Sword vs. Rose - Downloaded from the Wizards Community, all coding removed by Solauren

Sword vs. Rose

Post/Author/DateTime Post
#1
zombiegleemax
May 19, 2004 9:34:35 Before I start this thread out, I'd like to point out that it is very clear that there is a huge RP difference between becoming a sword knight and becoming a rose knight. The purpose of this post is to evaluate the two and the advancement in each class along with their relative power.

ROSE
d10 HP
Fighter "To Hit Bonus" progression
Cleric Spell Progression

SWORD
d8 HP
Cleric "To Hit Bonus" progression
Cleric Spell Progression
Cleric Turning Ability

My question is, what game mechanic incentive is there to continue the path of sword, if everything is pretty much better all around in rose? Sure, you lose your turning, but everything else -most notably the spell progression and "to hit bonus" is much better. Obviously, there are other extraneous powers in each that sorta washes each other's out. I have posted the core abilties above as they represent the strongest comparison between the two, IMO.

Just curious as to what folks thought about this. Honestly, I can make an argument for steady progression in Crown, but I am having trouble seeing the advantage for Sword. Maybe if Rose didn't have the steady spell progression, it would almost be even.

Stormhawk
#2
zombiegleemax
May 19, 2004 10:10:57 From a pure power pespective, there's no reason not to get into Rose Knight as soon as possible. From a game perspective, it's a pain in the butt, and requires a lot of time, politics, and some luck as well.

As it stands, the Rose Knight is one of the best PrC's that I've found for fighter/clerics.
#3
Dragonhelm
May 19, 2004 10:12:25
Originally posted by Stormhawk
Maybe if Rose didn't have the steady spell progression, it would almost be even.

You could easily cut the Rose Knight's spell progression to where he gains a +1 caster level at every other level. Or, you could drop it entirely.
#4
brimstone
May 19, 2004 11:26:16 Do the Rose knights still have to tithe all their money to the knighthood like they did in 2nd Edition?

And you're right...the Rose Knight is powerful. But if one is completely role playing and not just power gaming...being a Rose Knight is a pain in the rump (as was pointed out earlier). And if you have to give up all your money too...yeah...suddenly Sword Knight isn't looking as bad anymore.

When all things are considered...I think the Rose Knight is still acceptable. (not to mention, it should be very difficult to become a Rose Knight...if the DM wants to play it that way).
#5
daedavias_dup
May 19, 2004 12:20:57 Well, I suppose the smite evil ability is pretty important. If the Soul of the Knighthood actually gave any weapon held by a Sword Knight the holy attribute, I would definitely see an incentive to continue the class all the way.
#6
xippendollom_krakenwarren
May 19, 2004 12:22:01 I tend to agree with the fact that the Rose Knight is more powerful than the Sword Knight, but it really comes down to what a person wants to play. The KoS in my campaign is going to be playing as a Sword Knight through (I think) level 10. His reasoning is mainly rping reasons (he doesn't want to deal with the extra politics that it would involve) combined with the fact that since the party is already fighter heavy, they don't really need him as a tank.
#7
zombiegleemax
May 19, 2004 14:26:50 As I mentioned earlier, there are some RP drawbacks to being a Rose Knight. I am purely looking at this from a game mechanics perspective. I look at all three Knights and I see ample reason to pursue Crown up to level 10 and I see ample reason to pursue Rose until level 10. Crown is very different than Rose and visa versa. Sword is equally different from Crown but very similar to Rose - that's the big problem here. Sword and Rose are very close in abilities.

I do not see ample reason to pursue Sword through level 10. Hands down, there is nothing that distinguishes Sword from Rose. Crown has distinguishing features over Rose, but Sword seem just plain inferior to Rose on all accounts. I'm not looking for better, just different.

