your shield is the descriptive flavor text.

I disagree, the tristalt compares very well to the barbarian, it has better skills, a little worse fortitude save, better reflex, better will, more AC, similiar manuverability, and its challenge compares well with rage.

It loses out on uncanny dodge and damage reduction from things that don't relate well.

It gains the favor ability and the ability to charge over difficult terrain, and the knights tanking abilities.


I bet you that any T5 or lower class would go up at least full tier if you were allowed to add 3 levels of another class.

Magewright 17/X3

[Troacctid]

Magewright 17/X3
I'd say 3 levels of Chameleon. By level 8, you can cast 3rd level spells off any list and craft whatever kind of items you want in your downtime. I think that's good enough to keep up with most T4s. Heir of Siberys would be another good option.

[Lans]

I didn't think prestige classes were on the table.

[zfs]

I disagree, the tristalt compares very well to the barbarian, it has better skills, a little worse fortitude save, better reflex, better will, more AC, similiar manuverability, and its challenge compares well with rage.

Magewright 17/X3

Completely disagree on Challenge - sure, it's eventually +4/+4 which would seem to compare with the +8 Strength of Mighty Rage, but challenge only works against a single opponent and has restrictions on who you can target with it. It's also technically competing against Test of Mettle since both burn a daily use of Knight's Challenge.

[zfs]

Noble does grant Bard-lite inspiration, but I assume the “horrible synergy” between Knight and Swashbuckler is one requiring light armor while the other grants benefits to moving in medium and heavy armor? What if Armor Mastery “unlocked” those features to work with the appropriate armor category, and Acrobatic Charge applied to any trained mount the knight was riding? What tier then, with the glaring problems fixed?

I just think even with the rough edges sanded away, Swashbuckler isn't adding very much to Knight. I think Knight is a well-designed Tier 5 and there are mundane classes you could bolt onto it and potentially bring it up a tier, but I don't think Swashbuckler is one of them. But if you liked the concept and wanted to homebrew to make it a bit better, I'd suggest giving it something like Battle Blessing to let it use the Noble's Inspire abilities as a swift and soften the code of conduct so that it can benefit from Swashbuckler's improved flanking.

[Gnaeus]

I agree, I was referring more to that scenario where the ubergestalt was tasked with keeping up with a Tier 1 in that complicated assassination and palace intrigue scenario, though I believe that was a challenge for the build that also included Tier 4's. I have little doubt that 99% of the time the full Tier 5 gestalt can better mechanically deal with common challenges than the benchmark Tier 3's like the martial initiators, Totemist or Binder.

Looks like T4g loses 4 heavy hitters. Warmage, Warlock, psi Rogue and Healer. Big losses there for sure.

Makes up for it a bit by gaining Shadowcaster and Incarnate. That’s mostly going to cover the loss of Warlock and psi rogue.

So it’s definitely worse on AOE blasting than it was (although Shadowcaster gets some AOEs). Worse at healing but still better than most T1s at most levels. And it loses a bit of ground vs. casters using exalted spells.

Upon review. It really isn’t too much work to do because few of the abilities that change numbers change. Only the spell lists. However, since I lack the books Shadowcaster and Incarnate are in, I can’t easily update it.

I’ll still gleefully play it in a party with a wizard, archivist, cleric, and Druid.

[liquidformat]

I bet you that any T5 or lower class would go up at least full tier if you were allowed to add 3 levels of another class.

Challenge accepted Knight 3/swashbuckler17, swashbuckler3/knight 17, Knight 3/soulknife17, soulknife 3/knight 17, Rogue 3/knight 17, scout 3/knight 17, ninja 3/scout 17, monk 3/knight 17, knight 3/monk 17, Mountebank3/knight 17. All of these low armor sneaky class suffer mixing with knight and not only don't boost the tier but further drop it, I feel fairly confident in saying all of these combos drop down to tier 6 dysfunction. Heck pretty sure any mundane class with 17 levels combined with wizard 3 is either going to not move up or more likely negatively move in the tier system.


