Ecology of the Death Knight [Archive] - Wizards Community

Ecology of the Death Knight [Archive] - Wizards Community

Post/Author/DateTime Post
Khellrendros
10-03-07, 11:29 PM Since these boards are about the only one I read anymore I gotta vent on this.

Maybe it's just me but having some spell-like abilities is what made the Death Knight a death knight. I somewhat understand the whole melee oriented thing. Still taking away all his spell-like abilities to replace them with a soul weapon. Just doesn't seem to do such an Iconic monster justice. (admittedly I haven't seen the final product but what I do see I don't like) D&D used to have things that didn't need to be explained away or into the game it just was. So what if a death knight has spells, so what if the entire party gets turned to stone forever by a medusa. Maybe it's just me ranting but it seems like even D&D is catering to the rest of the disney universe with endings and tales that only end happily. The REAL little mermaid dies! Heroes don't always win. Those old tales were brutal and nasty because it helped teach kids that the world is not all roses. I could go on with this for hours but good lord NOTHING worth doing or having is always easy. The whole lets make 4E and make it even easier idea drives me nuts the time and effort I put into running a session is half of what makes it special.

Screw it I'm done.

(I'll read the PHB and unless I am floored it's 3.5 for me)
18DELTA
10-03-07, 11:43 PM The Ecology of the Death Knight (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/dreo/20071003a)
Khellrendros
10-03-07, 11:47 PM :eek: I knew I forgot something.... thanks :D
18DELTA
10-04-07, 02:48 AM :eek: I knew I forgot something.... thanks :D
:tiphat:
Zanan
10-04-07, 04:30 AM Just in case, the death knight has been listed and described as a template in MM II (still 3E). There's a sample death knight of Faerūn in Champions of Ruin (also still 3E, for whatever reason).
Diffan
10-04-07, 07:39 AM Just in case, the death knight has been listed and described as a template in MM II (still 3E). There's a sample death knight of Faerūn in Champions of Ruin (also still 3E, for whatever reason).

The Death Knight template featured in Dragonlance Campaign Setting supercedes (sp?) the one from the MM II I think. I'd have to look at the publishing dates, but the one from the DLCS has a few more abilities than the one in MM II.

Since we still don't know the mechanics of 4e or what exactly the new Death Knight's abilities will do, I can't form an opinion on whether it's good or not based from the article. I'll just have to wait and see. Though if they get rid of the Abyssal Blast and Wall of Ice I might be a bit upset, they were cool abilities.
capnvan
10-04-07, 08:13 AM Ever get the sense that 4E is bringing a whole boatload full of change for the sake of change?
Diffan
10-04-07, 09:00 AM For the sake of change? No. The 3E template probably doesn't convert into 4E and so there are bound to be changes, probably some good with some bad thrown in. I got the feeling that with most mid to high level monsters in 3/3.5E, they just have TOO many damned abilities. Considering the fact that the typical monster might not live past say, 4 to 5 rounds it doesn't make sense for it to have loads upon loads of Spell-Like Abilities, Special Attacks/Abilities, Standard Attacks/Full-Round Attacks, etc... when you might use say 2 or 3 and then it's straight melee until it dies. Considering that the Death Knight is 1st and foremost a melee type character with leadership abilities, I have a feeling that the good changes out weigh the bad.
Zanan
10-04-07, 10:06 AM Diffan ... it could well be that the DL death knight was re-created for that setting, much like you have special ghosts and liches for the Realms. Not that I really care ;)
GothicDan
10-04-07, 11:52 AM I never saw a Death Knight as a "super melee" type - it was an undead creature, a fallen champion of good. Its supernatural abilities is what made it a cut above "I hit things with a sword."
18DELTA
10-04-07, 03:00 PM Just in case, the death knight has been listed and described as a template in MM II (still 3E). There's a sample death knight of Faerūn in Champions of Ruin (also still 3E, for whatever reason).
Yeah I wanted to use Imphras as a plot hook in a game centered around Eltab. Some of the article I liked. Some of it oh well.:rolleyes:
Diffan
10-04-07, 04:10 PM I never saw a Death Knight as a "super melee" type - it was an undead creature, a fallen champion of good. Its supernatural abilities is what made it a cut above "I hit things with a sword."

