It would seem obvious to me, especially with the comments about the knight needing to establish himself, that the Knight should be a prestige class. Require riding feats and some skills, the PrC should be mostly fighter-like only with a narrower feat selection and more skill points for those courtly skills.
History, Mythology, Art and RPGs
Galloglaich
First Post
You both have a point, and it is indeed tempting to make a new class for the knight isn't it? In fact I agree the Aristocrat is the logical starting point (with a few changes I'll get into shortly). But my initial goal was to try to make a knight out of an ordinary DnD fighter so we could see what that looked like.
I don't think 4th level is too high to achieve basic knighthood, though you could probably get away with a second or third level fighter, slightly higher for an Aristocrat. I think you would need to have spirited charge, ride by attack and mounted combat feats at a minimum though, as well as a few ranks of ride skill and enough money to afford armor and a warhorse (which isn't too much in the DnD economy), as well as martial weapon, armor and shield proficiency.
The third or fourth level fighter does jibe historically because a knight (reitter, cavallier, caballero et al., usually listed as 'Lances' in medieval records) was typically considered the equivalent of 10 - 30 common infantry soldiers. This is repeated in records of hundreds of battles and wars, for example when listing the contributions of a given town or lord to an army, 100-200 'lances' may be listed alongside 3,000 4,000 infantry. The typical ratio was around that ballpark, though of course it varied a lot and there were various types of specialist infantry who were also elite soldiers (genoese crossbowmen, swiss halberdiers etc.) you can get an idea what I mean by looking at some of the Osprey books on knights from different periods or on various medieval battles, or by looking at more serious academic analysis of medieval warfare like Hans Delbruck. I'll recommend a couple of references at the end of the post.
But before we start looking at how to remake a knightly class or whether to make it a standard player class or a prestige class, I'd like to try to answer your question on weapons and also open up the issue of warhorses a bit, because these are two ways a knight can be customized in interesting ways.
In real life a knights mount was of critical importance. It was more valuable in some cases than his armor. A strong horse might improve your damage from a lance strike for instance, an agile one improve the odds of that ride skill check to avoid hits, a fast one obviously allows you to catch fleeing enemies or most important of all, ride away from the battlefield yourself should the day not go your way, which always was one of the principle advantages of being in the cavalry as opposed to the infantry.
Here are a few of the most famous types of knightly mounts:
Destrier
The Destrier was the muscle car drag racer of the medieval battlefield. Built for strength, courage and agility, this beast delivered the strait ahead power and acceleration that made it perfect for jousting. Destiers were so expensive though and so specialized that they tended to be owned by wealthy Lords who could usually also afford other mounts for other purposes.
Destrier - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Palfrey
from the wiki:
Palfrey - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
From the wiki:
Note all these references to hunting, a common passtime for members of the knightly class. Any knight class in DnD should have access to most of the skills that a hunter would have. Worth thinking about.
There were also more exotic regional breeds, just to cite a couple:
Irish Hobbie
From the wiki
Irish Hobby - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The hobby is also of course the inspiration for the famous toy hobby horse. It is sadly extinct now, I won't get into why.
Jennet
Jennet - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The barb was one of the sources of at least one military breed in Spain, the Jennet. Jennets were small horses, first bred in Spain from Barb and Arabian bloodstock. Their quiet and dependable nature, as well as size, made them popular as riding horses for ladies; however, they were also used as cavalry horses by the Spanish.
So ok enough for now. I think it's interesting to think a bit about how a different type of horse could potentially contribute to a different fighting style, and different regional variations of knights from different parts of Europe. I'll leave you guys with that for now since I have to go for a while but I'll revisit this soon and follow up about the weapons, the knights social status and ultimately take a stab at how to make a new knight class.
G.
I don't think 4th level is too high to achieve basic knighthood, though you could probably get away with a second or third level fighter, slightly higher for an Aristocrat. I think you would need to have spirited charge, ride by attack and mounted combat feats at a minimum though, as well as a few ranks of ride skill and enough money to afford armor and a warhorse (which isn't too much in the DnD economy), as well as martial weapon, armor and shield proficiency.
The third or fourth level fighter does jibe historically because a knight (reitter, cavallier, caballero et al., usually listed as 'Lances' in medieval records) was typically considered the equivalent of 10 - 30 common infantry soldiers. This is repeated in records of hundreds of battles and wars, for example when listing the contributions of a given town or lord to an army, 100-200 'lances' may be listed alongside 3,000 4,000 infantry. The typical ratio was around that ballpark, though of course it varied a lot and there were various types of specialist infantry who were also elite soldiers (genoese crossbowmen, swiss halberdiers etc.) you can get an idea what I mean by looking at some of the Osprey books on knights from different periods or on various medieval battles, or by looking at more serious academic analysis of medieval warfare like Hans Delbruck. I'll recommend a couple of references at the end of the post.
But before we start looking at how to remake a knightly class or whether to make it a standard player class or a prestige class, I'd like to try to answer your question on weapons and also open up the issue of warhorses a bit, because these are two ways a knight can be customized in interesting ways.
In real life a knights mount was of critical importance. It was more valuable in some cases than his armor. A strong horse might improve your damage from a lance strike for instance, an agile one improve the odds of that ride skill check to avoid hits, a fast one obviously allows you to catch fleeing enemies or most important of all, ride away from the battlefield yourself should the day not go your way, which always was one of the principle advantages of being in the cavalry as opposed to the infantry.