I like the recommendation earlier about making Rose +1 caster level every other level or no caster level at all. Anyone from SP out there have an opinion on this?
#8
wolffenjugend_dup
May 19, 2004 19:19:17 IMO, the Rose Knight prestige class wasn't meant to be compared to the Sword Knight w/o including the role-playing aspect. So, if you exclude that element, it's not surprising that the two aren't balanced.
#9
zombiegleemax
May 24, 2004 9:23:20 I agree that you must factor in the RP portion to account for the differences between Sword & Rose. However, from a balanced playing stand point; the following dilemma remains:

The DLCS book accounts for TEN levels for all three Knights. I will comment briefly on each:

CROWN: At 4th or 5th level you can become a Crown Knight. From an RP standpoint, you must have recently completed a knightly quest and demonstrated your loyalty to the measure. However, from a career standpoint, one could spend the next 10 levels in Crown and be very satisfied with who and what you are. Your role as a Crown Knight is clearly defined. Crown Knights were always the fighters.

SWORD: Like Crown, Sword has standard feat pre-reqs and RP challenges as well. However, from a sheer gaming point, I cannot see why anyone would WANT to spend their entire career in Sword. Granted, the RP to get to Sword is rough but once you are a Sword Knight, the RP is satisfied. Looking down your career, I can see little reason why anyone would want to finish their career in Sword vs. attempting the RP at Rose. My feeling is that most player Sword Knights will attempt to become Rose Knights because Rose is everything Sword is and more. There is no reason to stay in Sword. That's bad gaming mechanics, IMHO. Sword Knights were always the clerics.

ROSE: IMO, the RP benefits of being a Rose Knight should be the sole reason why anyone would choose this path over Sword along with some differences in powers. However, any aspiring Sword Knight is faced with inferiority if they continue the path of Sword. Rose does have the most difficult RP challenges to satisfy, granted. Good DMs use these challenges as stock for their adventures - so it's generally not like the Rose Knight Candidate must go at it on his own without his friends. The challenges will come in time, most likely while he/she is still a very young Sword Knight. My guess is most Rose Knights satisfy the RP requirements just before they satisfy the XP requirements. Rose Knights were always the Paladins.

My problem here is that I believe there is too much gravitational pull on a Sword Knight becoming a Rose Knight than there should be. Right now, my char is a 7 Cleric 1 Crown 1 Sword. I would love to pursue my career as a Sword Knight, as they are "supposedly" the clerics/casters in the KoS. I am forced to lean to Rose as I can think of no other reason why I would not want nearly the same p-class benefits but better BAB and HP. Really, it’s sad when game mechanics force me to choose one path over the other. That's my problem, in summary. I can't think of a single Sword Knight in all of Krynn who wants to remain a Sword Knight vs. becoming a Rose.

IMO, I think the clear fix is take one spell casting level away from Rose every other level, as previously suggested.

Thanks to everyone who responded to this post, most intelligently, and to those of you who just listened!

Stormhawk
#10
Nived
May 24, 2004 11:23:28 I have to agree with Stormhawk. This has abeen bothering me for awhile, because while I don't like powergaming it none the less seems that a Sword Knight is penelized.

It seems that anyone wanting to be a 10 level Sword Knight would likely be a pure Cleric base befor taking levels in any of the Knighthoods because the Sword Knight is suposed to be the divine arm of the Knights (even if the Rose Knights are just as good for some reason).

When compared to a pure cleric of equal level a Sword Knight looks like a good PrC. A pure Cleric base would lose at least one (if only taking one level of Crown) spellcaster level, and will lose two levels of turn undead. In place of these the PC will gain Strength of Honor (very nice ability, especially if combined with the granted power of the strength domain), knightly courage, Smite evil, and eventually Soul of Knighthood. Not bad for a 1 caster level sacrifice.