I agree that it's supernatural abilities were cool. Creating a wall of ice to protect his allies, throwing flaming balls of death at his enemies, and his touch draining 1 con are all awesome abilities that I wished they kept with the 4E version. While I don't think that's going ot happen, the 4E death knight might have a slew of other abilities that are just as good if not better than the 3E one. Only time will tell. (and if it doesn't, I might just throw the Abyssal Blast in there anyways!) :)
capnvan
10-04-07, 04:20 PM For the sake of change? No. The 3E template probably doesn't convert into 4E and so there are bound to be changes, probably some good with some bad thrown in. I got the feeling that with most mid to high level monsters in 3/3.5E, they just have TOO many damned abilities. Considering the fact that the typical monster might not live past say, 4 to 5 rounds it doesn't make sense for it to have loads upon loads of Spell-Like Abilities, Special Attacks/Abilities, Standard Attacks/Full-Round Attacks, etc... when you might use say 2 or 3 and then it's straight melee until it dies. Considering that the Death Knight is 1st and foremost a melee type character with leadership abilities, I have a feeling that the good changes out weigh the bad.

I think, in my effort to be somewhat humorous, I may not have made my point clear. I'll handle the mechanics next, but first and foremost, my point is: why the lore changes to the death knight? They're now so far removed from the original concept of the death knight (1E Fiend Folio) as to be unrecognizable. But why? Was there a game-related problem with their lore? I can't really conceive of one, beyond the fact that they were originally essentially confined to Greyhawk, fairly easily, and already, remedied.

There was a concept behind them, and one that was reasonable for them. Why then would anyone take the time to completely rework it? It seems, in the absence of another explanation, that the answer is: because the designers can.

(I realize that I often harp on this point, but this plays into what may be my too-recurrent theme that the current designers have been throwing continuity with D&D's past to the winds for seemingly no logical reason. Beyond that they can.)

With regard to game mechanics, and your point above, I recognize that the designers have made it a point to pare down the "unnecessary" abilities of all the monsters.

My problem with that is simple: death knights were originally envisioned as really bad***** opponents. As in, they might be the ultimate opponent faced in a campaign. In my opinion, PCs shouldn't be able to take out that kind of foe in 5 rounds.

And I definitely don't think of the death knight as a straight up melee opponent. They're supposed to be extremely intelligent! Intelligent foes don't fall into situations where they'll be wiped out in 5 rounds. The original concept stated that there were 12 in existence, IIRC (obviously, that changed when they moved out of Oerth). Killing a death knight should be an epic event, not just another notch in the sword belt.
Suin Bahhar
10-04-07, 05:54 PM I like the concept & flavour of the "soulsword" phylactery though. Added flavour which doesnt hurt contradicting previous lore.
18DELTA
10-04-07, 06:06 PM I like the concept & flavour of the "soulsword" phylactery though. Added flavour which doesnt hurt contradicting previous lore.

It reminded me of the mind blade. I just hope that it doesnt blow like the mindblade does.;)
Suin Bahhar
10-04-07, 06:26 PM I think it will be very real and sharp magical sword, that emenates evil. I think I'll go running with this in my current evil campaign. A sword with several deathknight's souls that makes deathknights with a singleminded purpose. If one of my pc's picks it up somehow...
Diffan
10-06-07, 08:10 AM my point is: why the lore changes to the death knight? They're now so far removed from the original concept of the death knight (1E Fiend Folio) as to be unrecognizable. But why? Was there a game-related problem with their lore? I can't really conceive of one, beyond the fact that they were originally essentially confined to Greyhawk, fairly easily, and already, remedied.

There was a concept behind them, and one that was reasonable for them. Why then would anyone take the time to completely rework it? It seems, in the absence of another explanation, that the answer is: because the designers can.

I'll admit that I'm in a small minority here when I say that I prefer better mechanics over lore. True, lore defines alot of things that makes certain settings great, but I can always re-write or change established lore to fit my needs. Hence why I'm not completly pi**ed off the Realms changed so much.

My problem with that is simple: death knights were originally envisioned as really bad***** opponents. As in, they might be the ultimate opponent faced in a campaign. In my opinion, PCs shouldn't be able to take out that kind of foe in 5 rounds.