Here are a few of the most famous types of knightly mounts:
Destrier
The Destrier was the muscle car drag racer of the medieval battlefield. Built for strength, courage and agility, this beast delivered the strait ahead power and acceleration that made it perfect for jousting. Destiers were so expensive though and so specialized that they tended to be owned by wealthy Lords who could usually also afford other mounts for other purposes.
Destrier - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Palfrey
from the wiki:
Palfrey - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Courser
From the wiki:
Note all these references to hunting, a common passtime for members of the knightly class. Any knight class in DnD should have access to most of the skills that a hunter would have. Worth thinking about.
There were also more exotic regional breeds, just to cite a couple:
Irish Hobbie
From the wiki
Irish Hobby - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Irish Hobbies were ridden by special type of Irish Knight called Hobilars who were also famously used in Scotland by Robert the Bruce.
The hobby is also of course the inspiration for the famous toy hobby horse. It is sadly extinct now, I won't get into why.
Jennet
Jennet - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The barb was one of the sources of at least one military breed in Spain, the Jennet. Jennets were small horses, first bred in Spain from Barb and Arabian bloodstock. Their quiet and dependable nature, as well as size, made them popular as riding horses for ladies; however, they were also used as cavalry horses by the Spanish.
So ok enough for now. I think it's interesting to think a bit about how a different type of horse could potentially contribute to a different fighting style, and different regional variations of knights from different parts of Europe. I'll leave you guys with that for now since I have to go for a while but I'll revisit this soon and follow up about the weapons, the knights social status and ultimately take a stab at how to make a new knight class.
G.
Last edited:
Even a 2nd or 3rd level character can achieve that against standard peasant levies or even professional infantry. Details:
[sblock]Assumptions: For simplicity, let's say the melee resolves into a series of fights where the knight charges a group. Knights attack first (reach), and if a soldier or miltia member falls, another takes their place next round (a killed soldier or milita member doesn't do any damage that round). Everyone's prepared, no surprise. Initiative is equal and so washes out. Wounds to the soldiers and milita are ignored. No magic weapons. The soldiers and milita have readied attacks. The warhorse does not attempt to make an attack. Ignoring crits. For brevity, didn't show all the interim math steps, just enough so it can be recreated (please feel free to double check).
Milita member: 2.5 hp (commoner 1), Attack +0 (BAB), average damage 3.5 (1d6 weapon), AC 13 (padded, heavy shield). A surviving militia member does 0.7 damage per round to either type of knight (20% chance to hit times average damage).
Professional soldier: 5.5 hp (warrior 1, nonelite, +1 Con from standard array), Attack +2 (BAB, +1 Str), average damage 5.5 (1d8 weapon), AC 13 (same as militia. A surviving soldier does 1.65 damage per round (30% chance to hit).
New knight: 11 hp (warrior 2, +1 Con from standard array), Attack +3 (BAB, +1 Str), average damage 11 (lance, charge), AC 17 (mail, heavy shield), warhorse, Ride-by Attack. A new knight has a 48% chance to take out a soldier on a single hit (55% chance to hit, only survives on a damage roll of 1), or a 55% for a militia member (can't even survive on a 1).
Experienced knight: 16.5 hp (warrior 3), Attack +6 (BAB, +1 Str, Weapon Focus, masterwork), average damage 11, AC 17, etc (still no Spirited Charge). An experienced knight has a 61% chance to take out a soldier on a single hit (70% chance to hit), or 70% for a militia member. Suffers the same damage as a new knight.
New knight vs. militia:
3-on-1: New knight will fall in 6.41 rounds, killing 3.53 militia.
2-on-1: New knight will fall in 10.8 rounds, killing 5.96 militia.
1-on-1: New knight will fall in 34.9 rounds, killing 19.2 militia.
New knight vs. soldiers:
3-on-1: New knight will fall in 2.65 rounds, killing 1.27 militia.
2-on-1: New knight will fall in 4.39 rounds, killing 2.11 militia.
1-on-1: New knight will fall in 12.9 rounds, killing 6.18 militia.
Experienced knight vs. militia:
3-on-1: Experienced knight will fall in 10.3 rounds, killing 7.17 militia.
2-on-1: Experienced knight will fall in 18.1 rounds, killing 12.7 militia.
1-on-1: Experienced knight will fall in 78.6 rounds, killing 55.0 militia.
Experienced knight vs. soldiers:
3-on-1: Experienced knight will fall in 4.19 rounds, killing 2.57 militia.
2-on-1: Experienced knight will fall in 7.21 rounds, killing 4.41 militia.
1-on-1: Experienced knight will fall in 25.8 rounds, killing 15.8 militia.[/sblock]
A group of 2nd or 3rd level knights attacking in a tight formation to minimize their exposure to multiple attacks will mow through their opponents (opponents who use reach weapons that allow multiple ranks to attack will significantly shift the balance in the other direction, as will knights who get surrounded or attack on their own).
Sorry, no more sidetracks.
And I'd love to see good print references. I've picked up a few on arms and armor based on recommendations at the Arador Library, but I'm not an expert and it's hard to sort the wheat from the chaff.
Galloglaich
First Post
Hey I don't have a lot of time but I just wanted to pop in here, and say thanks for crunching the numbers, that's some good stuff!