Not bad when compared to a pure cleric... in this manner a Sword Knight looks like a valid choice. However when compared to the Knight of the Rose the Sword Kngiht looks stunted. With still only loseing spellcaster level a Rose Knight gets better saves, BAB, and a plethera of abilities. Admitedly the Rose Knight should get plenty of goodies, they're the best of the best. However by giving them full caster progression the knees have been taken out from the Knights of the Sword.

What gets me is this quote from Chapter 2 of the DLCS page 55 'Advancing Orders'

As a Knight of the Sword, likewise, he may choose to remain in that class (maximizing his spellcasting abilities) or apply to join the Knights of the Rose...

This would imply that the Knights of the Sword should be the better divine casters, and this would indeed give a valid reason to take the Sword Knight to the highest levels. However this is simply not the case.

Cutting the Knights of the Rose Spell Progression seems like a popular option that I'm all for. Cutting it in half may be a little drastic, but somewhere they need to lose some spellcaster levels.
#11
taskr36
May 24, 2004 14:56:18 I think you guys are looking at this from the wrong angle. You don't just choose to be a rose knight. If that were the case then rose knights wouldn't be so special. Rose knights are supposed to be better than sword knights. As a DM you have to make players work for and earn the right to become a rose knight. Alot of it has to do with a person roleplaying their character properly.

I had a player in my campaign who was a knight of the sword. He wished to become a knight of the rose but ruined his chances when one of his companions (another player) bullied an old man for no reason whatsoever. The knight stood there doing nothing to stop her. The old man complained to the local magistrate telling him what had happened. The girl who bullied him was arrested and the local magistrate had friends in the Knighthood who he promptly informed of the incident. That pretty much guaranteed the knight would never become a knight of the rose and actually earned him a demotion to knight of the crown.

Becoming a knight of the rose is more than fullfilling the requirements listed in the book. You have to make players earn it through RPing their character.
#12
Dragonhelm
May 24, 2004 17:14:49 An excellent point. It is entirely possible that a player may not pass the Knight's Trials, or may have some sort of blight on his record (possibly requiring an atonement) that would forbid him from even becoming a Rose Knight.

Each order in the knighthood should represent an aspect of it. The Crown Knights are the fighters of the knighthood. The Sword Knights are the clerics, and are the spiritual leaders of the knighthood. The Rose Knights are the leaders and nobles, and exemplify what a knight is supposed to be.

With the Rose Knights having the +1 spellcaster level at every level, it not only makes for an overpowered class mechanically, it takes from the role of the Sword Knights within the setting.

While it should be harder to become a Rose Knight than a Sword Knight, the classes should have some sort of balance between them. As it stands now, there is little reason for one to stay as a Sword Knight, as least from a mechanical standpoint.

This is why I advocate cutting down the +1 spellcaster level to half. That way, it's not as overpowering, the Rose Knight retains flavor, and the Sword Knight maintains its niche.
#13
zombiegleemax
May 25, 2004 4:21:47 Thanks!

Do you recommend that the 50% cut occurs on the odd or even levels?

Stormhawk
#14
hatrel
May 25, 2004 8:10:24 I would say even levels. that way, you only get all the caster levels when the class is maxed.
#15
karui_kage
May 26, 2004 1:24:42 Personally, I don't think they should be cut at all. From a realistic standpoint, not everyone IS equal. The Rose Knights are SUPPOSED to be more powerful than the other knights, because they are the leaders and exlemplify everything that a knight is. Just because a person can meet the game mechanics requirements does not mean that they can be a Rose Knight, and if they DO meet the roleplaying requirements (as judged by the DM), then they deserve to get everything the Rose Knight currently has.

It's not meant to be fair if you just look at the rules. You have to think of it from a story and world-standpoint.
#16
Nived
May 26, 2004 11:08:11 I disagree Karui, from a Role Playing standpoint and not just a mechanical standpoint.

Yes the Rose Knights are suposed to be all a knight can be, and they are badass. They're the best of the best, however they currently as written destroy the niche of the Sword Knight.

