Suggestion Discussion: "(Purple Dragon) Knight + Proficiencies"

[Orian_666]

Just wanted to kinda bump this suggestion somehow as well as note that i'm hugely in favor of it.
viewtopic.php?f=15&t=25503

As stated there are a lot of potentially fun and awesome builds out there that incorporate the Knight class but generally start off as Bard or Rogue, granting the proficiencies that suits the Knight clas (Martial and Shield, and all Armors) just makes sense thematically but also it's not going to be a game breaking change, not in the slightest in fact.
Most builds that have PDK will either already have or eventually take a class that grants these proficiences anyway, ie. fighter, paladin, DD, BG, etc etc. So it's not like it'll grant any specific bonuses at the end game or save anyone any feats during their build.

Any other build likely won't benefit from or use those proficiencies anyway so nothing to worry about there.
All this change will do is make the few builds that take Knight early, but on top of bard, or rogue, or things like that, simply more playable and viable in the very early levels.

Most of them will take a class with those proficiencies by around level 7 to 9 but those very early levels from 4 (when they take Knight) are just so tedious and annoying without them, and it grants the freedom to play your intended role in groups even in the very early levels instead of just getting boosted or relying on summon scrolls to push as fast as you can to level 7-9.

It's not really a huge change, and it really only benefits a handful of character builds, but it's a simple change that just makes sense and will make those builds a bit more appealing and help diversify things a little bit, hopefully. It won't break the game or the balance, but it will help those that will benefit from it for those very early levels.

[Memelord]

+1

My latest character is a Rogue/PDK/CoT; it's a fun build without being 100% b0rken but, Snuggle a Bugbear, man. The first few levels of any build are always the most tedious - the first 10 levels here were a Snuggle a Bugbear nightmare.

[ltlukoziuz]

+1, even though I probably will disagree on the class being a pain when leveling.

Currently doing a character who is Rog / PDK (valiant) / DChamp, and I did also go through 3-5-1 start (in Cordor though, not Skal), but honestly, it wasn't too bad, even with me not perusing summons. First five levels you're mostly in the sewers and/or nearby lands where expertise was more than enough, taking what you can (not to mention there's easy access to Cat's Grace/Barkskin pots). Afterward, you have 5UMD on the build from the get-go and can do the wands for that missing AC/power once you get some gold on yourself.

However, there's a different problem which I got stuck on - Divine Champion has a prerequisite of Weapon Focus, but I envisioned my character wielding a martial weapon, which meant that I had to drop a feat to take two Weapon Foci, one for a rogue weapon, one for the one I grabbed post DChamp. So I am definitely also in the camp of "give PDK proficiencies".

[Kalopsia]

I'd even go as far as to suggest turning PDK into a base class. The prestige class prerequisites are so minor at the moment that we might as well let people start as PDKs.

[Peppermint]

The class should receive martial, shield, and at least medium armor proficiency, yes.

[Aila]

PDK is already crazy powerful. I don't think they need anything else.

[Adam Antium]

Thematically I like it, but yeah, they don't really need it at all. Bards who take it (and it is a semi-popular thing to go 20/10 with bard/pdk) can literally just UMD an Elder Dream already, which outshines like everything else lol.

I just don't see a real need for it. It would make the class stronger, but it doesn't need to be stronger to my knowledge, it's already quite strong.

What might be fun instead, would be PDK-specific armor or shield that grant intimidate/discipline boosts. That would be kinda neat. But as far as changing the class itself, I don't see it.

[Ork]

PDK is already crazy powerful. I don't think they need anything else.

I just don't see a real need for it. It would make the class stronger

Define crazy powerful & stronger for the people in the back. I don't agree with your statement at all and need some more details here.

PDK should recieve proficiencies. It won't increase their power in the slightest, but will be a QoL change for characters that start rogue.

[telmarael]

+1 to the author and +1 to Peppermint
Martial, shield and atleast medium armor. Doesn't shift class power in a slightest, pure QoL for a couple early levels.