I think maybe we need to also explore the idea of what the infantry was all about in this period as well in order to determine the context of our knight so we can figure out what class and level to start for our baseline.
In the meantime, here are a couple of links:
There are many Ren-faire type groups who do jousting, but here is a group in Norway which does actual historical European martial arts from horseback - taking it to another level. Their fighting is based on lichtenauer tradition i gather, primarily Talhoffer who has a lot of horseback combat (including some really elegant disarms I've seen done in demonstrations)
Frilansene - Batallie
Now, per your request, some written sources.
For kind of an entry level I like the Osprey books. These are kind of the clift notes version of medieval history, they are criticized sometimes by academics for having a few mistakes but I find their level of accuracy overall is very good, and the presentation is usually excellent. They always have a detailed and (usually) historically correct overview of kit (i.e. weapons and armor etc.) always including examples from the archeological record, as well as (usually) good illustrations from guys like Angus McBride, and various timelines and records of battles etc. with all your stats.
Most importantly they are a very quick and easy entry into getting an basic idea about this kind of stuff. They vary in quality of course, here are a few I have really liked so far (in no particular order):
Knight of Outramer 1187-1344
[ame="http://www.amazon.com/Knight-Outremer-AD-1187-1344-Warrior/dp/1855325551/ref=pd_sim_b_4"]Amazon.com: Knight of Outremer AD 1187-1344 (Warrior): David Nicolle, Christa Hook: Books[/ame]
The Swiss at war 1300-1500 (this one was a real eye-opener)
[ame="http://www.amazon.com/Swiss-War-1300-1500-Men-At-Arms-94/dp/0850453348/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1232221970&sr=1-1"]Amazon.com: The Swiss at War 1300-1500 (Men-At-Arms Series, 94): Douglas Miller, Gerry Embleton: Books[/ame]
German Medieval Armies 1000-1300 AD
[ame="http://www.amazon.com/German-Medieval-Armies-1000-1300-Men-at-Arms/dp/1855326574/ref=pd_bxgy_b_text_b"]Amazon.com: German Medieval Armies 1000-1300 (Men-at-Arms): Christopher Gravett, Graham Turner: Books[/ame]
Landsknecht Soldier
[ame="http://www.amazon.com/Landsknecht-Soldier-1486-1560-Warrior-Richards/dp/1841762431/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1232221068&sr=1-1"]Amazon.com: Landsknecht Soldier 1486-1560 (Warrior): John Richards, Gerry Embleton: Books[/ame]
Teutonic Knight 1190-1500
[ame="http://www.amazon.com/Teutonic-Knight-1190-1561-David-Nicolle/dp/1846030757/ref=pd_sim_b_1"]Amazon.com: Teutonic Knight: 1190-1561 (Warrior): David Nicolle, Graham Turner: Books[/ame]
The Hussite Wars 1419-1436
[ame="http://www.amazon.com/Hussite-Wars-1419-36-Men-at-Arms/dp/1841766658/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1232222018&sr=1-1"]Amazon.com: The Hussite Wars 1419-36 (Men-at-Arms): Stephen Turnbull, Angus Mcbride: Books[/ame]
Medieval Russian Armies 1250-1500
[ame="http://www.amazon.com/Medieval-Russian-Armies-1250-Men-At-Arms/dp/1841762342/ref=pd_sim_b_4"]Amazon.com: Medieval Russian Armies 1250 - 1500 (Men-At-Arms): David Nicolle, Angus Mcbride: Books[/ame]
French Medieval Armies 1000-1300 AD
[ame="http://www.amazon.com/French-Medieval-Armies-1000-1300-Men-at-Arms/dp/1855321270/ref=pd_sim_b_1"]Amazon.com: French Medieval Armies 1000-1300 (Men-at-Arms): David Nicolle, Angus Mcbride: Books[/ame]
Viking Hersir 793 - 1066 AD
[ame="http://www.amazon.com/Viking-Hersir-793-1066-AD-Warrior/dp/1855323184/ref=pd_sim_b_6"]Amazon.com: Viking Hersir 793-1066 AD (Warrior): Mark Harrison, Gerry Embleton: Books[/ame]
The Normans
[ame="http://www.amazon.com/Normans-Elite-David-Nicolle/dp/0850457297/ref=pd_sim_b_njs_2"]Amazon.com: The Normans (Elite): David Nicolle, Angus Mcbride: Books[/ame]
In about the mid-range, you have popular historians. One of my favorites is Ewart Oakeshott, the remarkable amateur sword collector who totally revolutionized our understanding of what Medieval swords were actually like, gave us the Oakeshott Typology and indirectly led to the rediscovery of European Martial Arts. He is most famous for his books on swords (which I'll be blogging about later in this thread) but he also did some nice little books on knights, two in particular relavent to this topic:
[ame="http://www.amazon.com/Knight-His-Horse-Ewart-Oakeshott/dp/0802312977/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1232220692&sr=8-1"]A Knight and his Horse[/ame] is a particularly good reference for this subject as is [ame="http://www.amazon.com/Knight-His-Armor-Ewart-Oakeshott/dp/0802313299/ref=pd_bxgy_b_text_c"] A knight and his armor [/ame]
For more serious academic stuff...