The Sword Knights are dedicated to they're divine casting, that's what they're about, straight long term (full ten level) Knights of the Sword have dedicated their lives to the gods and beign the spiritual arm of the Knights, they had better be the best casters in the knighthood. Otherwise what is their point?

Rose Knights are not better warriors than Crown Knights, by taking the required three levels of Sword Knight they lose precious BAB, so why should they be just as good casters as the Sword Knights?

Each one should have a ROLE in the knighthood, by giving Rose Knights full caster progression you take away the Sword Knights Role.

Though cutting the caster progression in half is a popular option I'm more in favor of a Caster Progression for the Rose Knights like this, 1st, 3rd, 5th, 6th, 8th, 10th. They lose 4 caster levels rather than five, maybe not a big difference, but it would give Sword Knights their role while still allowing the Rose Knights to be badass. Because they are.
#17
wolffenjugend_dup
May 26, 2004 14:52:02 I really like the Rose Knights/Sword Knights rules as is. It places greater emphasis on the need for non-mechanical prestige class requirements (always a good thing) in order to get the really cool stuff and, to be frank, many Sword Knights just don't measure up.

That's the balancing stick right there; being a Sword Knight might not be as attractive as being a Rose Knight but, heck, I'd sure like to be a professional sports athlete making 7 figures but it just ain't in the cards...
#18
karui_kage
May 26, 2004 20:03:01 *nod* I can see the point made. Personally, I've always seen the Rose Knights as a lot fewer than the Sword and Crown Knights. However, as they are less, they are also better. I see them as having the best characteristics of both classes (warrior and cleric-ness) and thereby being the high and powerful rank. On a realistic standpoint, not everyone can tweak their stats just right or do what needs to be done to get to that higher rank. There are a lot more Crown and Sword Knights than Rose Knights because it is a lot easier in real life to concentrate on one area as opposed to both. It's why the Rose Knights are the leaders that they are.

But, that's just my opinion. I like them the way they are, but you can bet I'd be strict as heck on how to get into the Rose Knights, and would watch any player every second to see if he slipped up or not. ;) Granted, things can be atoned, but if its too easy, then its too powerful.

