Talk:Blackstone Knight (3.5e Class)

Namespaces

Black Knight already existed and I discovered this stub hanging off in space. I moved it to "Blackened" so it existed. It's a stub, very messy. Who is the creator of this page? -- Eiji 20:58, 2 October 2008 (MDT)

Available for Adoption?

Since no one has claimed this page (as far as I can tell), I was wondering if I could adopt it. At least to fix it up a bit, if not change the direction of the class. -ThunderGod Cid 18:59, 27 March 2009 (MDT)

Yes, please adopt this article! It needs a lot of love, but there is potential. Good Luck T.G. Cid! --Ganteka 14:38, 28 March 2009 (MDT)

Unfortunately, I have no idea how I would go about adopting a page (I believe there's an official process). If anyone could give me directions on how to do so, it would be greatly appreciated. - ThunderGod Cid 18:24, 30 March 2009 (MDT)

Just replace the author template with this:

{{adopted Article

|adopter_name=<!--User Name-->

|date_adopted=<!--Day Month Year-->

|status=<!--level of completion-->

}}

Bam, adopted article. --Ganteka 18:28, 30 March 2009 (MDT)

Cool, thanks a lot. I've got a plan, but I'm going to respect the work of the original author and keep most of his ideas. - ThunderGod Cid 20:06, 30 March 2009 (MDT)

My god... it's gone from sucky to sexy! I like this! -- Eiji 12:07, 23 May 2009 (MDT)

Suggestions Plus Help?

I'm at a little bit of a dilemma with this class. I want to keep the original author's ideas (at least the ones that are plausibly balanced for gameplay), but I also wanted to make this class somewhat like a defensive variant of my Hellfire Knight, with the same premise of sacrificing hit points for power. I would like to know what other people think should stay and go (aside from the free ability boosts, which are going to be deleted). I want to keep the concept of increasing size, but only for a short period of time similar to the effects of the enlarge person spell.

Additionally, I was hoping to change the name to "Blackstone Knight" (Blackened Knight doesn't seem the most pleasing name to the ear, so I thought Blackstone might be an improvement that goes along with my new class better). I see that I can change it on this page, but that doesn't seem to affect how it looks on the list of classes.

Help with either of these issues would be appreciated. - ThunderGod Cid 17:05, 8 May 2009 (MDT)

As far as the page name goes, there is the Move tab up at the top of the article, just click it and change the page's name to move it to a new page. Also, you can get rid of the old author template box now that you have the adopted article box on there. --Ganteka 17:18, 8 May 2009 (MDT)

Rating

Power - 3/5 I give this class a 3 out of 5. To be honest, the fact that almost -all- it's abilities sacrifice HP give this class a poor survival rating. Perhaps if it had a more suitable way to -restore- some of it's lost health on it's own, I would rate it higher, but I would fear for abusing such raw power in this class. --Avlindrel FallenTree 23:08, 16 July 2009 (MDT)

Power of the Body (getting maximum hp for every level) was supposed to make giving up hit points for power somewhat viable. It basically ensures that even though you have yo give up hp, you have lots of it to lose. If that's not enough, perhaps something similar to the paladin's Lay on Hands? If you think that is appropriate, I would likely add it to the hellfire knight as well. - TG Cid 19:23, 17 July 2009 (MDT)

Wording - 4/5 I give this class a 4 out of 5. I love the wording, and there isn't much to be confused by with the way you type things out. Other than the difficulty with the incorrect class-name in the Starting Package, this -would- earn a 5! --Avlindrel FallenTree 23:08, 16 July 2009 (MDT)

Didn't even notice that, so thanks for the catch. Fixed.

Formatting - 4/5 I give this class a 4 out of 5. The formatting is simplistic, and easy to read without error. You haven't put anything too overt in there, and of course you haven't used the more difficult parts of formatting, but good job! --Avlindrel FallenTree 23:08, 16 July 2009 (MDT)

Flavor - 3/5 I give this class a 3 out of 5. Being honest, the flavor for the class is a little lacking. Perhaps you could elaborate on all the points where you just list the Hellfire Knight as an example? That, in my eyes, would greatly improve the class-page. --Avlindrel FallenTree 23:08, 16 July 2009 (MDT)

Rating

Power - <<<5>>>/5 I give this class a <<<5>>> out of 5 because <<<It doesnt need to be improved>>> --—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 189.98.170.232 (talk • contribs) . Please sign your posts.--—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 189.98.170.232 (talk • contribs) . Please sign your posts.