The ultimate reference on the martial arts of this period is still Sydney Anglo's superb [ame="http://www.amazon.com/Martial-Arts-Renaissance-Europe/dp/0300083521/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1232221462&sr=1-1"]The Martial Arts of Renaissance Europe [/ame] which is an excellent overview of all the various Fechtbuchs and the close up view they give us on individual combat, judicial combat and duels in this period.
[ame="http://www.amazon.com/Martial-Arts-Renaissance-Europe/dp/0300083521/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1232221462&sr=1-1"]Amazon.com: The Martial Arts of Renaissance Europe: Sydney Anglo: Books[/ame]
For warfare on a more strategic / operational level, I like Hans Delbruck as a general source on Medieval combat. Delbruck wrote about 100 years ago and some people now dispute some of his figures on the number of combatants in various famous battles, but most of his analysis still stands. This is a pretty heavy read mind you, 700 something pages, but vastly better written than most academic works I've read, it's very clear minded well structured analysis really helped me put the overall picture of what medieval combat was like into perspective. I've never read his other two books (Classical and early modern era respectively) but I'd like
to.
Anyway this is the one I read:
Medieval Warfare: History of the Art of War, Volume III
[ame="http://www.amazon.com/Medieval-Warfare-History-Art-War/dp/0803265859/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1232220799&sr=1-2"]Amazon.com: Medieval Warfare: History of the Art of War, Volume III (History of the Art of War, Vol 3): Hans Delbruck, Walter J. Renfroe Jr.: Books[/ame]
Anyway, that's a start. I'll fill in a few more later as I think of them.
G.
I think maybe we need to also explore the idea of what the infantry was all about in this period as well in order to determine the context of our knight so we can figure out what class and level to start for our baseline.
In the meantime, here are a couple of links:
There are many Ren-faire type groups who do jousting, but here is a group in Norway which does actual historical European martial arts from horseback - taking it to another level. Their fighting is based on lichtenauer tradition i gather, primarily Talhoffer who has a lot of horseback combat (including some really elegant disarms I've seen done in demonstrations)
Frilansene - Batallie
Now, per your request, some written sources.
For kind of an entry level I like the Osprey books. These are kind of the clift notes version of medieval history, they are criticized sometimes by academics for having a few mistakes but I find their level of accuracy overall is very good, and the presentation is usually excellent. They always have a detailed and (usually) historically correct overview of kit (i.e. weapons and armor etc.) always including examples from the archeological record, as well as (usually) good illustrations from guys like Angus McBride, and various timelines and records of battles etc. with all your stats.
Most importantly they are a very quick and easy entry into getting an basic idea about this kind of stuff. They vary in quality of course, here are a few I have really liked so far (in no particular order):
Knight of Outramer 1187-1344
[ame="http://www.amazon.com/Knight-Outremer-AD-1187-1344-Warrior/dp/1855325551/ref=pd_sim_b_4"]Amazon.com: Knight of Outremer AD 1187-1344 (Warrior): David Nicolle, Christa Hook: Books[/ame]
The Swiss at war 1300-1500 (this one was a real eye-opener)
[ame="http://www.amazon.com/Swiss-War-1300-1500-Men-At-Arms-94/dp/0850453348/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1232221970&sr=1-1"]Amazon.com: The Swiss at War 1300-1500 (Men-At-Arms Series, 94): Douglas Miller, Gerry Embleton: Books[/ame]
German Medieval Armies 1000-1300 AD
[ame="http://www.amazon.com/German-Medieval-Armies-1000-1300-Men-at-Arms/dp/1855326574/ref=pd_bxgy_b_text_b"]Amazon.com: German Medieval Armies 1000-1300 (Men-at-Arms): Christopher Gravett, Graham Turner: Books[/ame]
Landsknecht Soldier
[ame="http://www.amazon.com/Landsknecht-Soldier-1486-1560-Warrior-Richards/dp/1841762431/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1232221068&sr=1-1"]Amazon.com: Landsknecht Soldier 1486-1560 (Warrior): John Richards, Gerry Embleton: Books[/ame]
Teutonic Knight 1190-1500
[ame="http://www.amazon.com/Teutonic-Knight-1190-1561-David-Nicolle/dp/1846030757/ref=pd_sim_b_1"]Amazon.com: Teutonic Knight: 1190-1561 (Warrior): David Nicolle, Graham Turner: Books[/ame]
The Hussite Wars 1419-1436
[ame="http://www.amazon.com/Hussite-Wars-1419-36-Men-at-Arms/dp/1841766658/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1232222018&sr=1-1"]Amazon.com: The Hussite Wars 1419-36 (Men-at-Arms): Stephen Turnbull, Angus Mcbride: Books[/ame]
Medieval Russian Armies 1250-1500
[ame="http://www.amazon.com/Medieval-Russian-Armies-1250-Men-At-Arms/dp/1841762342/ref=pd_sim_b_4"]Amazon.com: Medieval Russian Armies 1250 - 1500 (Men-At-Arms): David Nicolle, Angus Mcbride: Books[/ame]
French Medieval Armies 1000-1300 AD
[ame="http://www.amazon.com/French-Medieval-Armies-1000-1300-Men-at-Arms/dp/1855321270/ref=pd_sim_b_1"]Amazon.com: French Medieval Armies 1000-1300 (Men-at-Arms): David Nicolle, Angus Mcbride: Books[/ame]
Viking Hersir 793 - 1066 AD
[ame="http://www.amazon.com/Viking-Hersir-793-1066-AD-Warrior/dp/1855323184/ref=pd_sim_b_6"]Amazon.com: Viking Hersir 793-1066 AD (Warrior): Mark Harrison, Gerry Embleton: Books[/ame]
The Normans
[ame="http://www.amazon.com/Normans-Elite-David-Nicolle/dp/0850457297/ref=pd_sim_b_njs_2"]Amazon.com: The Normans (Elite): David Nicolle, Angus Mcbride: Books[/ame]
In about the mid-range, you have popular historians. One of my favorites is Ewart Oakeshott, the remarkable amateur sword collector who totally revolutionized our understanding of what Medieval swords were actually like, gave us the Oakeshott Typology and indirectly led to the rediscovery of European Martial Arts. He is most famous for his books on swords (which I'll be blogging about later in this thread) but he also did some nice little books on knights, two in particular relavent to this topic:
[ame="http://www.amazon.com/Knight-His-Horse-Ewart-Oakeshott/dp/0802312977/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1232220692&sr=8-1"]A Knight and his Horse[/ame] is a particularly good reference for this subject as is [ame="http://www.amazon.com/Knight-His-Armor-Ewart-Oakeshott/dp/0802313299/ref=pd_bxgy_b_text_c"] A knight and his armor [/ame]
For more serious academic stuff...
