Talk:Lord Knight (3.5e Prestige Class)

Might wanna change the prereqs a bit... as-of now, only paladins can get into it, and a PrC should usually be a little more open to other classes... --Ghostwheel 23:47, 11 July 2009 (MDT)

There's no reason a PrC has to be open to other classes. Dragon Child 23:55, 11 July 2009 (MDT)

Not if you don't want players to take it, right. --Ghostwheel 00:21, 12 July 2009 (MDT)

No. That's no argument, at all. If there's a PrC that's supposed to just be "You're a class X, but with different high level abilities", then it's fine. Hell, it's possible to make classes UNBALANCED by opening them up to other classes. Think about all that +1 BAB full spellcasting + nice goodies PrCs that are designed for paladins and balanced there, but can be taken by clerics and then become totally overpowered. I don't see how making the PrC specific only for one class makes it "not going to be taken". A PrC can be made for a specific CHARACTER, and that's still OK. Dragon Child 00:29, 12 July 2009 (MDT)

I guess we'll agree to disagree ;-) For example, I never play Paladins--much prefer Crusaders as my default type of "Holy Warrior", or barring that different warrior-type who preaches often. That means that this PrC is useless to me, and anyone else who doesn't go specifically for Paladins. Now, if it were open to a wider array of classes, then this PrC might be useful to a bigger number of people. While it's no Elothar, Warrior of Bladereach, I feel personally that a PrC should be enterable through a number of means, not just through a single class. --Ghostwheel 03:07, 12 July 2009 (MDT)

Not to be rude... but stop being so egotistical. If it's useless to you, that doesn't mean there's anything wrong with it. It just means you don't want to use it. So what? I know someone who ONLY plays paladins, so it wouldn't be useless for him! It all evens out. Dragon Child 12:47, 12 July 2009 (MDT)

I'm sorry if you took my tone to be rude, I had no such intent; rather, it's a matter of opinion on what's good or bad in this case. My opinion simply differs from yours. I don't think there's anything rude about expressing an opinion if it differs from someone else's opinion, as long as you do so in a polite manner without attempt to be insulting. However, my opinion still stands; where your friend might take this class for one (or maybe all) of his paladins, to those who don't play paladins this is an extremely narrow PrC with only one way to enter, and thus is useless to the majority of characters, especially those who use all the classes out there, not just the ones found in the PHB. --Ghostwheel 00:40, 13 July 2009 (MDT)

I possibly didn't make this clear: this class is supposed to fix paladins, it is a boost to paladin powers and a simple few level dips into paladin if you were a fighter perchance or a cleric, could give you the ability to enter this class without taking all 4 levels as paladin but it is quite futile to find a way around taking only 4 measly levels in paladin with a full BAB and heavy armor and shields included, they basically have the same prerequisites as well like Lawful Good alignment and all that. If you want to convert the Lord Knight to a 'crusader' type, then feel free to modify the prerequisites on your own terms: just please don't attempt to modify the actual wiki class unless it is for grammar or feedback.

To push this point home: This was and always will be to me a fix to the extreme low power of the paladin and provides a powerful alternative to their narrow spell list and miniscule ability to cast as well as upgrading their mount to actually be a special mount rather than a once/day pony for 2 hours/level as well as the many dead levels included in this class only filled by extra smile evil/day and extra remove disease/week. I am simply restoring paladins to their rightful place as badass demon-killing, undead smiting, god-fearing warriors with lots of auras and all that good stuff everyone used to love about the good old holy fighter.

Perhaps it would have been wiser to perhaps consult myself before assuming that I was simply narrowsighted in my opinion of the Lord Knight, because the reality is this is a fixing class which will repair the good reputation of the paladin.--Ehsteve 01:43, 13 July 2009 (MDT)

Just a thought--if your objective is to "fix" the Paladin class, might it not be better to change it from the ground up and do a rewrite of the class as a whole, retaining what you like and giving what boosts you feel are appropriate at certain levels so that people would feel both free to dip into it and to take it to level 20 and still feel that it's a good, balanced class? (Sort of like the ToB classes, where you can dip them or take them 1-20 and still feel confident that you can have an effective character, if you understand what I mean.) --Ghostwheel 06:39, 13 July 2009 (MDT)

Yeah, why don't you do more work for the same outcome! --TK-Squared 11:26, 13 July 2009 (MDT)

I don't think it would be the same outcome, since the objective is to "fix" paladins. However, not everyone will take the PrC, so it won't fix all Paladins, and those who only partially take the class will only be partially "fixed". Doing the class from the ground up, however, will provide a fix right from the start, and people can take as much or as little as they want of the class and still (in theory) be balanced compared to the previous version of the paladin. --Ghostwheel 19:13, 13 July 2009 (MDT)

Well paladins of tyranny, freedom or slaughter are not taken into account as from a personal observation: playing a Lawful Good character and adhering to an extremely strict moral code and conduct is harder all over than a Chaotic Good paladin with it's freedoms of lawlessness or Lawful and Chaotic Evil with it's ability to decisively shun goodwill - which is essentially what the backbone of the original paladin oath is. This is a little pat on the back to the hardships endured by these underpowered characters who have the greatest obligation to keep their actions lawful and good or else they lose all of their abilities essentially - even cleric has a 1 step limit with their own alignment when compared to their deity's before losing their spellcasting. A PrC is much more recognizable and easier to intergrate into a character than simply completely overhauling the paladin class and having it looked over as another 'paladin variant'. Another note about making this into a 20 level base class is: I could not simply cram another 10 levels of auras and abilities into making this into a base class - I honestly cannot.

The sad reality of the matter is that when you make a 'paladin variant' base class, people always come in with a negative lens on. I simply made a short fix which will hopefully put a little faith into the pityfully underpowered base class that is paladin.--Ehsteve 00:06, 14 July 2009 (MDT)

Free Action Once Per Round

Wanna just call it a swift action and be done with it? -- Jota 19:58, 18 July 2009 (MDT)

Well I'd like this class to be able to multiclass with warblades and other classes from the Tome of Battle after this class has been completed since the remaining 15 levels of paladin after 5th might as well be dead levels so I'm trying to leave this class open to exit seeing as how narrow the entry field is (4 levels of paladin or paladin 3/cleric 1 which is 1 lost BAB and 1 level of full spellcasting lost).--Ehsteve 20:30, 18 July 2009 (MDT)

Nearing Completion

Whilst the page still lacks an encounter, the class is otherwise finished unless i choose to implement and ability granting the Lord Knight the ability to soak up to 1/2 damage from any ally who takes damage within his aura and deduct up to his full charisma from the damage (although in total he must take at least the amount of charisma deducted from the damage he chooses to soak). This page is otherwise ready for rating, the encounter should be up and ready within the next short while.

All constructive feedback is good for this classes balance and improvement. --Ehsteve 22:06, 28 July 2009 (MDT)