Wording - <<<5>>>/5 I give this class a <<<5>>> out of 5 because <<<Its fine.>>> --—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 189.98.170.232 (talk • contribs) . Please sign your posts.

Formatting - <<<Insert Your Rating Here>>>/5 I give this class a <<<Insert Your Rating Here>>> out of 5 because <<<insert why you gave the rating and how to improve it>>> --—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 189.98.170.232 (talk • contribs) . Please sign your posts.

Flavor - <<<Insert Your Rating Here>>>/5 I give this class a <<<Insert Your Rating Here>>> out of 5 because <<<insert why you gave the rating and how to improve it>>> --—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 189.98.170.232 (talk • contribs) . Please sign your posts.

The above rating is vague and was added by an IP after the IP made several edits to the article. This particular IP has no other history here on the wiki. That being said, I would say that users should keep the possible conflict of interest and single purpose in mind when taking this rating into consideration.   Hooper   talk    contribs    email   23:37, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

The IP's edits have been undone, since they were unauthorized and unwarranted. As such, I feel that this rating should be disregarded entirely on the basis of its context as well as the lack of justification. Since it hasn't been added to the page itself, I don't think that will be a problem. But the record has been cleared. - TG Cid 16:25, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Rating

Power - 1/5 I give this class a 1 out of 5 because Because it becomes disgustingly powerful around level 12 when it gains spell turning as a supernatural ability A LEVEL BEFORE ANY CASTER COULD ACTUALLY CAST IT. Once it has an ability based stat bonus EQUIVALENT TO AN EPIC LEVEL ITEM

I recommend changing Devil's Mirror to Devil's Shield with the same penalty, and make it spell resistance with a caster level equal to BK level.

move demonic rush to lvl 5, and changing the bonus upgrade to every 5th level thereafter, leaving them with +8 at lvl20 when he is actually considered epic

remove demonic growth, plutonic pillar, and the part in harbinger about plutonic abilities. There's just too many class abilities, plutonic pillar makes very little sense and is rather excessive, and demonic growth is very broken, all other abilities considered. between monkey grip, demonic growth, and harbinger, a BK is wielding a gargantuan weapon, at medium size; larger with related enchants.

HP costs are a good limiting factor, but not when you have more HP than a corpse gatherer. A d12 hit die is plenty. You don't need 10/level the only thing that gets that is a barbarian prestige class that's essentially a damage sponge. That much HP is easy to break, by simply NOT using the HP costing abilities.

I think I have to disagree with this premise. First of all, spell turning is not actually that great of a spell despite what the name would implicate. The +8 Strength is also not a terribly big deal given that there are significant dead levels, and such bonuses can be easily acquired via other means (growing in size, for example). Changing it to spell resistance equal to class level would instantly render it almost useless, since any appropriately-challenged caster could overcome it with relative ease.

I also think the class has too many dead levels as it is. There's no chance I could be swayed to give more. Dead levels are always bad for any game regardless of balance level; removing stuff is almost inconceivable. I also think you're overstating the power of hit points, given that any properly optimized character can deal hundreds of hit points worth of damage or, if they are a wizard, circumvent hit points altogether. - TG Cid 19:04, 20 March 2011 (MDT)

Wording - 3/5 I give this class a 3 out of 5 because everything is coherant, but most of the wording doesn't follow standard wording practices, and because the writer just seemed kind of lazy in certain points, such as putting "same as figher" for starting gold, instead of looking up 6d4 x 10

I admit that it was kind of lazy to write "same as fighter" but that's pretty standard practice. In addition, although this was written some time ago, I would like to know which sections violate "standard wording practices". It might not be great writing, but it doesn't seem that bad in my opinion. - TG Cid 19:03, 20 March 2011 (MDT)

Formatting - 4/5 I give this class a 4 out of 5 because the formatting's a little crusty, but otherwise acceptable. Improving the wording would help a great deal. It would be better if the class didn't haphazardly switch between infernal & abyssal terms. If it's Abyssal, use 'demon/demonic', 'abyssal' 'abyss' ect. if the class is Infernal, use 'devil/devilish' 'infernal' 'inferno' 'hell' ect. If it's neither, simply evil, use 'feindish' 'unholy' 'forsaken' ect.