The ultimate reference on the martial arts of this period is still Sydney Anglo's superb [ame="http://www.amazon.com/Martial-Arts-Renaissance-Europe/dp/0300083521/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1232221462&sr=1-1"]The Martial Arts of Renaissance Europe [/ame] which is an excellent overview of all the various Fechtbuchs and the close up view they give us on individual combat, judicial combat and duels in this period.
[ame="http://www.amazon.com/Martial-Arts-Renaissance-Europe/dp/0300083521/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1232221462&sr=1-1"]Amazon.com: The Martial Arts of Renaissance Europe: Sydney Anglo: Books[/ame]
For warfare on a more strategic / operational level, I like Hans Delbruck as a general source on Medieval combat. Delbruck wrote about 100 years ago and some people now dispute some of his figures on the number of combatants in various famous battles, but most of his analysis still stands. This is a pretty heavy read mind you, 700 something pages, but vastly better written than most academic works I've read, it's very clear minded well structured analysis really helped me put the overall picture of what medieval combat was like into perspective. I've never read his other two books (Classical and early modern era respectively) but I'd like
to.
Anyway this is the one I read:
Medieval Warfare: History of the Art of War, Volume III
[ame="http://www.amazon.com/Medieval-Warfare-History-Art-War/dp/0803265859/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1232220799&sr=1-2"]Amazon.com: Medieval Warfare: History of the Art of War, Volume III (History of the Art of War, Vol 3): Hans Delbruck, Walter J. Renfroe Jr.: Books[/ame]
Anyway, that's a start. I'll fill in a few more later as I think of them.
G.
Last edited:
Galloglaich
First Post
Ok I'm done with my chores so a bit more delving on the situation of our knight:
Ok so, some quibbles:
1) I don't think a 1st level commoner is really accurate for a militia.
2) I definitely don't think a knight would be a Warrior class in most cultures, an Aristocrat is a good fit as I said before but a couple of levels of Fighter is likely if they are meant to actually be knights in more than name (title) only.
First on point One (please forgive another long winded digression here..):
While I know this complicates matters a bit more than most people will bother with in their campaigns, for purposes here of the context of the Knight, depending on the region and the specific time you are depicting in your campaign, and whether it is an urban or rural militia, realistically in 3.5 rules a Militia soldier would be a multiclassed character.
[sblock]
I know it's a popular image of the middle ages that you basically had knights on the one hand and peasant rabble on the other, but things are always more complex when you look into history.
In fact with the caveat that it's always dangerous to generalize about history in general and about Medieval Europe in particular, I think this Monty Python image is largely a myth. There were plenty of peasant rabble of course but those type of lowly serfs didn't usually fight. Militia were usually made up of slightly wealthier peasants and burghers.
Militia get a bad rap in DnD I think. Historically they actually tended to be pretty well trained and were usually pretty tough. Untrained common peasants really didn't fight that much in the period we are talking about (11th Century - 14th, the heydey of the knight) Anything after that and you had militia who were so good they could demand top dollar as mercenaries, such as the Genoese crossbowmen, Welsh longbowmen, Irish Galloglaich, German Landsknechts, Catalan Almogavars or Swiss halberdiers etc. etc.. This doesn't mean they weren't commoners, which they were, and many were still in fact peasants (or burghers) in their day job, but to be in the militia meant that regular training was done, and militias were routinely mustered and had to be tested in all kinds of skirmishes, sieges and small engagements. This amounted to skill and experience when push came to shove.
Anything before our Knightly period was a mix, there were some untrained peasants sometimes pushed into battles but they did abysmally and were soon replaced by more professional soldiers. This is why Alfred the Great rebuilt the Anglo Saxon fyrd system in Britain because he found ceorls were useless in combat. It took years of drilling and retraining before they eventually did recover their ability to provide some resistance against the Vikings.