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
#1 zombiegleemax May 19, 2004 9:34:35	Before I start this thread out, I'd like to point out that it is very clear that there is a huge RP difference between becoming a sword knight and becoming a rose knight. The purpose of this post is to evaluate the two and the advancement in each class along with their relative power. ROSE d10 HP Fighter "To Hit Bonus" progression Cleric Spell Progression SWORD d8 HP Cleric "To Hit Bonus" progression Cleric Spell Progression Cleric Turning Ability My question is, what game mechanic incentive is there to continue the path of sword, if everything is pretty much better all around in rose? Sure, you lose your turning, but everything else -most notably the spell progression and "to hit bonus" is much better. Obviously, there are other extraneous powers in each that sorta washes each other's out. I have posted the core abilties above as they represent the strongest comparison between the two, IMO. Just curious as to what folks thought about this. Honestly, I can make an argument for steady progression in Crown, but I am having trouble seeing the advantage for Sword. Maybe if Rose didn't have the steady spell progression, it would almost be even. Stormhawk
#2 zombiegleemax May 19, 2004 10:10:57	From a pure power pespective, there's no reason not to get into Rose Knight as soon as possible. From a game perspective, it's a pain in the butt, and requires a lot of time, politics, and some luck as well. As it stands, the Rose Knight is one of the best PrC's that I've found for fighter/clerics.
#3 Dragonhelm May 19, 2004 10:12:25	Originally posted by Stormhawk Maybe if Rose didn't have the steady spell progression, it would almost be even. You could easily cut the Rose Knight's spell progression to where he gains a +1 caster level at every other level. Or, you could drop it entirely.
#4 brimstone May 19, 2004 11:26:16	Do the Rose knights still have to tithe all their money to the knighthood like they did in 2nd Edition? And you're right...the Rose Knight is powerful. But if one is completely role playing and not just power gaming...being a Rose Knight is a pain in the rump (as was pointed out earlier). And if you have to give up all your money too...yeah...suddenly Sword Knight isn't looking as bad anymore. When all things are considered...I think the Rose Knight is still acceptable. (not to mention, it should be very difficult to become a Rose Knight...if the DM wants to play it that way).
#5 daedavias_dup May 19, 2004 12:20:57	Well, I suppose the smite evil ability is pretty important. If the Soul of the Knighthood actually gave any weapon held by a Sword Knight the holy attribute, I would definitely see an incentive to continue the class all the way.
#6 xippendollom_krakenwarren May 19, 2004 12:22:01	I tend to agree with the fact that the Rose Knight is more powerful than the Sword Knight, but it really comes down to what a person wants to play. The KoS in my campaign is going to be playing as a Sword Knight through (I think) level 10. His reasoning is mainly rping reasons (he doesn't want to deal with the extra politics that it would involve) combined with the fact that since the party is already fighter heavy, they don't really need him as a tank.
#7 zombiegleemax May 19, 2004 14:26:50	As I mentioned earlier, there are some RP drawbacks to being a Rose Knight. I am purely looking at this from a game mechanics perspective. I look at all three Knights and I see ample reason to pursue Crown up to level 10 and I see ample reason to pursue Rose until level 10. Crown is very different than Rose and visa versa. Sword is equally different from Crown but very similar to Rose - that's the big problem here. Sword and Rose are very close in abilities. I do not see ample reason to pursue Sword through level 10. Hands down, there is nothing that distinguishes Sword from Rose. Crown has distinguishing features over Rose, but Sword seem just plain inferior to Rose on all accounts. I'm not looking for better, just different. I like the recommendation earlier about making Rose +1 caster level every other level or no caster level at all. Anyone from SP out there have an opinion on this?
#8 wolffenjugend_dup May 19, 2004 19:19:17	IMO, the Rose Knight prestige class wasn't meant to be compared to the Sword Knight w/o including the role-playing aspect. So, if you exclude that element, it's not surprising that the two aren't balanced.
