Get rid of Toughness, and give him a reach weapon.
tell him to ask for you help next time before he picks feats. those are ass choices.Get rid of Toughness, and give him a reach weapon.
he already took the above feats and equipment. Shield and board is what he likes, however.
tell him to ask for you help next time before he picks feats. those are ass choices.He mentioned he wants my help. I might be able to convince the DM to let him change his feats. One feat that caught my eye was Stand Still. Thoughts on that one?
if he likes sword and board, I can't help but feel he picked the wrong path. generally, you either go a) two weapon fighting, just with shield bashing as a secondary, or b) tome of battle, because then the difference is negligible, or c)shield charger build, making use of the shield feats in complete warrior and players handbook 2.The shield feats might be nice to look into. Possibly by applying a shield spike with conjunction to charge/bash.
if he wants to be an optimized sword and board, he needs to go one of those paths. unless he decides to "turtle", which can occasionally work on a knight base class. if so, he should work on improving the DC of his knight's challenge, and to take the goad feat from races of stone(at least, I think that is where it's from).Assume that he will go the Sword/Shield way, what feats (or PrCs/classes) would you recommend to optimize that. Between Stand Still, Goad, and his various knight abilities, he might be alright for 'aggro' accumulation.
look into a kusari-gama, or any other 1handed reach weapon. seriously, reach+standstill+aggro = locked down mobs that are completely screwed. if he gets reach, he might want to add in the mage slayer line too.tell him to ask for you help next time before he picks feats. those are ass choices.He mentioned he wants my help. I might be able to convince the DM to let him change his feats. One feat that caught my eye was Stand Still. Thoughts on that one?if he likes sword and board, I can't help but feel he picked the wrong path. generally, you either go a) two weapon fighting, just with shield bashing as a secondary, or b) tome of battle, because then the difference is negligible, or c)shield charger build, making use of the shield feats in complete warrior and players handbook 2.The shield feats might be nice to look into. Possibly by applying a shield spike with conjunction to charge/bash.if he wants to be an optimized sword and board, he needs to go one of those paths. unless he decides to "turtle", which can occasionally work on a knight base class. if so, he should work on improving the DC of his knight's challenge, and to take the goad feat from races of stone(at least, I think that is where it's from).Assume that he will go the Sword/Shield way, what feats (or PrCs/classes) would you recommend to optimize that. Between Stand Still, Goad, and his various knight abilities, he might be alright for 'aggro' accumulation.
look into a kusari-gama, or any other 1handed reach weapon. seriously, reach+standstill+aggro = locked down mobs that are completely screwed. if he gets reach, he might want to add in the mage slayer line too.Any thoughts on Robilar's Gambit? Would it work for a knight?
it would, but it requires BAB+12. gonna take a while to get that.look into a kusari-gama, or any other 1handed reach weapon. seriously, reach+standstill+aggro = locked down mobs that are completely screwed. if he gets reach, he might want to add in the mage slayer line too.Any thoughts on Robilar's Gambit? Would it work for a knight?
look into a kusari-gama, or any other 1handed reach weapon. seriously, reach+standstill+aggro = locked down mobs that are completely screwed. if he gets reach, he might want to add in the mage slayer line too.
colloquial term for "pissing monsters off". generally, the ability to force your opponents to attack you. the knight's challenge does this, as does goad.look into a kusari-gama, or any other 1handed reach weapon. seriously, reach+standstill+aggro = locked down mobs that are completely screwed. if he gets reach, he might want to add in the mage slayer line too.
whats aggro?
Another question.
Short of stacking on plate, is there any other way I can increase AC through feats? Dodge is a biggie.
Well, the Stance Feat can be slid out later, that's not a problem. I was just looking glaring weaknesses like, well, base effectiveness. I haven't seen much game play yet, and I don't know what will really make a difference when standing between two power gamers.
And to re-iterate, any suggestions on making this more flexible, such as effective synergies involving future feats, PrC's, or equipment would be appreciated.