[Opustus]

Thematic integrity is important! I think that what kind of weapon and armor proficiencies a class grants is an important part of its identity. And I fully agree that knights should be martially trained and be reflected this in martial weapon proficiency and medium and heavy armor proficiency. I wouldn't put balance first in these decisions unless the change was balance-oriented or would impact game / class / build balance greatly.

[Orian_666]

PDK is already crazy powerful. I don't think they need anything else.

I just don't see a real need for it. It would make the class stronger

Define crazy powerful & stronger for the people in the back. I don't agree with your statement at all and need some more details here.

PDK should recieve proficiencies. It won't increase their power in the slightest, but will be a QoL change for characters that start rogue.

My thoughts exactly, Ork.
The only thing this would do is be a thematic and QoL change for the very early levels, as far as level 9 when most builds get those Profs anyway.
It would have zero impact on balance or power for the class.

[Nitro]

Well, it would be an upgrade for bard/PDK 20/10, saving them some feats. But I think that's worthwhile anyway.

[Orian_666]

Well, it would be an upgrade for bard/PDK 20/10, saving them some feats. But I think that's worthwhile anyway.

True, this is the one example i'd overlooked that would get a definitive upgrade.
Though I certainly don't think it'd be a game breaking or balance breaking one. Bard/PDK is strong, a very strong buffer/debuffer, but I can't see an extra feat or two (maximum they'd be saving with not needing to take Heavy Armor, or Martial Weapons if they decide they don't like spears) making it overpowered in any way, thankfully
But yea, this one would get a long term benefit from such a change.

[Ork]

Spears are stronger than any martial weapon around for a bard/pdk. Having the martial weapon feat will not improve them.

[Sea Shanties]

Spears are stronger than any martial weapon around for a bard/pdk. Having the martial weapon feat will not improve them.

That seems like more reason to just give them the proficiency to me. Spears are odd looking on some characters-- they look great on wild elves, sure, but a bark/PDK with a medieval knight flavor would likely prefer a sword. If the strength itself is roughly the same or less then I think you should just let people have more weapon choices for the aesthetics.

Small races might also want the option for a one-handed weapon that isn't a mace or dagger. Especially hin for the Dale sword.

[Adam Antium]

I'm going to take a moment to bring up the fact that medieval warfare was mostly polearms, swords were expensive and took a long time to train with to learn how to effectively use. The not-very-professional armies you often saw in the early and mid-medieval times (i.e. after the fall of Rome, before the renaissance) used polearms a lot more often because they're effective, they're easy to use, and they're cheap.

But uh, aside from that, I don't have an enormous objection to PDK's getting proficiencies, I just don't see it as necessary.

The class revolves entirely around buffing/debuffing, with its class abilities. It does get full BAB, and I think D10 hitdice, but I don't understand what possible PDK builds are in need of proficiency feats.

I don't think it'd be a catastrophic or awful change but I just don't see what it helps, and I don't actually see it thematically as being relevant. Polearms are way more "accurate" as medieval weapons, yo (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zXEof0OUXME and https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=No_KQ0kdU2Y, seriously I love Skallagrim)

[Sea Shanties]

Sure but fantasy is about appropriating the idealized "feel" of the medieval era and a mishmash of other influences not trying to be historically accurate. A sword and shield on a knight just feels more "right" in D&D even if it was historically rarer than we think.

I'm speaking purely in terms of looks of course.. Plate armor, shield and sword just look cooler than the same with spear. I can't say if it's OP to give the martial weapons (or heavy armor) feats for free or not.

[Adam Antium]

PDK is already crazy powerful. I don't think they need anything else.

I just don't see a real need for it. It would make the class stronger

Define crazy powerful & stronger for the people in the back. I don't agree with your statement at all and need some more details here.

PDK should recieve proficiencies. It won't increase their power in the slightest, but will be a QoL change for characters that start rogue.

My thoughts exactly, Ork.
The only thing this would do is be a thematic and QoL change for the very early levels, as far as level 9 when most builds get those Profs anyway.
It would have zero impact on balance or power for the class.

Bard/pdk is the only real pdk build I see around and this would free up feats for them or give them proficiencies they wouldn't have normally had. For a community that, it seems from the recent "give bards ASF reduction" thread, sees bards as OP monsters, I'm surprised to see the "basically a bard" prestige class be relegated as "not that strong" and "needs free feats."

