About the Knight

[Lobo316]

Just wanted some opinions on this, but after running three sessions now, and looking at the classes in the book, is the knight "lacking" or is he fine "as is"? I mean, he has some cool ablities to affect the battlefield, but they are usable only once per day, so does he suffer a little in the rest of his abilities compared to other classes?

[mgtremaine]

I think the knight is solid. Yes the Knight really shines in large combat situations when Inspire and Demoralize can be used on "vast" numbers. (1000 at 9th level cool!) But overall versus a regular fighter the lack a few of the extra pluses is hardly a problem. The 1/day powers can still be useful in dungeon crawls., it has made the difference in a few close combats.

-Mike

[alcyone]

In my Aihrde game I think the best benefit of being a knight isn't in the abilities, but in status. There is a deference to him because of his social standing, he can obtain audience with most rulers, and is probably the only credible representative to the Pryzmirian empire.

All of that horsemanship is pretty worthless in a dungeon, but the group spends a fair amount of time travelling from place to place also, and he can make short work of highwaymen and other ne'er-do-wells out in the open.

[Omote]

As the other fine fellows have stated, if the Knight class is used in primarily a dungeon-crawl campaign, yes he will be underpowered. He needs to be able to utilize those horsemanship abilities and well as adding his benefits to as many party members and allies as possible. Otherwise, might as well play a fighter.

~O

[CKDad]

A knight tends to shine (no pun intended! well, maybe a little) when the adventure takes place outside of a dungeon environment. In the rules as written, the biggest single factor here is horsemanship, which can give the mounted knight a real edge in combat and can turn the tide of battle if exploited properly.

But Aergraith's point about status is a big deal as well, at least if the CK allows it to be.

[Arduin]

A knight tends to shine (no pun intended! well, maybe a little) when the adventure takes place outside of a dungeon environment. In the rules as written, the biggest single factor here is horsemanship, which can give the mounted knight a real edge in combat and can turn the tide of battle if exploited properly.

But Aergraith's point about status is a big deal as well, at least if the CK allows it to be.

Agreed. When off of the horse, much less useful. Probably why since the 1st knight in UA, I can count on one hand the number of my players that played one.

[serleran]

Knights in tandem are a mighty force, if they are of sufficient level to start affecting each other with their abilities...

[Lobo316]

OK, thanks for the replies. Just something I was noticing. What about fighting from horseback against unmounted riders? What tupe of bonus to you give a knight then? I swear I saw somewhere in the rules (CKG I think) where attacking non-mounted opponents the attacker suffered a -1? I have been giving mounted attackers a +1 (may just make that knights get a +1).

[Arduin]

What about fighting from horseback against unmounted riders? What tupe of bonus to you give a knight then?

Depends on what they are fighting. There are weapons specifically designed for the foot soldiers vs. mounted knights.

[DMMike]

All things being equal, a mounted knight should get a bonus to attack against foot soldiers; part of the whole point of the horse in the first place. Yes some weapons are designed against horsemen (pole arms, etc.) but usually only work in groups and with footmen that won't panic.

IMC, I provide the starting knight with a light warhorse instead of just a riding horse. I never thought that made sense.

DM Mike

[tylermo]

That whole mounted combat ability served one of my players well. His character with the rather unoriginal name, the black knight, benefitted from it nicely. That all ended with a random encounter in A1...grizzly bear! Grizzly tore the $@!# out of his war horse, then mauled the knight also.

[Lord Dynel]

I've always seen the knight as a "different kind of character," personally. Sure, he's servicable in a dungeon but as others have said, he really shines in the outside world. Charging that dragon, inflicting triple damage then using the cover ability (for a +6 AC!) or the Deflect ability and keeping the beast's attention while his companions start doing some damage. If the beast breaks off, the knight has some nifty buffing abilities, plus a debuff (Demoralization) that works off Charisma (and most foes do not have Mental primes). His abilities aren't super-powered, but rather fall into the category of "every little bit counts." All this in addition of being a decent melee combatant. Multiple knights in the same party, as serl mentioned, could be truly frightening.

And then there's the points Aergraith touched on, the RP aspects of the knight - having a higher social standing (most likely) gives a party some clout, and having someone who an interact easier with upper class or nobility can be a benefit.

[CKDad]

Fear the knight's charge.

[Relaxo]

What LD said. They kick ass on horseback, but even w/o horse, they're still just 1 behind the fighter in BtH, so very capable warriors. And the RP stuff is cool and fun with them.