And I definitely don't think of the death knight as a straight up melee opponent. They're supposed to be extremely intelligent! Intelligent foes don't fall into situations where they'll be wiped out in 5 rounds. The original concept stated that there were 12 in existence, IIRC (obviously, that changed when they moved out of Oerth). Killing a death knight should be an epic event, not just another notch in the sword belt.

I believe that a Death Knight's difficulty is primarely based on what classes he bas before the template was added. This varies his effectivness greatly. Most Death Knight's I'd assume would be fallen paladins, knights PHB II, fighters, fighter/blackguards, and even crusaders from the ToB. While his Spell-Like abilities are a cut above many Undead templates, it's still a melee-oriented opponent that shouldn't be TOO hard for a party of the correct level. Making him an end-game opponent would require his CR to be slightly higher than the party's level, thus making it a more than 5 round encounter.
Suin Bahhar
10-06-07, 06:49 PM My problem with that is simple: death knights were originally envisioned as really bad***** opponents. As in, they might be the ultimate opponent faced in a campaign. In my opinion, PCs shouldn't be able to take out that kind of foe in 5 rounds.
I agree they are bad-*** opponents. But does having a abyssal blast really make them badass. If he's a terrifying melee threat he'll be scary too. Using his intelligence for tactics and commanding undead. Give the Death Knight something scary to do in melee in addition to his drain attacks with his cold touch or sunder attacks using his soulsword.

Did you listen to the podcast about the new monster manual (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/4pod/20071005e16)? I liked the talk about the more tactical and reactive abilities of monsters like the dryads getting teleports or monsters attacking for free when getting flanked. If they can pull it off this could make for real fun encounters. I advocate for more interesting melee in D&D so things can be exiting eventhough no spells are being flung around.
18DELTA
10-07-07, 04:22 PM I think it will be very real and sharp magical sword, that emenates evil. I think I'll go running with this in my current evil campaign. A sword with several deathknight's souls that makes deathknights with a singleminded purpose. If one of my pc's picks it up somehow...
Now that sounds like an awesome plot hook!:D A powerful Necromancer/Death Priest binds the 13 Death Knights into one powerful sword!:cool:
capnvan
10-09-07, 04:19 PM I believe that a Death Knight's difficulty is primarely based on what classes he bas before the template was added. This varies his effectivness greatly. Most Death Knight's I'd assume would be fallen paladins, knights PHB II, fighters, fighter/blackguards, and even crusaders from the ToB. While his Spell-Like abilities are a cut above many Undead templates, it's still a melee-oriented opponent that shouldn't be TOO hard for a party of the correct level. Making him an end-game opponent would require his CR to be slightly higher than the party's level, thus making it a more than 5 round encounter.

Definitely legitimate points. But again, I feel that the death knight should be a sort of undead general, a being that tends to use its intelligence to direct underlings towards defeating the PCs.

As an example, it's one thing to enter an abandoned graveyard and encounter 20 zombies. It's entirely different when the PCs confront a platoon of zombies being directed by a higher intelligence, and utilizing good tactics.

Admittedly, changing the CR rating can help. My concern is for that DM that doesn't realize that these beings should be powerful in ways that defy the stats. (Albeit that's part of my whole "I've got a problem with 4E thesis").

I remember being about 10 or 12, and creating this "fantastic" dungeon, with Orcus at the end, as the "level boss" so to speak. And the guy I ran it for, who was a few years older, as I recall, walked through it, because I was just thinking in purely melee terms.

Needless to say, I've gotten a bit better as a DM, but my concern is that the focus for D&D has gotten too much into that area, where you're just prepping your character for the next encounter, and no longer considering the growth of the character as a personality.

Part of that is that the opponents can be dumb. We need a system in which intelligent opponents act intelligently. If they're likely to lose, or even take damage, they should slink away quietly. Intelligent opponents don't engage in combat unless the odds are firmly in their side - look at any military manual.

And in large part, that's what I'm concerned about as I look at the article. Obviously, this is not the final piece appearing in the 4E Monster Manual. Maybe they'll fix that before publication. My concern is that the death knight, like so many other things in 4E, has been reduced to a set of stats and a pic, ready for the MMORG crowd to wipe out on their way to the next level.