You can't take Martial Stance at level 1. You still need to meet the IL requirements.
| Level | Class | Special | Feats |
| 1 | Knight 1 | Fighting Challenge +1, Knight's Challenge, Knight's Code | Goad, Stand Still, (Flaw) Merciful -> (Feat) Defensive Sweep |
| 2 | Fighter 1 | Bonus Fighter Feat | Combat Expertise |
| 3 | Knight 2 | Mounted Combat, Shield Block | Deft Opportunist |
| 4 | Knight 3 | Bulwark of Defense | -- |
| 5 | Knight 4 | Armour mastery (Medium), Test of Mettle | -- |
| 6 | Fighter 2 | Bonus Fighter Feat | Combat Reflexes, Shield Specialization |
| 7 | Knight 5 | Bonus Knight Feat, Vigilant Defender | Canny Opportunist |
| 8 | Fighter 3 | -- | -- |
| 9 | Fighter 4 | Bonus Fighter Feat | Shield Ward, Exploit Adjustment |
| 10 | Crusader 1 | Furious Counterstrike, Steely Resolve 5 | -- |
| 11 | Crusader 2 | Indomitable Soul | -- |
| 12 | Crusader 3 | Zealous Surge | Robilar's Gambit |
Here is what we came up with. The DM has allowed us to take Fighter feats in place of the Knight feats. Also, my friend has chosen merciful as a flaw (DM allows only one). basically he is going for the AoO build.Drop Exploit Adjustment. It only works if the 5' step is from one square adjacent to you to another, an action almost never taken, and likely won't be taken considering Bulwark of Defense.
Level Class Special Feats 1 Knight 1 Fighting Challenge +1, Knight's Challenge, Knight's Code Goad, Stand Still, (Flaw) Merciful -> (Feat) Defensive Sweep 2 Fighter 1 Bonus Fighter Feat Combat Expertise 3 Knight 2 Mounted Combat, Shield Block Deft Opportunist 4 Knight 3 Bulwark of Defense -- 5 Knight 4 Armour mastery (Medium), Test of Mettle -- 6 Fighter 2 Bonus Fighter Feat Combat Reflexes, Shield Specialization 7 Knight 5 Bonus Knight Feat, Vigilant Defender Canny Opportunist 8 Fighter 3 -- -- 9 Fighter 4 Bonus Fighter Feat Shield Ward, Exploit Adjustment 10 Crusader 1 Furious Counterstrike, Steely Resolve 5 -- 11 Crusader 2 Indomitable Soul -- 12 Crusader 3 Zealous Surge Robilar's Gambit
I don't like diving into level 3-4 of fighter just for a bonus feat. Are there any 1 level dip classes I can take to get a bonsu feat?
Drop Exploit Adjustment. It only works if the 5' step is from one square adjacent to you to another, an action almost never taken, and likely won't be taken considering Bulwark of Defense.I've actually seen 5' steps taken within threat range from time to time. Bulwark of Defense only slows down the movement through the threat squares by half (Movement cost is doubled). I can still see the Exploit Adjustment feat being useful. I'm going to keep it for now but when he actually gets to play around with Bulwark of Defense, we can always drop the feat if it seems useless.
I don't think you can take defensive sweep without +12 or +15 BAB, so no getting it at level 1.My bad. Fixing.
Going to Knight 5 for vigilant defender, if I'm interpreting the ability right, doesn't do much for you since it would only add 5 to the tumble DC, unless the interpretation is that it adds Character level.I only took it because it gave an extra feat. My DM allowed knight feats to include fighter feats.
| Level | Class | Special | Feats |
| 1 | Knight 1 | Fighting Challenge +1, Knight's Challenge, Knight's Code | Goad, Stand Still, (Flaw) Merciful -> (Feat) Combat Reflexes |
| 2 | Shield Bearer 1 | Bonus Fighter Feat, Tower Shield Proficiency | Deft Opportunist |
| 3 | Knight 2 | Mounted Combat, Shield Block | Expert Tactician |
| 4 | Knight 3 | Bulwark of Defense | -- |
| 5 | Knight 4 | Armour mastery (Medium), Test of Mettle | -- |
| 6 | Shield Bearer 2 | Bonus Fighter Feat | Combat Expertise, Shield Specialization |
| 7 | Knight 5 | Bonus Knight Feat, Vigilant Defender | Canny Opportunist |
| 8 | Feat Rogue 1 | Bonus Feat, Trapfinding | Exploit Adjustment |
| 9 | Crusader 1 | Furious Counterstrike, Steely Resolve 5 | Shield Ward |
| 10 | Crusader 2 | Indomitable Soul | -- |
| 11 | Crusader 3 | Zealous Surge | -- |
| 12 | Crusader 4 | Steely Resolve 10 | Robilar's Gambit |
psywar is a good one, as is feat rogue.