Sure but fantasy is about appropriating the idealized "feel" of the medieval era and a mishmash of other influences not trying to be historically accurate. A sword and shield on a knight just feels more "right" in D&D even if it was historically rarer than we think.

I'm speaking purely in terms of looks of course.. Plate armor, shield and sword just look cooler than the same with spear. I can't say if it's OP to give the martial weapons (or heavy armor) feats for free or not.

Someone specifically mentioned accuracy to medieval knights and having sword and heavy armor and stuff. That is partially accurate but not really "how war was done" for the majority of the middle ages. Saying "we don't care about accuracy" is not a rebuff to the progression of

"We want accuracy to historical knights"
"You already do"

[Orian_666]

Bard/pdk is the only real pdk build I see around and this would free up feats for them or give them proficiencies they wouldn't have normally had. For a community that, it seems from the recent "give bards ASF reduction" thread, sees bards as OP monsters, I'm surprised to see the "basically a bard" prestige class be relegated as "not that strong" and "needs free feats."

There are actually a lot of potential builds for PDK, and many of them are in use.
PDK compliments well with several class, Paladin, COT, BG, WM (if you're feeling adventurous), DD.
I've played a couple of them and have seen others play many of them too, they exist, but many of the builds begin as Bard or Rogue x3, then PDK until you can take your third class which usually has the proficiencies. So for the first 7-9 levels you're greatly stunted even though you're playing a class that arguably should have those profs already.

As for the Bard/PDK becoming stronger I do admit it gets a bit of a benefit from this change if it happened, but it's literally two feats if the character even invested in Heavy Armor and Martial Weapons in the first place, which frankly they don't need to, and if they did it's still just 2 pre epic feats, 1 if they're happy with using a spear which has been pointed out as perfectly optimal anyway. That's hardly going to be game breaking.

Someone specifically mentioned accuracy to medieval knights and having sword and heavy armor and stuff. That is partially accurate but not really "how war was done" for the majority of the middle ages. Saying "we don't care about accuracy" is not a rebuff to the progression of

"We want accuracy to historical knights"
"You already do"

I don't know who said that, and I do agree with you that in medieval times the "rank and file" were more inclined to use pikes rather than a sword and board, but there's a few things being neglected here:

1. A knight would absolutely have had the training, and would have the wealth to have their own sword, armor, and shield. In fact correct me if i'm wrong but way back when only people of noble or notable birth could even be knighted.

2. The comparison may have been a poor one, but thematically it still does make sense because the setting isn't medieval Europe (for example), it's Arelith and it's not a rank and file soldier with minimum training and no sword, it's a fantasy setting adventurer with whatever background the player decides.

3. The class you choose doesn't have to be literal to it's name, that's always been the case on Arelith. If I choose a Rogue I don't have to play it as a thief, I could play it as a charismatic swashbuckler, or a savvy street urchin. Same goes with Knight, it's not (or at least shouldn't be) limited to that real world description of what war was like in the middle ages.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

But at the end of the day, ultimately as stated already by quite a few people, it's not a game breaking change, and thematically it does make more sense that a Knight would have that training rather than not. But it's just a QoL change for folk that want to build a PDK where that build starts as Rogue or Bard, of which there are actually many.

PS. I hope this didn't come across as argumentative, I do agree with what you pointed out when it comes to middle ages wartime, I just wanted to make it clear in case my post seems like it's just being argumentative, after re-reading it I kinda got that vibe. Just re-iterating why I think it'd be a perfectly fine change to the game is all

[Ork]

Bard/pdk is the only real pdk build I see around and this would free up feats for them or give them proficiencies they wouldn't have normally had. For a community that, it seems from the recent "give bards ASF reduction" thread, sees bards as OP monsters, I'm surprised to see the "basically a bard" prestige class be relegated as "not that strong" and "needs free feats."

What feats are bard/pdk taking that they don't already have access to? Bards get light & medium armor, shields and simple weapons. Spears are optimal. Martial is flavor.