#9 zombiegleemax May 24, 2004 9:23:20	I agree that you must factor in the RP portion to account for the differences between Sword & Rose. However, from a balanced playing stand point; the following dilemma remains: The DLCS book accounts for TEN levels for all three Knights. I will comment briefly on each: CROWN: At 4th or 5th level you can become a Crown Knight. From an RP standpoint, you must have recently completed a knightly quest and demonstrated your loyalty to the measure. However, from a career standpoint, one could spend the next 10 levels in Crown and be very satisfied with who and what you are. Your role as a Crown Knight is clearly defined. Crown Knights were always the fighters. SWORD: Like Crown, Sword has standard feat pre-reqs and RP challenges as well. However, from a sheer gaming point, I cannot see why anyone would WANT to spend their entire career in Sword. Granted, the RP to get to Sword is rough but once you are a Sword Knight, the RP is satisfied. Looking down your career, I can see little reason why anyone would want to finish their career in Sword vs. attempting the RP at Rose. My feeling is that most player Sword Knights will attempt to become Rose Knights because Rose is everything Sword is and more. There is no reason to stay in Sword. That's bad gaming mechanics, IMHO. Sword Knights were always the clerics. ROSE: IMO, the RP benefits of being a Rose Knight should be the sole reason why anyone would choose this path over Sword along with some differences in powers. However, any aspiring Sword Knight is faced with inferiority if they continue the path of Sword. Rose does have the most difficult RP challenges to satisfy, granted. Good DMs use these challenges as stock for their adventures - so it's generally not like the Rose Knight Candidate must go at it on his own without his friends. The challenges will come in time, most likely while he/she is still a very young Sword Knight. My guess is most Rose Knights satisfy the RP requirements just before they satisfy the XP requirements. Rose Knights were always the Paladins. My problem here is that I believe there is too much gravitational pull on a Sword Knight becoming a Rose Knight than there should be. Right now, my char is a 7 Cleric 1 Crown 1 Sword. I would love to pursue my career as a Sword Knight, as they are "supposedly" the clerics/casters in the KoS. I am forced to lean to Rose as I can think of no other reason why I would not want nearly the same p-class benefits but better BAB and HP. Really, it’s sad when game mechanics force me to choose one path over the other. That's my problem, in summary. I can't think of a single Sword Knight in all of Krynn who wants to remain a Sword Knight vs. becoming a Rose. IMO, I think the clear fix is take one spell casting level away from Rose every other level, as previously suggested. Thanks to everyone who responded to this post, most intelligently, and to those of you who just listened! Stormhawk
#10 Nived May 24, 2004 11:23:28	I have to agree with Stormhawk. This has abeen bothering me for awhile, because while I don't like powergaming it none the less seems that a Sword Knight is penelized. It seems that anyone wanting to be a 10 level Sword Knight would likely be a pure Cleric base befor taking levels in any of the Knighthoods because the Sword Knight is suposed to be the divine arm of the Knights (even if the Rose Knights are just as good for some reason). When compared to a pure cleric of equal level a Sword Knight looks like a good PrC. A pure Cleric base would lose at least one (if only taking one level of Crown) spellcaster level, and will lose two levels of turn undead. In place of these the PC will gain Strength of Honor (very nice ability, especially if combined with the granted power of the strength domain), knightly courage, Smite evil, and eventually Soul of Knighthood. Not bad for a 1 caster level sacrifice. Not bad when compared to a pure cleric... in this manner a Sword Knight looks like a valid choice. However when compared to the Knight of the Rose the Sword Kngiht looks stunted. With still only loseing spellcaster level a Rose Knight gets better saves, BAB, and a plethera of abilities. Admitedly the Rose Knight should get plenty of goodies, they're the best of the best. However by giving them full caster progression the knees have been taken out from the Knights of the Sword. What gets me is this quote from Chapter 2 of the DLCS page 55 'Advancing Orders' As a Knight of the Sword, likewise, he may choose to remain in that class (maximizing his spellcasting abilities) or apply to join the Knights of the Rose... This would imply that the Knights of the Sword should be the better divine casters, and this would indeed give a valid reason to take the Sword Knight to the highest levels. However this is simply not the case. Cutting the Knights of the Rose Spell Progression seems like a popular option that I'm all for. Cutting it in half may be a little drastic, but somewhere they need to lose some spellcaster levels.
#11 taskr36 May 24, 2004 14:56:18	I think you guys are looking at this from the wrong angle. You don't just choose to be a rose knight. If that were the case then rose knights wouldn't be so special. Rose knights are supposed to be better than sword knights. As a DM you have to make players work for and earn the right to become a rose knight. Alot of it has to do with a person roleplaying their character properly. I had a player in my campaign who was a knight of the sword. He wished to become a knight of the rose but ruined his chances when one of his companions (another player) bullied an old man for no reason whatsoever. The knight stood there doing nothing to stop her. The old man complained to the local magistrate telling him what had happened. The girl who bullied him was arrested and the local magistrate had friends in the Knighthood who he promptly informed of the incident. That pretty much guaranteed the knight would never become a knight of the rose and actually earned him a demotion to knight of the crown. Becoming a knight of the rose is more than fullfilling the requirements listed in the book. You have to make players earn it through RPing their character.