as for the whole "martial study and initiator level" thing, the martial study feat only says you have to meet the prerequisites. each maneuver has a prerequisite section; it turns out this is the number of maneuvers from the school you previously needed to know in order to take that maneuver. this leads to plenty of fun shenanigans, such as a level1 swordsage with 2 flaws taking martial studyx3, and having ye old inferno blast at level 1.
psywar is a good one, as is feat rogue.
as for the whole "martial study and initiator level" thing, the martial study feat only says you have to meet the prerequisites. each maneuver has a prerequisite section; it turns out this is the number of maneuvers from the school you previously needed to know in order to take that maneuver. this leads to plenty of fun shenanigans, such as a level1 swordsage with 2 flaws taking martial studyx3, and having ye old inferno blast at level 1.
Swordsage would have to be level 17 to get level 9 maneuvers if I recall correctly.
You don't meet the IL requirement though.the IL minimum is listed for taking maneuvers via class features. martial study says "pick a maneuver you meet the prerequisites for", with each maneuver having a very clearcut "prerequisite". viola.
Hmmm. I loathe the idea of giving up my primary knight levels, but progressing mainly as a wolf Barb really opens up the powerful build races. I think I've been pushed over the edge here, and may go the Barbarian/Crusader/Marshal route.
It totally breaks my character's vision as a Heroic leader who protects his troop, but I think it'll make my DM more happy, being that he wants to run a pure Nordic Campaign. I may even be able to house-rule that the ToB maneuvers are affected by the SoL's +1 level of spellcasting.
I've actually seen 5' steps taken within threat range from time to time. Bulwark of Defense only slows down the movement through the threat squares by half (Movement cost is doubled). I can still see the Exploit Adjustment feat being useful. I'm going to keep it for now but when he actually gets to play around with Bulwark of Defense, we can always drop the feat if it seems useless.
Bulwark of Defense does much more than that. enemies that start their round in your threatened area are forced to treat the squares you threaten as difficult terrain.
You can't take a 5 foot step (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/actionsincombat.htm#take5FootStep) in difficult terrain. Nor can you run or charge (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/movementPositionAndDistance.htm#difficultTerrain) over it, meaning they can't retreat from you.
This means if they want to move they have no choice but to provoke an attack of opportunity from you, or try to Tumble.
You don't meet the IL requirement though.the IL minimum is listed for taking maneuvers via class features. martial study says "pick a maneuver you meet the prerequisites for", with each maneuver having a very clearcut "prerequisite". viola.
If you lack any martial adept levels, your initiator level is equal to 1/2 your character level.
Look up the result on the table below to determine the highest-level maneuvers you can take. You still have to meet a maneuver’s prerequisite to learn it.
You don't meet the IL requirement though.the IL minimum is listed for taking maneuvers via class features. martial study says "pick a maneuver you meet the prerequisites for", with each maneuver having a very clearcut "prerequisite". viola.
The IL minimum is not just for taking maneuvers via class features.
From ToB page 39:If you lack any martial adept levels, your initiator level is equal to 1/2 your character level.
And...Look up the result on the table below to determine the highest-level maneuvers you can take. You still have to meet a maneuver’s prerequisite to learn it.
Table 3-1 lists the highest level maneuver based on IL you can take.
So, IL is used to determine the highest maneuver or stance you can take, even if you have no martial adept levels at all.
You don't meet the IL requirement though.the IL minimum is listed for taking maneuvers via class features. martial study says "pick a maneuver you meet the prerequisites for", with each maneuver having a very clearcut "prerequisite". viola.
The IL minimum is not just for taking maneuvers via class features.
From ToB page 39:If you lack any martial adept levels, your initiator level is equal to 1/2 your character level.
And...Look up the result on the table below to determine the highest-level maneuvers you can take. You still have to meet a maneuver’s prerequisite to learn it.
Table 3-1 lists the highest level maneuver based on IL you can take.
So, IL is used to determine the highest maneuver or stance you can take, even if you have no martial adept levels at all.
/Agree
When they talk about meeting the prerequisites, they are talking about the fact that nearly all the mid and high level martial maneuvers have a prerequisite of knowing other martial maneuvers from the same discipline.