I just think even with the rough edges sanded away, Swashbuckler isn't adding very much to Knight. I think Knight is a well-designed Tier 5 and there are mundane classes you could bolt onto it and potentially bring it up a tier, but I don't think Swashbuckler is one of them. But if you liked the concept and wanted to homebrew to make it a bit better, I'd suggest giving it something like Battle Blessing to let it use the Noble's Inspire abilities as a swift and soften the code of conduct so that it can benefit from Swashbuckler's improved flanking.

Marshal Knight I think works flavorfully and mechanically to hit tier 4 if they were smashed together into one class. Soulborn knight probably would as well, though the real fix for soulborn is smashing it down into a 10 level melee prc.

[Gnaeus]

Challenge accepted Knight 3/swashbuckler17, swashbuckler3/knight 17, Knight 3/soulknife17, soulknife 3/knight 17, Rogue 3/knight 17, scout 3/knight 17, ninja 3/scout 17, monk 3/knight 17, knight 3/monk 17, Mountebank3/knight 17. All of these low armor sneaky class suffer mixing with knight and not only don't boost the tier but further drop it, I feel fairly confident in saying all of these combos drop down to tier 6 dysfunction. Heck pretty sure any mundane class with 17 levels combined with wizard 3 is either going to not move up or more likely negatively move in the tier system.

Since we were discussing swashbuckler/rogue daring outlaw, I’m pretty sure that he meant that any T5 goes up a tier with a 3 level dip in a synergistic class in which higher tier classes are allowed for the dip. I’m pretty sure he did not mean that any T5 with a 3 level dip into non-complementary classes.

Not sure about wizard. Tier 5 class + familiar or abrupt jaunt + craft wondrous items+ wand use +some spells picked to be long duration or castable in Armor or for out of combat utility is probably T4. There may be a few that don’t benefit but I bet most do.

OTOH pretty much any T5 class can benefit a lot from a 1 level cleric dip or cloistered cleric dip. Travel devotion and turn attempts alone go a long way to help the move and full attack problem and that probably pushes most of the melees up.

[liquidformat]

Since we were discussing swashbuckler/rogue daring outlaw, I’m pretty sure that he meant that any T5 goes up a tier with a 3 level dip in a synergistic class in which higher tier classes are allowed for the dip. I’m pretty sure he did not mean that any T5 with a 3 level dip into non-complementary classes.

Not sure about wizard. Tier 5 class + familiar or abrupt jaunt + craft wondrous items+ wand use +some spells picked to be long duration or castable in Armor or for out of combat utility is probably T4. There may be a few that don’t benefit but I bet most do.

OTOH pretty much any T5 class can benefit a lot from a 1 level cleric dip or cloistered cleric dip. Travel devotion and turn attempts alone go a long way to help the move and full attack problem and that probably pushes most of the melees up.

I don't know about that Magewright 17/X3 was thrown out there and Troacctid defended it.

I will agree with the cleric dip flat out but that is because of domain access/domain abuse and not the spells casting. While familiars can be powerful I am unsure that they would be helpful to a melee mundane, especially at only 3 levels of wizard you aren't getting any super useful familiar choices and you don't have the spells to make good use either, I don't see the familiar actually making a difference much less tier altering one. The biggest advantage would be adding wand sheaths wraithstrike and true strike, but the effectiveness of that would be heavily limited to wealth by level. Abrupt jaunt is also powerful though how useful it is really depends on which class the wizard is being paired with, rogue and swashbuckler it is rather powerful they are both often int heavy; Knight is going to have MAD headaches and will likely only have a use or maybe two of it, whereas I question if it can be used during barbarian rage which may make it useless. Also I am away from books but at least RAI abrupt jaunt should probably have spell failure applied to it too.

[Pleh]

OTOH pretty much any T5 class can benefit a lot from a 1 level cleric dip or cloistered cleric dip. Travel devotion and turn attempts alone go a long way to help the move and full attack problem and that probably pushes most of the melees up.

Don't forget Druid Dip gets an animal companion which you can boost with Natural Bond et al. Easy way to get a powerful mount and/or martial minion. Might not syngergize well with armor dependency, but the extra action economy isn't small.