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Khellrendros 10-03-07, 11:29 PM	Since these boards are about the only one I read anymore I gotta vent on this. Maybe it's just me but having some spell-like abilities is what made the Death Knight a death knight. I somewhat understand the whole melee oriented thing. Still taking away all his spell-like abilities to replace them with a soul weapon. Just doesn't seem to do such an Iconic monster justice. (admittedly I haven't seen the final product but what I do see I don't like) D&D used to have things that didn't need to be explained away or into the game it just was. So what if a death knight has spells, so what if the entire party gets turned to stone forever by a medusa. Maybe it's just me ranting but it seems like even D&D is catering to the rest of the disney universe with endings and tales that only end happily. The REAL little mermaid dies! Heroes don't always win. Those old tales were brutal and nasty because it helped teach kids that the world is not all roses. I could go on with this for hours but good lord NOTHING worth doing or having is always easy. The whole lets make 4E and make it even easier idea drives me nuts the time and effort I put into running a session is half of what makes it special. Screw it I'm done. (I'll read the PHB and unless I am floored it's 3.5 for me)
18DELTA 10-03-07, 11:43 PM	The Ecology of the Death Knight (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/dreo/20071003a)
Khellrendros 10-03-07, 11:47 PM	:eek: I knew I forgot something.... thanks :D
18DELTA 10-04-07, 02:48 AM	:eek: I knew I forgot something.... thanks :D :tiphat:
Zanan 10-04-07, 04:30 AM	Just in case, the death knight has been listed and described as a template in MM II (still 3E). There's a sample death knight of Faerūn in Champions of Ruin (also still 3E, for whatever reason).
Diffan 10-04-07, 07:39 AM	Just in case, the death knight has been listed and described as a template in MM II (still 3E). There's a sample death knight of Faerūn in Champions of Ruin (also still 3E, for whatever reason). The Death Knight template featured in Dragonlance Campaign Setting supercedes (sp?) the one from the MM II I think. I'd have to look at the publishing dates, but the one from the DLCS has a few more abilities than the one in MM II. Since we still don't know the mechanics of 4e or what exactly the new Death Knight's abilities will do, I can't form an opinion on whether it's good or not based from the article. I'll just have to wait and see. Though if they get rid of the Abyssal Blast and Wall of Ice I might be a bit upset, they were cool abilities.
capnvan 10-04-07, 08:13 AM	Ever get the sense that 4E is bringing a whole boatload full of change for the sake of change?
Diffan 10-04-07, 09:00 AM	For the sake of change? No. The 3E template probably doesn't convert into 4E and so there are bound to be changes, probably some good with some bad thrown in. I got the feeling that with most mid to high level monsters in 3/3.5E, they just have TOO many damned abilities. Considering the fact that the typical monster might not live past say, 4 to 5 rounds it doesn't make sense for it to have loads upon loads of Spell-Like Abilities, Special Attacks/Abilities, Standard Attacks/Full-Round Attacks, etc... when you might use say 2 or 3 and then it's straight melee until it dies. Considering that the Death Knight is 1st and foremost a melee type character with leadership abilities, I have a feeling that the good changes out weigh the bad.
Zanan 10-04-07, 10:06 AM	Diffan ... it could well be that the DL death knight was re-created for that setting, much like you have special ghosts and liches for the Realms. Not that I really care ;)
GothicDan 10-04-07, 11:52 AM	I never saw a Death Knight as a "super melee" type - it was an undead creature, a fallen champion of good. Its supernatural abilities is what made it a cut above "I hit things with a sword."
18DELTA 10-04-07, 03:00 PM	Just in case, the death knight has been listed and described as a template in MM II (still 3E). There's a sample death knight of Faerūn in Champions of Ruin (also still 3E, for whatever reason). Yeah I wanted to use Imphras as a plot hook in a game centered around Eltab. Some of the article I liked. Some of it oh well.:rolleyes:
Diffan 10-04-07, 04:10 PM	I never saw a Death Knight as a "super melee" type - it was an undead creature, a fallen champion of good. Its supernatural abilities is what made it a cut above "I hit things with a sword." I agree that it's supernatural abilities were cool. Creating a wall of ice to protect his allies, throwing flaming balls of death at his enemies, and his touch draining 1 con are all awesome abilities that I wished they kept with the 4E version. While I don't think that's going ot happen, the 4E death knight might have a slew of other abilities that are just as good if not better than the 3E one. Only time will tell. (and if it doesn't, I might just throw the Abyssal Blast in there anyways!) :)