Before 1100 you had either warriors still trained in traditional tribal warfare, like the Scottish Highlanders or the Anglo Saxon Fyrd or the Viking Baendir, or the the Rus Voi (rural militia), as well as en even tougher emerging urban militia such as in the Kieven Rus towns, the Italian City states and the Hanse cities etc. All of whom were considered pretty formidable - the Rus urban miltia were able for example to fend off the Mongols at Novgorod (as were Czech militias in Bohemia), no mean feat considering that the Mongols were able to largely annihilate the cream of European knighthood at the battles of Leignitz in Poland and Sajo river in Hungry. (In fact after the knightly army was defeated in Hungary it was the militias in the little towns who successfully fought off the Mongols in the extended guerrila campaign which followed).
Their kit would be a little better, they should have decent armor and from circa 1150 AD would almost always have high-energy missiles like heavy crossbows or (more rarely) longbows. So the knights would not actually be immune to attack even though they are using reach weapons.
A common point of confusion here is due to a major change in the economy of iron in Europe around the time of the rise of the Knight. In fact there have been some good books written on the idea of the link between these two events like [ame="http://www.amazon.com/Knight-Blast-Furnace-History-Metallurgy/dp/9004124985/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1232228530&sr=8-1"]this one[/ame] which I would love to read but can't afford the $375 for!!) To make a long story short the [ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cistercians"]Cistercian Monks [/ame] went all over Europe in the first half of the 12th Century spreading the technology of the overwash water wheel and the windmill, thinking that this would bring about a Golden Age of prosperity. One of the things it did bring about was automated bellows and [ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trip_hammer#Medieval_Europe"]trip hammers[/ame] which allowed for the production of relatively cheap homogeneous steel of excellent quality in very large quantity.
So wheras during say the early Middle Ages / Dark Ages / Migration period back in the early Viking times or the rise of the Franks, a well made sword or armor were worth more than whole villages, by the time Knights roll around, probably not coincidentally, armor had become much cheaper and some kind of protection was fairly common for professional soldiers, mercenaries, and yes even militias.
Pikes (long spears) appeared later in the 14th century, used by well trained specialists, as were weapons like Halberds, Bills and true-two handed swords which were all usually wielded by elite experts called "Dopplesoldners" who were paid double the normal rate for soldiers.
Very generally speaking, I may be making an incorrect assumption but to me, if a guy has been training in the militia for 10 or 15 years, has been in at least a half dozen raids, skirmishers or sieges, maybe one or two actual wars, and has probably killed more than a few people in combat, he's probably not still a 1st level commoner. Similarly an actual professional soldier from a veteran company (like the Catalan Grand Company mentioned above) in this period was a hard bitten killer who would have been in scores if not hundreds of combats and would in fact be a lot more like a typical PC, so something like a 1st - 3rd level fighter or 2nd - 4th level warrior on average.
To put it into perspective, a Viking was a commoner and essentially a peasant: a farmer or a fisherman who went on trading voyages and occasional raids in the summer. Many were part of the local militia or leiðangr, some went on to join armies or professional raiding bands (Vikinglegs) such as the famous Jomsvikings). We know Vikings were pretty tough, probably not 1st level commoner material...
[/sblock]
Typical rural militia might be a 1st-3rd level commoner (depending on age) and a 1st level warrior, wheras in a city or certain specific rural areas (like Switzerland) you might have a multiclassed character who is a 1st or 2nd level commoner or expert, and a 1st or 2nd level fighter. The latter in particular would be fairly well equipped, again depending on the region and the time period, probably with something like mail hauberk, a helmet and a shield, a spear or a crossbow, as well as a sidearm like a sword, a hammer, an axe or a mace (more on these in a later post).
I guess all this depends a lot on the philosophy of your game and where and when you set it of course.
On Point Two
Because they effectively were specialized killers trained in many cases from early youth, I think a combatant knight would be a Fighter, though I guess you could make an argument for their being a Warrior since they didn't typically have a lot of discipline in this period.
Knight was both a title and a military rank, the former going back to Roman times with the Equestrian ("Equites") rank of junior nobility. As in Roman times, someone might frequently have the social rank of 'Knight' (or chevalier, reitter, caballero etc.) but not actually be a fighter at all, or perhaps be only nominally a fighter who would go to battle only when they had to. These would be covered by the Aristocrat Class. The actual serious fighting knight though was a professional lifelong occupation, very much done with constant formal training and tests of mettle on both the battlefield and the tournaments (and it's worth noting, tournaments in this period 1100-1300 AD were really rough affairs, more like small controlled wars, in which people usually died and men's fortunes were won or lost as they were captured and held ransom in the course of bloody pitched battles)
Anyway I don't mind the seques at all I think they are interesting and fun to talk about, so by all means lets continue this discussion about what class and level a knight should be, the militias etc. we can just keep the lengthy digressions in the sblocks and meanwhile move on into the ideas of how to customize knights a bit further from the basic template.
For a little more insight into the origins of European Medieval militias check out these articles on some early medieval tribal and urban assemblies: the Slavic Veche, the Norse Leidang and the Ting, and the Anglo-Saxon Fyrd
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Veche
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fyrd
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thing_(assembly)
http://www.regia.org/warfare/fyrd2.htm
G.
