True, no one gets more than two attacks, but all the fighter types do get a second attack at 5th level. That's a pretty big thing to give up for five levels (at a minimum - presuming that you do it in minimum levels).
I feel like we're on the same side of that particular argument. I swear, I'm not against military-minded Knights getting that second attack.
Yup, more breadth, and certainly plausible, but, it does seem to be a lot to give up for a character that is meant to be a front line combatant.
Well, that's an interesting question. Is she? That's not really how I see Gunthar Uth Wistan, and we all know how well that worked out for Derek Crownguard. Look at the titles of the Masters of the Orders -- the High Warrior is the leader of the Knights of the Crown. The leader of the Knights of the Sword is called the High Clerist, and the leader of the Knights of the Rose the High Justice. Those last two are unusual titles for front-line fighters, even commanders.
I see the Knights of the Rose as being strategic commanders and politicians more than battle-hardened veterans -- remember, there are very, very few of them -- and the Knights of the Sword as being a straight up holy order, sort of like what the Hospitalers might look like in a historical fantasy Crusader era. The "front line fighters" are Knights of the Crown, and they have all the benefits of a fully leveled fighter.
That said, I don't think a Knight of the Rose who is a Battlemaster Fighter 15/Cleric of War 4/Paladin of Devotion 1 is an impossibility, whether she takes those extra 11 levels of Fighter before he advances to Knight of the Sword or after. The idea is that a Knight of the Sword has to have spent four levels on the battlefield, and a Knight of the Rose has to have spent four levels under oath to Kiri-Jolith. But I don't see there being restrictions against taking additional levels of Fighter or Cleric, nor do I see any requirement that a Knight of the Rose continue to advance as a Paladin.
I wonder if dropping the fighter requirement and simply going with paladin/cleric might be better. Although, thinking about that, that's too many spells for the character. KoS aren't really casters are they? Not in my mind anyway.
They're not casters at all in the novels, but I tend to chalk that up to 350 years of devolution in the absence of Kiri-Jolith and Paladine. I think the original intention was for the casting to come back, but, well, the Chaos War.
Maybe dropping the cleric requirement and going fighter/paladin? What if you split it up? Say 5 fighter=Knight of Sword, 1 level of paladin qualifies you for Knight of the Crown, and you have to stick with paladin for the next four levels. After that, either fighter or paladin qualifies you for Knight of the Rose - depending on just how you want to interpret the individual knight, one being more concerned with divine stuff and the other more a "Leader of Men" archetype. Both are still Knights of the Rose, but, I don't think that allowing a little variation between individuals at that level is a bad thing. Lord Gunthar, forex, I would see as a more paladin'ey Knight of the Rose, while some of the more traditional ones might be straight fighters after their Paladin levels.
Well, mainly I don't want to lose the Cleric levels -- I think that's important. I actually really like the idea that Knights of the Sword, even during the 350 years following the Cataclysm, swore oaths to Kiri-Jolith and lived a more ascetic life than their Crown brethren. I like the idea that, in my Dragonlance timeline, there is eventually a Battlemaster Fighter 4/Cleric of War 16 High Clerist, who is an honest-to-gods
clerist.
It's a good one; it's just not my vision.
Sorry if this is coming across as argument. Not my intention. Just thinking out loud and since I'm actually playing a Knight of the Sword right now, it's something of interest to me.
Not at all! This kind of discussion is exactly why I'm here on ENWorld. I'm glad for the constructive criticism. I hope I'm not coming across as being unreasonably stubborn... but I am pretty unreasonably stubborn.