It's more fluff than anything that affects the game. It essentially allows you to pick without straightjacketing into one, and to be frank just saying evil time and again gets boring quickly. I also like alliteration, so those other words lend themselves well. - TG Cid 19:03, 20 March 2011 (MDT)

Flavor - 4/5 I give this class a 4 out of 5 because the idea is solid, a fiendish tank is a needed idea. I like it, it's just... awkwardly written, and somewhat overpowered (I rolled the numbers, it gets bad. Fast) [WTF does plutonium have to do with demons?]

For the record, Plutonic refers to volcanic rock created by crystallized magma, which fits the theme of the class much better than plutonium would. - TG Cid 19:03, 20 March 2011 (MDT)

Rating

Power - 2.5/5 I give this class a 2.5 out of 5 because the class is kind of meh. It's basically a better version of warrior. The two top tier abilities, Nilfeheim and Harbinger, are absolutely terrible. Nilfeheim is trash, and Harbinger is lackluster. This is especially problematic considering it's the class's level 20 ability =/

I'd reccommend the following: Nilfeheim - instead of what it does currently, have it do 1d6 damage per level, then the knight is exhausted for 3 rounds. It doesn't end the surge or anything.

I can't really think of anything you can do to improve Harbinger. Sorry. --AnarchicAccordant 23:06, 2 July 2011 (MDT)

Wording - 5/5 I give this class a 5 out of 5 because the wording is fine. Everything is clearly explained and easy to understand. --AnarchicAccordant 23:06, 2 July 2011 (MDT)

Formatting - 5/5 I give this class a 5 out of 5 because of the same reason as the wording. --AnarchicAccordant 23:06, 2 July 2011 (MDT)

Flavor - 3/5 I give this class a 3 out of 5 because it's okay, but they're basically barbarians with a different flavor. --AnarchicAccordant 23:06, 2 July 2011 (MDT)

I'm not gonna lie, I think this class sucks too. I made it a really long time ago, and now I just generally despise it. So I'm gonna slap the delete template on it and see if someone actually honors it. - TG Cid 12:40, 6 July 2011 (MDT)

Agreed. This class doesn't need fixing. It needs deleting. Bleh. Gross Cid. Haha. --Jay Freedman 20:33, 6 July 2011 (MDT)

I'm awaiting the word from GD on my question "do we delete crappy classes, or just ones that aren't playable?" If he gives the ok, this and a few other classes will be history. However, if he says no, I'm going to have to remove the template and then start badgering him to change his opinion. Your class still might qualify as "just good enough" to stick around though. --Badger 15:47, 23 August 2011 (MDT)

3 years later, I think I finally figured out what to do with this guy. My proposal for Niflheim and Harbinger:

Niflheim - 1d10 damage per level. 3 uses per day. The first use you take a -2 penalty to attack / damage rolls. Second use you become fatigued, 3rd use you're exhausted.

Harbinger - Keep everything you've got now. In addition, your abilities no longer deal damage to you, you gain a +6 profane bonus to your reflex / will save, and you gain a +2 profane bonus to an ability score of your choice. --AnarchicAccordant 21:13, 6 July 2014 (MDT)

Rating

Power - 3/5 I give this class a 3 out of 5 because it starts out kind of sickly; using your demonic rush eats through your hp quickly while offering relatively little benefit, and can result in a rapid death. That said, it becomes a terror at higher levels, by which time you have a massive stockpile of hit points,(I use it in pathfinder, where it works exquisitely). --Terius Crael (talk) 12:49, 4 June 2013 (MDT)

Wording - 4/5 I give this class a 4 out of 5 because the plutonic abilities are not clear enough on whether they can be used outside of demonic rush or not. I recommend putting "while in a demonic rush" in front of plutonic pillar (rather than sneaking it in towards the end of the sentence), and clarifying whether plutonic prison can be used outside of demonic rush. --Terius Crael (talk) 12:49, 4 June 2013 (MDT)

Formatting - 5/5 I give this class a 5 out of 5 because it is fine. Don't change it. --Terius Crael (talk) 12:49, 4 June 2013 (MDT)

Flavor - 5/5 I give this class a 5 out of 5 because I quite like it. Don't change it. --Terius Crael (talk) 12:49, 4 June 2013 (MDT)