[Sea Shanties]

Someone specifically mentioned accuracy to medieval knights and having sword and heavy armor and stuff. That is partially accurate but not really "how war was done" for the majority of the middle ages. Saying "we don't care about accuracy" is not a rebuff to the progression of

"We want accuracy to historical knights"
"You already do"

Yeah. *I* said it, but I didn't say it was for historical accuracy. Read it again.

[Ork]

I'd like to add: there are prominent PDK builds that don't rely on bard.

4 rogue/16 BG/10 PDK
4 rogue/16 CoT/10 PDK
4 paladin/16 CoT/10 PDK
4 rogue/8 fighter/18 CoT

All valid builds in their own right. What you should notice is the class rogue. Rogues receive light armor & rogue proficiency with no shield. This is a QoL update for these builds to acquire proficiency before they automatically receive them once taking CoT or fighter or BG. These builds do not pick up extra feats for armor & weapon proficiencies unless they are the rogue/PDK/CoT build that might pick up Heavy Armor - they have plenty of feats to spare.

[Adam Antium]

Bard/pdk is the only real pdk build I see around and this would free up feats for them or give them proficiencies they wouldn't have normally had. For a community that, it seems from the recent "give bards ASF reduction" thread, sees bards as OP monsters, I'm surprised to see the "basically a bard" prestige class be relegated as "not that strong" and "needs free feats."

What feats are bard/pdk taking that they don't already have access to? Bards get light & medium armor, shields and simple weapons. Spears are optimal. Martial is flavor.

Heavy proficiency, and spears aren't actually optimal, just very good if you can get the UMD for Elder Dream (which requires decent investment in an already-skill-heavy build). Getting free martial/heavy proficiencies would open up a lot more options for optimization and flavor. It wouldn't be broken, but it would be an increase in power. I'm simply saying I don't think this is really necessary, and I feel that the Knight class should really be renamed Commander or something to that effect, because that is 100% of what it does - it's not a Fighter, it's a leader and morale booster and enemy demoralizer. That is 100% of the class' ability.

Someone specifically mentioned accuracy to medieval knights and having sword and heavy armor and stuff. That is partially accurate but not really "how war was done" for the majority of the middle ages. Saying "we don't care about accuracy" is not a rebuff to the progression of

"We want accuracy to historical knights"
"You already do"

Yeah. *I* said it, but I didn't say it was for historical accuracy. Read it again.

Sure, the characters "histor" don't appear in your original post, so if that's not what you meant, I'll retract what I said. But it did come off sort of that way to me. Honestly, when I think of medieval warfare, I think of pikes, bows, peasants with rusty weapons and farming implements, a few swords and hammers and maces maybe, and the like. So when someone says "a knight" I don't immediately think "longsword." I think "armored melee fighter, higher social status than peasant and commonfolk." This might just be a difference in how we perceive the archetype, fair enough.

Bard/pdk is the only real pdk build I see around and this would free up feats for them or give them proficiencies they wouldn't have normally had. For a community that, it seems from the recent "give bards ASF reduction" thread, sees bards as OP monsters, I'm surprised to see the "basically a bard" prestige class be relegated as "not that strong" and "needs free feats."

There are actually a lot of potential builds for PDK, and many of them are in use.
PDK compliments well with several class, Paladin, COT, BG, WM (if you're feeling adventurous), DD.
I've played a couple of them and have seen others play many of them too, they exist, but many of the builds begin as Bard or Rogue x3, then PDK until you can take your third class which usually has the proficiencies. So for the first 7-9 levels you're greatly stunted even though you're playing a class that arguably should have those profs already.

As for the Bard/PDK becoming stronger I do admit it gets a bit of a benefit from this change if it happened, but it's literally two feats if the character even invested in Heavy Armor and Martial Weapons in the first place, which frankly they don't need to, and if they did it's still just 2 pre epic feats, 1 if they're happy with using a spear which has been pointed out as perfectly optimal anyway. That's hardly going to be game breaking.