EDIT: Note in the Wiki on the Norse Lidang it mentions that records from the 12th - 13th century show that militia were under obligation to report with the following gear: helmet, mail hauberk, shield, spear and sword
[sblock]
Milita member: 2.5 hp (commoner 1), Attack +0 (BAB), average damage 3.5 (1d6 weapon), AC 13 (padded, heavy shield). A surviving militia member does 0.7 damage per round to either type of knight (20% chance to hit times average damage).
Professional soldier: 5.5 hp (warrior 1, nonelite, +1 Con from standard array), Attack +2 (BAB, +1 Str), average damage 5.5 (1d8 weapon), AC 13 (same as militia. A surviving soldier does 1.65 damage per round (30% chance to hit).
New knight: 11 hp (warrior 2, +1 Con from standard array), Attack +3 (BAB, +1 Str), average damage 11 (lance, charge), AC 17 (mail, heavy shield), warhorse, Ride-by Attack. A new knight has a 48% chance to take out a soldier on a single hit (55% chance to hit, only survives on a damage roll of 1), or a 55% for a militia member (can't even survive on a 1).
Experienced knight: 16.5 hp (warrior 3), Attack +6 (BAB, +1 Str, Weapon Focus, masterwork), average damage 11, AC 17, etc (still no Spirited Charge). An experienced knight has a 61% chance to take out a soldier on a single hit (70% chance to hit), or 70% for a militia member. Suffers the same damage as a new knight.
New knight vs. militia:
3-on-1: New knight will fall in 6.41 rounds, killing 3.53 militia.
2-on-1: New knight will fall in 10.8 rounds, killing 5.96 militia.
1-on-1: New knight will fall in 34.9 rounds, killing 19.2 militia.
New knight vs. soldiers:
3-on-1: New knight will fall in 2.65 rounds, killing 1.27 militia.
2-on-1: New knight will fall in 4.39 rounds, killing 2.11 militia.
1-on-1: New knight will fall in 12.9 rounds, killing 6.18 militia.
Experienced knight vs. militia:
3-on-1: Experienced knight will fall in 10.3 rounds, killing 7.17 militia.
2-on-1: Experienced knight will fall in 18.1 rounds, killing 12.7 militia.
1-on-1: Experienced knight will fall in 78.6 rounds, killing 55.0 militia.
Experienced knight vs. soldiers:
3-on-1: Experienced knight will fall in 4.19 rounds, killing 2.57 militia.
2-on-1: Experienced knight will fall in 7.21 rounds, killing 4.41 militia.
1-on-1: Experienced knight will fall in 25.8 rounds, killing 15.8 militia.[/sblock]
A group of 2nd or 3rd level knights attacking in a tight formation to minimize their exposure to multiple attacks will mow through their opponents (opponents who use reach weapons that allow multiple ranks to attack will significantly shift the balance in the other direction, as will knights who get surrounded or attack on their own).
Sorry, no more sidetracks.
Ok so, some quibbles:
1) I don't think a 1st level commoner is really accurate for a militia.
2) I definitely don't think a knight would be a Warrior class in most cultures, an Aristocrat is a good fit as I said before but a couple of levels of Fighter is likely if they are meant to actually be knights in more than name (title) only.
First on point One (please forgive another long winded digression here..):
While I know this complicates matters a bit more than most people will bother with in their campaigns, for purposes here of the context of the Knight, depending on the region and the specific time you are depicting in your campaign, and whether it is an urban or rural militia, realistically in 3.5 rules a Militia soldier would be a multiclassed character.
[sblock]
I know it's a popular image of the middle ages that you basically had knights on the one hand and peasant rabble on the other, but things are always more complex when you look into history.
In fact with the caveat that it's always dangerous to generalize about history in general and about Medieval Europe in particular, I think this Monty Python image is largely a myth. There were plenty of peasant rabble of course but those type of lowly serfs didn't usually fight. Militia were usually made up of slightly wealthier peasants and burghers.
Militia get a bad rap in DnD I think. Historically they actually tended to be pretty well trained and were usually pretty tough. Untrained common peasants really didn't fight that much in the period we are talking about (11th Century - 14th, the heydey of the knight) Anything after that and you had militia who were so good they could demand top dollar as mercenaries, such as the Genoese crossbowmen, Welsh longbowmen, Irish Galloglaich, German Landsknechts, Catalan Almogavars or Swiss halberdiers etc. etc.. This doesn't mean they weren't commoners, which they were, and many were still in fact peasants (or burghers) in their day job, but to be in the militia meant that regular training was done, and militias were routinely mustered and had to be tested in all kinds of skirmishes, sieges and small engagements. This amounted to skill and experience when push came to shove.
Anything before our Knightly period was a mix, there were some untrained peasants sometimes pushed into battles but they did abysmally and were soon replaced by more professional soldiers. This is why Alfred the Great rebuilt the Anglo Saxon fyrd system in Britain because he found ceorls were useless in combat. It took years of drilling and retraining before they eventually did recover their ability to provide some resistance against the Vikings.
Before 1100 you had either warriors still trained in traditional tribal warfare, like the Scottish Highlanders or the Anglo Saxon Fyrd or the Viking Baendir, or the the Rus Voi (rural militia), as well as en even tougher emerging urban militia such as in the Kieven Rus towns, the Italian City states and the Hanse cities etc. All of whom were considered pretty formidable - the Rus urban miltia were able for example to fend off the Mongols at Novgorod (as were Czech militias in Bohemia), no mean feat considering that the Mongols were able to largely annihilate the cream of European knighthood at the battles of Leignitz in Poland and Sajo river in Hungry. (In fact after the knightly army was defeated in Hungary it was the militias in the little towns who successfully fought off the Mongols in the extended guerrila campaign which followed).