capnvan 10-04-07, 04:20 PM	For the sake of change? No. The 3E template probably doesn't convert into 4E and so there are bound to be changes, probably some good with some bad thrown in. I got the feeling that with most mid to high level monsters in 3/3.5E, they just have TOO many damned abilities. Considering the fact that the typical monster might not live past say, 4 to 5 rounds it doesn't make sense for it to have loads upon loads of Spell-Like Abilities, Special Attacks/Abilities, Standard Attacks/Full-Round Attacks, etc... when you might use say 2 or 3 and then it's straight melee until it dies. Considering that the Death Knight is 1st and foremost a melee type character with leadership abilities, I have a feeling that the good changes out weigh the bad. I think, in my effort to be somewhat humorous, I may not have made my point clear. I'll handle the mechanics next, but first and foremost, my point is: why the lore changes to the death knight? They're now so far removed from the original concept of the death knight (1E Fiend Folio) as to be unrecognizable. But why? Was there a game-related problem with their lore? I can't really conceive of one, beyond the fact that they were originally essentially confined to Greyhawk, fairly easily, and already, remedied. There was a concept behind them, and one that was reasonable for them. Why then would anyone take the time to completely rework it? It seems, in the absence of another explanation, that the answer is: because the designers can. (I realize that I often harp on this point, but this plays into what may be my too-recurrent theme that the current designers have been throwing continuity with D&D's past to the winds for seemingly no logical reason. Beyond that they can.) With regard to game mechanics, and your point above, I recognize that the designers have made it a point to pare down the "unnecessary" abilities of all the monsters. My problem with that is simple: death knights were originally envisioned as really bad***** opponents. As in, they might be the ultimate opponent faced in a campaign. In my opinion, PCs shouldn't be able to take out that kind of foe in 5 rounds. And I definitely don't think of the death knight as a straight up melee opponent. They're supposed to be extremely intelligent! Intelligent foes don't fall into situations where they'll be wiped out in 5 rounds. The original concept stated that there were 12 in existence, IIRC (obviously, that changed when they moved out of Oerth). Killing a death knight should be an epic event, not just another notch in the sword belt.
Suin Bahhar 10-04-07, 05:54 PM	I like the concept & flavour of the "soulsword" phylactery though. Added flavour which doesnt hurt contradicting previous lore.
18DELTA 10-04-07, 06:06 PM	I like the concept & flavour of the "soulsword" phylactery though. Added flavour which doesnt hurt contradicting previous lore. It reminded me of the mind blade. I just hope that it doesnt blow like the mindblade does.;)
Suin Bahhar 10-04-07, 06:26 PM	I think it will be very real and sharp magical sword, that emenates evil. I think I'll go running with this in my current evil campaign. A sword with several deathknight's souls that makes deathknights with a singleminded purpose. If one of my pc's picks it up somehow...
Diffan 10-06-07, 08:10 AM	my point is: why the lore changes to the death knight? They're now so far removed from the original concept of the death knight (1E Fiend Folio) as to be unrecognizable. But why? Was there a game-related problem with their lore? I can't really conceive of one, beyond the fact that they were originally essentially confined to Greyhawk, fairly easily, and already, remedied. There was a concept behind them, and one that was reasonable for them. Why then would anyone take the time to completely rework it? It seems, in the absence of another explanation, that the answer is: because the designers can. I'll admit that I'm in a small minority here when I say that I prefer better mechanics over lore. True, lore defines alot of things that makes certain settings great, but I can always re-write or change established lore to fit my needs. Hence why I'm not completly pied off the Realms changed so much. My problem with that is simple: death knights were originally envisioned as really bad*** opponents. As in, they might be the ultimate opponent faced in a campaign. In my opinion, PCs shouldn't be able to take out that kind of foe in 5 rounds. And I definitely don't think of the death knight as a straight up melee opponent. They're supposed to be extremely intelligent! Intelligent foes don't fall into situations where they'll be wiped out in 5 