I had a friend who recently wanted to dip Swordsage at level 18 to nab Dancing Mongoose, but then realized he had to take other Tiger Claw maneuvers as well to meet the prereqs for it.
That's just a ridiculous reading of what prerequisite means. It is intended to mean, and imo, actually says, that you must meet all the prerequisites. Not that you must meet everything listed under Prerequisites. IL is a requirements. Reading it another way is attempting to break intent. And is silly stupid shaky TO.
Look up the result on the table below to determine the highest-level maneuvers you can take. You still have to meet a maneuver’s prerequisite to learn it.
You can't take Martial Stance at level 1. You still need to meet the IL requirements.IIRC, the "+1/2 IL from other classes" has a minimum of 1 (i.e. if you have no martial adept classes and are first level, you still count as having an IL of 1). So yes, you can, even ignoring the stupid "IL isn't a prereq" argument. I'll try to find the rules quote, but I'm pretty sure I remember seeing that...
You can't take Martial Stance at level 1. You still need to meet the IL requirements.The "+1/2 IL from other classes" has a minimum of 1. So yes, you can, even ignoring the stupid "IL isn't a prereq" argument.
Where does it say that? If it does it negates my argument that you would have an IL of 0 due to the general rounding rule.You can't take Martial Stance at level 1. You still need to meet the IL requirements.The "+1/2 IL from other classes" has a minimum of 1. So yes, you can, even ignoring the stupid "IL isn't a prereq" argument.
You know, I must have been thinking of something else (I think it was the crusader's bonus from Furious Counterstrike). I can't find any rule stating that. Sorry. :bigeyeWhere does it say that? If it does it negates my argument that you would have an IL of 0 due to the general rounding rule.You can't take Martial Stance at level 1. You still need to meet the IL requirements.The "+1/2 IL from other classes" has a minimum of 1. So yes, you can, even ignoring the stupid "IL isn't a prereq" argument.
Second pointing out where the book used it in a sample NPC won't gain a lot of traction. Most of the NPC's they make have something horribly wrong with them and/or couldn't actually qualify for the feats/PrC that they have.
Second pointing out where the book used it in a sample NPC won't gain a lot of traction. Most of the NPC's they make have something horribly wrong with them and/or couldn't actually qualify for the feats/PrC that they have.
well, that certainly makes it hard to argue my point. I still stand by that point, though.
ok so here is my premise then. The feat states that if you don't have an IL before you take it you gain one that =1/2 your character level. I see no where that the book addresses IL 0. It does however show on the table on page 39 that if you have IL 1+ you can select a 1st level maneuver.not unless there was a feat to do just that. precocious apprentice, for example.
Now getting away from the text a bit. Logically if you have a character without a high enough caster level would you let them learn a spell. EX. lvl 1 sorc. learning a lvl 2 spell.
Second pointing out where the book used it in a sample NPC won't gain a lot of traction. Most of the NPC's they make have something horribly wrong with them and/or couldn't actually qualify for the feats/PrC that they have.
well, that certainly makes it hard to argue my point. I still stand by that point, though.
I'm not saying you are wrong but that your faith in WotC's ability to make competent characters that follow the rules they wrote is sadly misplaced.
I think a realistic DM would allow it as you have described it, to gain a maneuver at 1st level, but it isn't RAW as you claim. At best it is ambiguous.
Rypta i think you are trying to obfuscate the point, what the hell distinguishes a pre. req. from other pre. req. ? I'll be back a fact based counter argument as to why a non-initiator can't learn a maneuver at first level. Have to check my book.
The other pre-requisites they are talking about are the fact that for many you need to know 1 or more other maneuvers of that same school before you can learn that one. Otherwise people would just use it to snag a single high level maneuver. Especially if they interpret IL not being a requirement as you have. I'll go ahead and grab the Lvl 9 stone dragon since it doesn't have any pre-requisites and IL has nothing to do with it then.
The other pre-requisites they are talking about are the fact that for many you need to know 1 or more other maneuvers of that same school before you can learn that one. Otherwise people would just use it to snag a single high level maneuver. Especially if they interpret IL not being a requirement as you have. I'll go ahead and grab the Lvl 9 stone dragon since it doesn't have any pre-requisites and IL has nothing to do with it then.
???
I'm not sure you understand the point I'm trying to make. I agree that you must know the required number of lower level maneuevers. However, those are not "other prerequisites," they are the ONLY prerequisites.