Someone specifically mentioned accuracy to medieval knights and having sword and heavy armor and stuff. That is partially accurate but not really "how war was done" for the majority of the middle ages. Saying "we don't care about accuracy" is not a rebuff to the progression of

"We want accuracy to historical knights"
"You already do"

I don't know who said that, and I do agree with you that in medieval times the "rank and file" were more inclined to use pikes rather than a sword and board, but there's a few things being neglected here:

1. A knight would absolutely have had the training, and would have the wealth to have their own sword, armor, and shield. In fact correct me if i'm wrong but way back when only people of noble or notable birth could even be knighted.

2. The comparison may have been a poor one, but thematically it still does make sense because the setting isn't medieval Europe (for example), it's Arelith and it's not a rank and file soldier with minimum training and no sword, it's a fantasy setting adventurer with whatever background the player decides.

3. The class you choose doesn't have to be literal to it's name, that's always been the case on Arelith. If I choose a Rogue I don't have to play it as a thief, I could play it as a charismatic swashbuckler, or a savvy street urchin. Same goes with Knight, it's not (or at least shouldn't be) limited to that real world description of what war was like in the middle ages.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

But at the end of the day, ultimately as stated already by quite a few people, it's not a game breaking change, and thematically it does make more sense that a Knight would have that training rather than not. But it's just a QoL change for folk that want to build a PDK where that build starts as Rogue or Bard, of which there are actually many.

PS. I hope this didn't come across as argumentative, I do agree with what you pointed out when it comes to middle ages wartime, I just wanted to make it clear in case my post seems like it's just being argumentative, after re-reading it I kinda got that vibe. Just re-iterating why I think it'd be a perfectly fine change to the game is all

All reasonable points/statements, I honestly have never seen someone play a PDK that wasn't a Bard (unless I'm just stupid and not paying attention to the characters around me, which is a possibility lol), but if the landscape of PDK builds is as you say, then it wouldn't make a significant change in power, just QoL, which I'm all for.

Regarding the (IMO more fun!) discussion of historical knights, in order of your list:

1. I'm not super educated on this but I was under the impression knighthood was an attained rank, something you earned, not inheritable. Of course the son of a poor farmer might have it harder to get to that status than the son of a noble, but it wasn't a part of the noble caste, it was above peasants but still not nobility. I imagine you're right that an actual knight would probably have more wealth to spend on things like swords in the early middle ages.

2. Sure.

3. Well, alright, but people have indeed been using the "it's thematically satisfying" approach for this discussion, so it seems to me that "Knight" really is being treated as "a medieval European knight" in this sense, but if you want to abandon that position regarding the argument for the change, I'm fine with that - you already made a decent case for it being primarily only a QoL adjustment and not really altering the balance of power in the builds that use PDK.

I don't mind arguing, people tend to think the word is inherently hostile but I tend to see it more as an academic term to describe people arguing their positions on an issue they don't yet agree on

[Ork]

Heavy proficiency, and spears aren't actually optimal, just very good if you can get the UMD for Elder Dream.

Wrong. Spears are simple weapons that can be two-handed. In addition, the top spear besides Elder Dream is a +3 AB +1d12 damage that can be keened with a T1 rune. Not only that, but we have the Giant Femur spear that can stack with bless weapon scrolls to be +3 AB/damage +4 piercing. Elder Dream is a meme worth skipping.

Your arguments to not providing proficiencies boil down to your objection of the nature of the class and its name. That's not a reason to deny a class proficiencies.

[Adam Antium]

Heavy proficiency, and spears aren't actually optimal, just very good if you can get the UMD for Elder Dream.

Wrong. Spears are simple weapons that can be two-handed. In addition, the top spear besides Elder Dream is a +3 AB +1d12 damage that can be keened with a T1 rune. Not only that, but we have the Giant Femur spear that can stack with bless weapon scrolls to be +3 AB/damage +4 piercing. Elder Dream is a meme worth skipping.

Your arguments to not providing proficiencies boil down to your objection of the nature of the class and its name. That's not a reason to deny a class proficiencies.

URL to the damage calculator I used: http://www.afterlifeguild.org/Thott/nwn ... 0&maxac=60


The greatsword is more expensive but is doing consistently higher damage, on average.


Moving on, I don't like the accusation that my argument boils down to any single sentence, when I've written quite a lot in this thread already. Re-read my previous post in this thread.