rounds. The original concept stated that there were 12 in existence, IIRC (obviously, that changed when they moved out of Oerth). Killing a death knight should be an epic event, not just another notch in the sword belt. I believe that a Death Knight's difficulty is primarely based on what classes he bas before the template was added. This varies his effectivness greatly. Most Death Knight's I'd assume would be fallen paladins, knights PHB II, fighters, fighter/blackguards, and even crusaders from the ToB. While his Spell-Like abilities are a cut above many Undead templates, it's still a melee-oriented opponent that shouldn't be TOO hard for a party of the correct level. Making him an end-game opponent would require his CR to be slightly higher than the party's level, thus making it a more than 5 round encounter.
Suin Bahhar 10-06-07, 06:49 PM	My problem with that is simple: death knights were originally envisioned as really bad*** opponents. As in, they might be the ultimate opponent faced in a campaign. In my opinion, PCs shouldn't be able to take out that kind of foe in 5 rounds. I agree they are bad-* opponents. But does having a abyssal blast really make them badass. If he's a terrifying melee threat he'll be scary too. Using his intelligence for tactics and commanding undead. Give the Death Knight something scary to do in melee in addition to his drain attacks with his cold touch or sunder attacks using his soulsword. Did you listen to the podcast about the new monster manual (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/4pod/20071005e16)? I liked the talk about the more tactical and reactive abilities of monsters like the dryads getting teleports or monsters attacking for free when getting flanked. If they can pull it off this could make for real fun encounters. I advocate for more interesting melee in D&D so things can be exiting eventhough no spells are being flung around.
18DELTA 10-07-07, 04:22 PM	I think it will be very real and sharp magical sword, that emenates evil. I think I'll go running with this in my current evil campaign. A sword with several deathknight's souls that makes deathknights with a singleminded purpose. If one of my pc's picks it up somehow... Now that sounds like an awesome plot hook!:D A powerful Necromancer/Death Priest binds the 13 Death Knights into one powerful sword!:cool:
capnvan 10-09-07, 04:19 PM	I believe that a Death Knight's difficulty is primarely based on what classes he bas before the template was added. This varies his effectivness greatly. Most Death Knight's I'd assume would be fallen paladins, knights PHB II, fighters, fighter/blackguards, and even crusaders from the ToB. While his Spell-Like abilities are a cut above many Undead templates, it's still a melee-oriented opponent that shouldn't be TOO hard for a party of the correct level. Making him an end-game opponent would require his CR to be slightly higher than the party's level, thus making it a more than 5 round encounter. Definitely legitimate points. But again, I feel that the death knight should be a sort of undead general, a being that tends to use its intelligence to direct underlings towards defeating the PCs. As an example, it's one thing to enter an abandoned graveyard and encounter 20 zombies. It's entirely different when the PCs confront a platoon of zombies being directed by a higher intelligence, and utilizing good tactics. Admittedly, changing the CR rating can help. My concern is for that DM that doesn't realize that these beings should be powerful in ways that defy the stats. (Albeit that's part of my whole "I've got a problem with 4E thesis"). I remember being about 10 or 12, and creating this "fantastic" dungeon, with Orcus at the end, as the "level boss" so to speak. And the guy I ran it for, who was a few years older, as I recall, walked through it, because I was just thinking in purely melee terms. Needless to say, I've gotten a bit better as a DM, but my concern is that the focus for D&D has gotten too much into that area, where you're just prepping your character for the next encounter, and no longer considering the growth of the character as a personality. Part of that is that the opponents can be dumb. We need a system in which intelligent opponents act intelligently. If they're likely to lose, or even take damage, they should slink away quietly. Intelligent opponents don't engage in combat unless the odds are firmly in their side - look at any military manual. And in large part, that's what I'm concerned about as I look at the article. Obviously, this is not the final piece appearing in the 4E Monster Manual. Maybe they'll fix that before publication. My concern is that the death knight, like so many other things in 4E, has been reduced to a set of stats and a pic, ready for the MMORG crowd to wipe out on their way to the next level.