#12 Dragonhelm May 24, 2004 17:14:49	An excellent point. It is entirely possible that a player may not pass the Knight's Trials, or may have some sort of blight on his record (possibly requiring an atonement) that would forbid him from even becoming a Rose Knight. Each order in the knighthood should represent an aspect of it. The Crown Knights are the fighters of the knighthood. The Sword Knights are the clerics, and are the spiritual leaders of the knighthood. The Rose Knights are the leaders and nobles, and exemplify what a knight is supposed to be. With the Rose Knights having the +1 spellcaster level at every level, it not only makes for an overpowered class mechanically, it takes from the role of the Sword Knights within the setting. While it should be harder to become a Rose Knight than a Sword Knight, the classes should have some sort of balance between them. As it stands now, there is little reason for one to stay as a Sword Knight, as least from a mechanical standpoint. This is why I advocate cutting down the +1 spellcaster level to half. That way, it's not as overpowering, the Rose Knight retains flavor, and the Sword Knight maintains its niche.
#13 zombiegleemax May 25, 2004 4:21:47	Thanks! Do you recommend that the 50% cut occurs on the odd or even levels? Stormhawk
#14 hatrel May 25, 2004 8:10:24	I would say even levels. that way, you only get all the caster levels when the class is maxed.
#15 karui_kage May 26, 2004 1:24:42	Personally, I don't think they should be cut at all. From a realistic standpoint, not everyone IS equal. The Rose Knights are SUPPOSED to be more powerful than the other knights, because they are the leaders and exlemplify everything that a knight is. Just because a person can meet the game mechanics requirements does not mean that they can be a Rose Knight, and if they DO meet the roleplaying requirements (as judged by the DM), then they deserve to get everything the Rose Knight currently has. It's not meant to be fair if you just look at the rules. You have to think of it from a story and world-standpoint.
#16 Nived May 26, 2004 11:08:11	I disagree Karui, from a Role Playing standpoint and not just a mechanical standpoint. Yes the Rose Knights are suposed to be all a knight can be, and they are badass. They're the best of the best, however they currently as written destroy the niche of the Sword Knight. The Sword Knights are dedicated to they're divine casting, that's what they're about, straight long term (full ten level) Knights of the Sword have dedicated their lives to the gods and beign the spiritual arm of the Knights, they had better be the best casters in the knighthood. Otherwise what is their point? Rose Knights are not better warriors than Crown Knights, by taking the required three levels of Sword Knight they lose precious BAB, so why should they be just as good casters as the Sword Knights? Each one should have a ROLE in the knighthood, by giving Rose Knights full caster progression you take away the Sword Knights Role. Though cutting the caster progression in half is a popular option I'm more in favor of a Caster Progression for the Rose Knights like this, 1st, 3rd, 5th, 6th, 8th, 10th. They lose 4 caster levels rather than five, maybe not a big difference, but it would give Sword Knights their role while still allowing the Rose Knights to be badass. Because they are.
#17 wolffenjugend_dup May 26, 2004 14:52:02	I really like the Rose Knights/Sword Knights rules as is. It places greater emphasis on the need for non-mechanical prestige class requirements (always a good thing) in order to get the really cool stuff and, to be frank, many Sword Knights just don't measure up. That's the balancing stick right there; being a Sword Knight might not be as attractive as being a Rose Knight but, heck, I'd sure like to be a professional sports athlete making 7 figures but it just ain't in the cards...
#18 karui_kage May 26, 2004 20:03:01	nod I can see the point made. Personally, I've always seen the Rose Knights as a lot fewer than the Sword and Crown Knights. However, as they are less, they are also better. I see them as having the best characteristics of both classes (warrior and cleric-ness) and thereby being the high and powerful rank. On a realistic standpoint, not everyone can tweak their stats just right or do what needs to be done to get to that higher rank. There are a lot more Crown and Sword Knights than Rose Knights because it is a lot easier in real life to concentrate on one area as opposed to both. It's why the Rose Knights are the leaders that they are. But, that's just my opinion. I like them the way they are, but you can bet I'd be strict as heck on how to get into the Rose Knights, and would watch any player every second to see if he slipped up or not. ;) Granted, things can be atoned, but if its too easy, then its too powerful.