[daremetoidareyo]

Knight t5: worse than fighter
Noble t5: completely replaced by favored in guild/favored in house feats
Swashbuckler t5: worse than fighter.

[AnimeTheCat]

Well, barbarians are actually decent at their job, whereas knights are just okay. Barbarians also have more skills, so they can contribute better out of combat, and lots of splat support, which gives them a higher ceiling and a correspondingly higher average.

I'd give two reasons, which Troacctid also touched on:

1. Not all niches are created equal. In a game where lots of problems can be solved by direct HP damage, it's better to be able to do lots of damage than take lots of damage.

2. Barbarian is higher in its primary niche than Knight is in its few niches. Barbarian is excellent at melee damage, whereas Knight is merely pretty good at being a meat shield and some BFC.

Its also worth noting that barbarian is just better at the knight's apparent job than a knight is. Sure the knight can pull agro but only sometimes and it then slowly whittles away at the enemies life. Whereas the barbarian can actually kill said enemy at a faster speed, or use tripping for bfc, heck you could even go track and trapfinder with a barbarian. I think barbarian starts out slightly above the knight to begin with then with all the splat book love they out do the knight.

I agree that the barbarian is better at dealing damage, but I will disagree that it is better at locking down. Here's why. A barbarian can lock down as much as it can attack. A Knight can lock down as much as it can attack AND as much as it can taunt with a class ability, as a swift action. in situations where there are enemies firing weapons from trees, a barbarian will have to climb up the tree to target them or use a ranged weapon themselves. A knight has more options in various situations. Locking down is not always about dealing damage, it can also be about diverting attacks. If a barbarian moves and trips 2 enemies that barbarian has denied those two enemies attacks and has made an area where enemies can't simply pass through easily. If a Knight moves and trips 2 enemies AND at least has a chance of forcing enemies to attack it, in addition to creating that same size area where enemies can't pass through AND difficult terrain if the enemy starts in your threatened area, making it that much more difficult for the enemy to escape.

About ability to perform outside of combat, Knights have Handle Animal as a class skill, and Handle Animal is incredibly versatile. With a plethora of animals, a Knight can effectively do just about anything a Barbarian can do out of combat. survival, guard/riding dog gets you tracking and scent and will alert you to anomolies. No need for a barbarian at that point for that addition to the party.

Trapfinder, all you need is a 12 foot stick...

As for taking damage vs dealing damage, the same applies to the players as well and I've seen more than one barbarian get in too deep and have too many enemies attacking to be able to avoid all the damage. A higher defense would have prolonged those barbarian's lives. with a class ability that enables a character to force enemies to target them, plus other methods of forcing lock-downs allows the rest of the party to be less cautious and defensive than they would otherwise have to be.

All I'm saying is that I think a Knight is equally capable of BFC, if not better, as a barbarian. They may not dish out as much damage per attack, but they have the defensive capability to avoid taking the damage that may come after. I think it deserves a spot in T4, but I'm clearly the minority. I just don't see too much difference between a Knight and a barbarian other than the amount of damage per turn, and I see enough other mitigating factors to merit a considerable contribution in more than just a direct damage scenario.

[Gnaeus]

I don't know about that Magewright 17/X3 was thrown out there and Troacctid defended it.

I will agree with the cleric dip flat out but that is because of domain access/domain abuse and not the spells casting.

While familiars can be powerful I am unsure that they would be helpful to a melee mundane.

He did. By proposing a synergistic higher tier class that he thought would bring magewright up. Not by arguing that magewright/Knight 3 was good somehow.

So? Still supports the point.

We clearly have different opinions on the utility of familiars. Remember familiar gets masters BAB and half masters HP. Pick something with hands like a raccoon or monkey. It can use potions or alchemical items. Throw that tanglefoot bag. Feed cures to downed allies. Provide another spot/listen check. Pull out your crossbow and put it in your hands. We aren’t shooting at a very high bar here.