The other pre-requisites they are talking about are the fact that for many you need to know 1 or more other maneuvers of that same school before you can learn that one. Otherwise people would just use it to snag a single high level maneuver. Especially if they interpret IL not being a requirement as you have. I'll go ahead and grab the Lvl 9 stone dragon since it doesn't have any pre-requisites and IL has nothing to do with it then.
???
I'm not sure you understand the point I'm trying to make. I agree that you must know the required number of lower level maneuevers. However, those are not "other prerequisites," they are the ONLY prerequisites.
I understand your exact point. But if you are correct there is nothing stopping me from picking Mountain Tombstone Strike as it doesn't list any number of lesser maneuvers as prerequisite like the other higher level maneuvers. Since WotC screwed up the errata by copy and pasting the Complete Mage errata over most of the ToB one it isn't fixed.
Like i said before i don't disagree that it is intended to let you pick a 1st level maneuver if you take it as a 1st level character even one that isn't an initiator. But that isn't RAW as you were claiming.
My argument is that until you hit lvl 2 you have IL 0. The book never address IL 0 and is ambiguous at best, but with insinuation that you would need IL 1 to take a 1st level maneuver due to the table i cited.
I was just showing you an unreasonable example of what could be done using your interpretation with the Stone Dragon example and that there is an argument to be made that the book was errata-ed and that was left alone and must be their intent. It isn't a reasonable argument but a very literal one which is what RAW vs RAI is about.
And for the 3rd time. What you have described is likely RAI but isn't RAW. That is the only level of disagreement i really had with it and was showing why it wasn't RAW.
In addition to meeting the class and level requirements before you can learn a maneuver, you must meet a certain set of requirements to be able to choose that maneuver as one you know. Stances are considered maneuvers for the purpose of meeting a prerequisite to learn a new maneuver.
You can’t learn a maneuver unless you gain a level in a martial adept class, a level in a prestige class that grants maneuvers known, or you take the Martial Study feat.
I think the main difference here is what some think of as a Prerequisite. This should clear up the confusion.Unless your 1st level is in a martial adept class, then you can take it at 1.
According to ToB page 44, a Prerequisite is as follows:In addition to meeting the class and level requirements before you can learn a maneuver, you must meet a certain set of requirements to be able to choose that maneuver as one you know. Stances are considered maneuvers for the purpose of meeting a prerequisite to learn a new maneuver.
You can’t learn a maneuver unless you gain a level in a martial adept class, a level in a prestige class that grants maneuvers known, or you take the Martial Study feat.
You must meet the IL as well as any 'prerequisites' listed in order to take the maneuver. However, I must concur that in order to take a 1st level manuever as a non-ToB class, you must be 2nd level, not 1st.
I think the main difference here is what some think of as a Prerequisite. This should clear up the confusion.Unless your 1st level is in a martial adept class, then you can take it at 1.
According to ToB page 44, a Prerequisite is as follows:In addition to meeting the class and level requirements before you can learn a maneuver, you must meet a certain set of requirements to be able to choose that maneuver as one you know. Stances are considered maneuvers for the purpose of meeting a prerequisite to learn a new maneuver.
You can’t learn a maneuver unless you gain a level in a martial adept class, a level in a prestige class that grants maneuvers known, or you take the Martial Study feat.
You must meet the IL as well as any 'prerequisites' listed in order to take the maneuver. However, I must concur that in order to take a 1st level manuever as a non-ToB class, you must be 2nd level, not 1st.
It is a reasonable houserule to have the "Minimum 1" and I'm sure that was intended to be there (that way, the extra class skill could be used most efficiently)
I think the main difference here is what some think of as a Prerequisite. This should clear up the confusion.
According to ToB page 44, a Prerequisite is as follows:In addition to meeting the class and level requirements before you can learn a maneuver, you must meet a certain set of requirements to be able to choose that maneuver as one you know. Stances are considered maneuvers for the purpose of meeting a prerequisite to learn a new maneuver. You can’t learn a maneuver unless you gain a level in a martial adept class, a level in a prestige class that grants maneuvers known, or you take the Martial Study feat.
You must meet the IL as well as any 'prerequisites' listed in order to take the maneuver.
Select any maneuver from the chosen discipline for which you meet the prerequisite.
If those are all prerequisites, how does one satisfy the class requirements for martial study?