Talk:Silver Knight (3.5e Prestige Class)
From D&D Wiki
 Rating - 3/10
On a scale of 1 to 10, where 1 is abysmal, 5 is adequate, and 10 is damned inspired and well implemented, I rate this entry: 3.
The requirements are difficult. (If my character asks someone for directions, does that count as assistance?) They encourage solo play. D8 for a knight is too low. Should be d10. The class gets a bevy of special abilities every level. The class begs to be five levels, not three. I think that this class need to go back to the idea stage, as the original idea behind the class was not sufficiently well developed. It needs a clearer focus.--Dmilewski 10:58, 8 December 2006 (MST)
 edit locked
It is possible to edit the class features, but the area above this seems to be locked. I got permission to try to spruce up these classes, but cannot change the requirements. Is this unlockable? Thanks.--Aaror 09:43, 6 February 2007 (MST)
- It's not locked, just use the edit tab at the top of the article page. —Sledged (talk) 11:37, 6 February 2007 (MST)
- K, sorry about that, when I get the brain transplant I will be better. I made some changes, would someone re-rate it to tell me whether I should keep tinkering, and if so, what I should still fix? Thanks.--Aaror 16:03, 6 February 2007 (MST)
Rating - 3/10 Rating 6/10
I give this class, in its current incarnation, a 3 out of 10.
- The entry requirements are very difficult for a fighter type to meet and don't seem necessarily to logically be precursors to this class. The special requirement is also somewhat vague.
- The class has too many features too quickly. The helm increases in power each level, the smite ability increases each level, and-- in addition!-- there are great other abilities each level!!! There is no reason to not take this class instead of a fighter or paladin level. Compare this class to a level 17-19 fighter or paladin and it is quickly apparent how overpowered this class is (despite its ridiculously high entry requirements... classes usually should be able to be entered before 16th-ish level).
- Why the d8 HD for a fighter type?
- Most importantly, I am extremely wary of the persistent soul ability. It is poorly worded, vague, and overly complicated. It could work, in theory, but would need a massive overhaul that would rework the ability form the ground up to remove confusion and broken mechanics.
Overall, the class is simply too overpowered, the requirements are too stiff, and the persistent soul ability is too easily broken for this class to warrant more than a 3. --EldritchNumen 01:09, 14 February 2007 (MST)
P.S. Aaror, you did a good job making this class better, so don't feel defeated. This isn't a criticism of you; the class simply has a lot further to go...
- K, I mostly agree, but there is a good reason for the d8 hp for this and the one other knight. These classes are designed mostly for a particular base class, in this case the Ranger (the other d8 is best for clerics). I wonder if the name is the problem, perhaps it should be changed to Corianic Scout. Maybe I should drop the BAB requirement to +8? As for the overpowered, and persistent soul, perhaps just axing persistent soul would be a good start? I am thinking also of making it a 5 level class, making the helm an alternate level ability, one smite per day (how many do you need?) at 2nd, and the bonus feat at 4th? But worried at some point I will underbalance it...(edit put those changes in)--Aaror 17:21, 16 February 2007 (MST)
- It looks a lot better now. You could add a second smite per day at 4th level. If that were added, I'd give this class a 6 of 10. It still slightly lacks focus/balance, but is closer in power to other prestige classes (maybe slightly under) and well fulfills a specific campaign setting role, which a good prestige class should do. It's flavor (paladin-ranger) is not brilliant, but certainly gets the job done. Overall, I give this class a 6/10. --EldritchNumen 17:40, 16 February 2007 (MST)
- Oh, and prestige classes should not grant weapon and armor proficiency (according to the DMG). So that should probably be removed. --EldritchNumen 17:42, 16 February 2007 (MST)