[liquidformat]

I agree that the barbarian is better at dealing damage,
.
.
.
I just don't see too much difference between a Knight and a barbarian other than the amount of damage per turn, and I see enough other mitigating factors to merit a considerable contribution in more than just a direct damage scenario.

For me this comes down to a comparison of a tripper bfc and meatshield agro bfc. I will admit knight was properly crafted and their mechanics successfully function how they were intended. However, There are some issues I have with knight's bfc comparatively to tripper bfc. First off is the style of it, tripper bfc is based on action denial like you said above and as a kicker that action denial also functions to increase damage output. That is what makes trippers successful, starting around level 6 everything within 20' of the tripper is shutdown. On the other hand Knight's bfc is based pulling agro away from everyone else and onto you as the knight. This is a great bfc as long as the knight can stay alive and I just don't think it has enough defense bonuses coming from the class to really pull this off. Besides being forced into a shield of some sort to function successfully the knight only gets an extra +3 AC by level 20 which is a bit of a joke. Beyond that he has no inbuilt way to heal or reduce damage making him very item and feat choice depended. Matters get worse with the knight's saves since fort is bad making them a liability especially with a team that is relying on them as the meatshield bfc. You talk about barbarians over committing and getting killed but from what I can see the problem is exasperated with a knight. If a barbarian gets separated from part and attacked it will at least have a hope of killing an escape route out of danger, the knight on the other hand just has to stand there twiddling their thumbs hoping they can be saved from the mob they kited. Also Knight's no go zone is a problem, in order to hit 20' like a tripper you are stuck either over investing your already strained feats or getting an animated shield which is cost restrictive enough to not come into play until somewhere between level 6-10 and guess what by 9 the efficacy of your difficult terrain as fallen off because of the proliferation of flying. While tripper can just take to the skies with his 20' diameter sphere of bfc.

Beyond that if we hop over to intimidate for a second barbarian does it better because of rage feats and without as much sacrifice since they are not as restrictive build wise.


He did. By proposing a synergistic higher tier class that he thought would bring magewright up. Not by arguing that magewright/Knight 3 was good somehow.

So? Still supports the point.

We clearly have different opinions on the utility of familiars. Remember familiar gets masters BAB and half masters HP. Pick something with hands like a raccoon or monkey. It can use potions or alchemical items. Throw that tanglefoot bag. Feed cures to downed allies. Provide another spot/listen check. Pull out your crossbow and put it in your hands. We aren’t shooting at a very high bar here.

Dipping a tier 1 or 2 prc to boost you up a tier or so is more of proof of the strength of said prc. Dipping similarly tiered class and boosting up a tier is a sign of synergy between the two classes there is a difference. Dipping cleric is powerful because of how powerful and versatile cleric level 1 is which is part of the reason it is tier 1.

Onto familiars, I have never played in 3.5 game that has allowed monkeys or raccoons as base level familiars, so my thoughts didn't jump to tool user/manipulation. I normally go with improved familiar with mephit/quasit/imp and so forth for that. But ya if you can take base tool users that does make them useful.

[Gnaeus]

Dipping a tier 1 or 2 prc to boost you up a tier or so is more of proof of the strength of said prc. Dipping similarly tiered class and boosting up a tier is a sign of synergy between the two classes there is a difference. Dipping cleric is powerful because of how powerful and versatile cleric level 1 is which is part of the reason it is tier 1.

Nothing you said there do I disagree with.

However, nothing you said there actually defends why swashbuckler should be considered T4 because if you add rogue 3 and a feat you get something probably T4. Which I think was the point. We don’t usually spend a lot of time going (ok, Samurai is 4 with a pounce Barbarian dip and soulknife is 4 with a swordsage dip.....) We just know that synergistic high tier classes functionally raise tier (except that tier isn’t usually related for builds I know I know)

I was worried that I was misremembering because Pathfinder. Which I do. But it’s legal in 3.5 also with the right sources. https://orbitalflower.github.io/rpg/rules/dnd3-extended-familiar-list.html

[liquidformat]

Nothing you said there do I disagree with.

