Talk:Knight, Tome (3.5e Class)

From D&D Wiki

Jump to: navigation, search


overpowered as all hell. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs) 12:05, 3 April 2009 (MDT). Please sign your posts!

Wow, what can I ever do against such a well-thought-out, explained, and logical comment? Surgo 12:11, 3 April 2009 (MDT)
Exactly. It's tome material. Go educate yourself. -- Jota 14:34, 3 April 2009 (MDT)
Well, look at the Knight's abilities. He gets one heavy-hitting ability which is designed to draw fire. And then he gets a ton of defensive extras--Energy Resistance, Spell Resistance, and so on--designed to help him survive the attention. Assuming he survives to level 10, he then get some extras and a PrC (assuming you write one). Exactly how does this make him overpowered? --Genowhirl 18:18, 3 April 2009 (MDT)

Personally, I would make a few changes. Reduce the hit die to a d10 (like most heavy armor classes). Bring the Knightly Code more in line with that found in the Player's Handbook II (the refusal of aid another reduces teamwork and the inability to sell magic items seems irrelevant), and reduce the penalty duration to one day rather than until atonement. Knightly Spirit I would change to a Restoration effect with a 1 round activation time and a range of personal, usable a number of times per day equal to the knight's CHA modifier (which I think should replace CON modifier in Draw Fire, as well). The Energy Resistance I feel should have a longer activation time or shorter duration (perhaps both) and -- for flavor -- does not apply to a knight who is flat-footed. Perhaps a five minute activation time (at the high end) gives resistance equal to knight level + CHA modifier + shield bonus, but a full round (standard?) action gives resistance equal to only 1/2 knight level + shield bonus (rewarding the player for doing homework but not crippling her when she's caught by surprise). I would change Quick Recovery to require more action from the player, allowing her to attempt a save against the effect each round rather than automatically ending it. Draw Fire would have a range of short rather than medium, use CHA rather than CON, and require a move action rather than swift. Finally, on the topic that most people probably have a problem with, Designate Opponent, I would change "any attack" the knight uses against her target to "melee attack" (preventing abuse by a knight with a longbow), and a target need only attack the knight, not deal damage. The idea behind Designate Opponent is that it's only useful when the knight isn't doing her job (taking damage for everyone else). If she is doing her job and monsters are attacking her, she won't be dishing out the rather absurd amounts of damage she would otherwise.--Vyss (talk) 16:29, 6 December 2013 (MST)


Discussion moved to Talk:DnD Class Preload#Wizards new Format is Irrelevant (other then ratings).

Formatting - 2/5 I give this class a 2 out of 5 because this does not follow the preload and links to the SRD are missing, --Green Dragon 11:59, 16 April 2009 (MDT)

Flavor - 3/5 I give this class a 3 out of 5 because the only flavor text which is present does not follow the preloads form and no example NPC is present. --Green Dragon 11:59, 16 April 2009 (MDT)


Power - 4/5 I give this class a 4 out of 5 because, while this classes special abilities make sense in the way they are intended to be used, and the idea behind the designate opponent ability is justifiable, the end result, is not not great. This is a class that is supposed to take a beating, yet, it can put out an enormous ammount of damage. Now then, yes, why would an opponent pay attention to him otherwise? That is a good arguement, but the end result is a character that can deal massive portions of damage, and take the resultant beating. Now, I gave this class a rating as high as 4 out of 5 because it is going to be difficult for a knight to survive in a campaign where the DM is rough. Though, I didn't give it 5 out of 5 since, in any other situation, the knight would excell and be better than pretty much everyone else. → Rith (talk) 23:21, 19 April 2009 (MDT)

Wording - 5/5 I give this class a 5 out of 5 because the wording on this page is consise and comprehensive. → Rith (talk) 23:21, 19 April 2009 (MDT)

Formatting - 2/5 I give this class a 2 out of 5 because massive portions of the preload are missing, and interwiki linking is lacking. → Rith (talk) 23:21, 19 April 2009 (MDT)

Flavor - 5/5 I give this class a 5 out of 5 because with the powers of Gaint Frog, they can Gaint Frog. → Rith (talk) 23:21, 19 April 2009 (MDT)

Knightly Orders[edit]

Do we have to make the Knightly order prestige classes ourselves? Or are they somewhere in the wiki.--Milo High-Hill 23:57, 31 January 2011 (MST)

I searched for them and nothing showed up. --Green Dragon 17:40, 1 February 2011 (MST)


I think this would be more appropriate in the PrC class area. Thoughts? Tivanir 15:24, 1 April 2012 (MDT)

PrC? Prestige Class? If so, I disagree. This was intended to be a base class, and even was based on a base class from Complete Adventurer and Player's Handbook II. It doesn't follow standards, granted, but I think moving it would make it even more odd. Jwguy 17:57, 1 April 2012 (MDT)
See the "Some Base Classes are short" section. Actually, some of this going through classes might be a bit easier for you if you knew the whole idea of the Tome was finding areas where the D&D rules aren't that great and trying to patch. So the Dungeonomicon gives a couple ideas for turning dungeons into defensible position built by the powerful, rather than potential self-imposed traps ignored by people as powerful as you are, and Races of War went, "Well, normal D&D melee classes can't do jack past level 10. Let's invite them to play with the big boys (e.g., casters and monsters) so everyone's sort of playing the same game." I personally like the series, but I can understand why people wouldn't. Whether you agree with it or not, everything in them is deliberate. Including make a base class 10 levels long. -- 09:40, 2 April 2012 (MDT)

Double Page[edit]

Isn't this the same as the Knight (3.5e Class), Varient, only with fewer information, a picture and some flavor text? Don't have an account here, so no nice code for me, sorry.

Designate Opponent[edit]

I'm confused as to how this value came about. The Feat states that if a designated opponent hears the challenge and they attack, they miss. However if the Knight attacks, they deal an addition d6 worth of damage. So a strike that normally does 1d8 damage would do 1d8+1d6, likewise an attack of 2d6 will do 3d6.

In the example however, it says: The first two hits inflict an extra 6d6 of damage. I am confused as to where the "6"d6 comes from. She used her Full Attack for all three strikes, yet only two land. Shouldn't this read "The first two hits inflict an extra 2d6 damage"?

The knight only gains the extra damage if her designated opponent does no damage to her (which I think should be changed to "does not attack her"). The opponent does not automatically miss when targeted by the knight. The "6" in the example's 6d6 is a result of the knight's class level. "[A]ny attacks the Knight uses against the opponent during her next turn inflict an extra d6 of damage for each Knight level." So a 6th level knight adds six dice of damage to each attack (though this is not entirely clear in the example). The number of attacks that receive this bonus damage is equal to the number of attacks she has from her natural BAB, so while she gains 3 attacks under the effects of haste, only the first two receive bonus damage (since at 6th level her BAB is +6/+1). The example should be clarified by detailing the damage of each attack. "When her next turn comes up, she uses a Full Attack to attack three times with her longsword, dealing 1d8+6d6 on the first, 1d8+6d6 on the second, and 1d8 points of damage on the third." Unless I have dramatically misunderstood the writer's intent. --Vyss (talk) 16:32, 6 December 2013 (MST)
Personal tools
admin area
Terms and Conditions for Non-Human Visitors