However, nothing you said there actually defends why swashbuckler should be considered T4 because if you add rogue 3 and a feat you get something probably T4. Which I think was the point. We don’t usually spend a lot of time going (ok, Samurai is 4 with a pounce Barbarian dip and soulknife is 4 with a swordsage dip.....) We just know that synergistic high tier classes functionally raise tier (except that tier isn’t usually related for builds I know I know)

I actually wasn't arguing that swashbuckler should be tier 4 just that it is weird to look at them by themselves because no one plays them by their selves. It is like trying to rate fondue while ignoring the things you dip into it for me I guess...

[Bucky]

In other words, liquidformat, everyone knows Swashbuckler isn't good enough by itself.

[liquidformat]

Ya it is tier 5 because of its dysfunction compared to fighter, I just believe it is towards the top with hexblade rather than at the bottom with soulknife.

[Pleh]

In other words, liquidformat, everyone knows Swashbuckler isn't good enough by itself.

Almost like they originally wanted it to be a 10 level PrC for rogues (and some bards), but they felt it too strong, so they watered it down into a full base class.

I mean, look at 6 dead levels on a non caster. Then 4 levels of dodge bonus that you have to designate to a single opponent.

If you drop those 10 levels (if you want, move Grace +3 down a level so it's still capstone), add Sneak Attack Progression and +2d6SA prereq, you've almost got the entire Daring Outlaw package, plus some levels to spare.

[Zaq]

Almost like they originally wanted it to be a 10 level PrC for rogues (and some bards), but they felt it too strong, so they watered it down into a full base class.

I mean, Duelist already existed in the DMG. And it’s hot garbage, for what that’s worth.

[Lans]

Completely disagree on Challenge - sure, it's eventually +4/+4 which would seem to compare with the +8 Strength of Mighty Rage, but challenge only works against a single opponent and has restrictions on who you can target with it. It's also technically competing against Test of Mettle since both burn a daily use of Knight's Challenge.

I don't think the single target is much of a detriment, and yo get enough uses that you can use it and the test of mettle by the time the barbarian gets enough rages to do 4 encounters a day.

Id be more concerned about the Challenges typing

[liquidformat]

I don't think the single target is much of a detriment, and yo get enough uses that you can use it and the test of mettle by the time the barbarian gets enough rages to do 4 encounters a day.

Id be more concerned about the Challenges typing

How often do you have four encounters a day? In my groups anyways two encounters a day is pretty rare much less 4.

[heavyfuel]

How often do you have four encounters a day? In my groups anyways two encounters a day is pretty rare much less 4.

That's pretty much the assumed number of encounters in the DMG. In my games I'd say the average number of encounters in any given day is 2, though that's because most days only have a single encounter while a few days have 4 to 6.

[Troacctid]

How often do you have four encounters a day? In my groups anyways two encounters a day is pretty rare much less 4.
The dungeons in 3.5e modules have a tendency to be large, sprawling affairs, where it's not uncommon to be expected to have half a dozen or more encounters without a proper chance to rest in between. Nightfang Spire, for example, has 77 keyed locations, and one of the hooks is a rescue mission, so you can't exactly twiddle your thumbs taking 15-minute adventuring days if you're hoping to get the prisoner back unharmed.

[Dr_Dinosaur]

I mean, Duelist already existed in the DMG. And it’s hot garbage, for what that’s worth.

And knowing WotC that was what they tried to balance the Swashbuckler against.

[Lans]

And knowing WotC that was what they tried to balance the Swashbuckler against.

I think the Duelist was nerfed from the Sword and Fist version

[liquidformat]

I think the Duelist was nerfed from the Sword and Fist version

the only benefit the S&F version seems to get over the DGM version is +1d6 Precise Strike, whereas the DGM one gets +4 initiative, actually after a second read S&F Canny Defense is better makes the class more dip friendly.

[Dr_Dinosaur]

the only benefit the S&F version seems to get over the DGM version is +1d6 Precise Strike, whereas the DGM one gets +4 initiative, actually after a second read S&F Canny Defense is better makes the class more dip friendly.

Combine both Duelists (taking the better version of overlapping features) and Swashbuckler and you might actually have a functional class...