Their kit would be a little better, they should have decent armor and from circa 1150 AD would almost always have high-energy missiles like heavy crossbows or (more rarely) longbows. So the knights would not actually be immune to attack even though they are using reach weapons.
A common point of confusion here is due to a major change in the economy of iron in Europe around the time of the rise of the Knight. In fact there have been some good books written on the idea of the link between these two events like [ame="http://www.amazon.com/Knight-Blast-Furnace-History-Metallurgy/dp/9004124985/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1232228530&sr=8-1"]this one[/ame] which I would love to read but can't afford the $375 for!!) To make a long story short the [ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cistercians"]Cistercian Monks [/ame] went all over Europe in the first half of the 12th Century spreading the technology of the overwash water wheel and the windmill, thinking that this would bring about a Golden Age of prosperity. One of the things it did bring about was automated bellows and [ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trip_hammer#Medieval_Europe"]trip hammers[/ame] which allowed for the production of relatively cheap homogeneous steel of excellent quality in very large quantity.
So wheras during say the early Middle Ages / Dark Ages / Migration period back in the early Viking times or the rise of the Franks, a well made sword or armor were worth more than whole villages, by the time Knights roll around, probably not coincidentally, armor had become much cheaper and some kind of protection was fairly common for professional soldiers, mercenaries, and yes even militias.
Pikes (long spears) appeared later in the 14th century, used by well trained specialists, as were weapons like Halberds, Bills and true-two handed swords which were all usually wielded by elite experts called "Dopplesoldners" who were paid double the normal rate for soldiers.
Very generally speaking, I may be making an incorrect assumption but to me, if a guy has been training in the militia for 10 or 15 years, has been in at least a half dozen raids, skirmishers or sieges, maybe one or two actual wars, and has probably killed more than a few people in combat, he's probably not still a 1st level commoner. Similarly an actual professional soldier from a veteran company (like the Catalan Grand Company mentioned above) in this period was a hard bitten killer who would have been in scores if not hundreds of combats and would in fact be a lot more like a typical PC, so something like a 1st - 3rd level fighter or 2nd - 4th level warrior on average.
To put it into perspective, a Viking was a commoner and essentially a peasant: a farmer or a fisherman who went on trading voyages and occasional raids in the summer. Many were part of the local militia or leiðangr, some went on to join armies or professional raiding bands (Vikinglegs) such as the famous Jomsvikings). We know Vikings were pretty tough, probably not 1st level commoner material...
[/sblock]
Typical rural militia might be a 1st-3rd level commoner (depending on age) and a 1st level warrior, wheras in a city or certain specific rural areas (like Switzerland) you might have a multiclassed character who is a 1st or 2nd level commoner or expert, and a 1st or 2nd level fighter. The latter in particular would be fairly well equipped, again depending on the region and the time period, probably with something like mail hauberk, a helmet and a shield, a spear or a crossbow, as well as a sidearm like a sword, a hammer, an axe or a mace (more on these in a later post).
I guess all this depends a lot on the philosophy of your game and where and when you set it of course.
On Point Two
Because they effectively were specialized killers trained in many cases from early youth, I think a combatant knight would be a Fighter, though I guess you could make an argument for their being a Warrior since they didn't typically have a lot of discipline in this period.
Knight was both a title and a military rank, the former going back to Roman times with the Equestrian ("Equites") rank of junior nobility. As in Roman times, someone might frequently have the social rank of 'Knight' (or chevalier, reitter, caballero etc.) but not actually be a fighter at all, or perhaps be only nominally a fighter who would go to battle only when they had to. These would be covered by the Aristocrat Class. The actual serious fighting knight though was a professional lifelong occupation, very much done with constant formal training and tests of mettle on both the battlefield and the tournaments (and it's worth noting, tournaments in this period 1100-1300 AD were really rough affairs, more like small controlled wars, in which people usually died and men's fortunes were won or lost as they were captured and held ransom in the course of bloody pitched battles)
Anyway I don't mind the seques at all I think they are interesting and fun to talk about, so by all means lets continue this discussion about what class and level a knight should be, the militias etc. we can just keep the lengthy digressions in the sblocks and meanwhile move on into the ideas of how to customize knights a bit further from the basic template.
For a little more insight into the origins of European Medieval militias check out these articles on some early medieval tribal and urban assemblies: the Slavic Veche, the Norse Leidang and the Ting, and the Anglo-Saxon Fyrd
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Veche
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fyrd
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thing_(assembly)
http://www.regia.org/warfare/fyrd2.htm
G.
EDIT: Note in the Wiki on the Norse Lidang it mentions that records from the 12th - 13th century show that militia were under obligation to report with the following gear: helmet, mail hauberk, shield, spear and sword
Last edited:
Galloglaich
First Post
Ok so lets continue to try to create some rules for our specialized warhorses.
3.5 OGL SRD I am looking at right now lists three types: a heavy and a light warhorse, and a war pony.
SRD - Animals
The Heavy Warhorse costs 400 gp, 4 HD, Str 18, Dex 13, Con 17, Base Speed 50', attacks with the Hoof for +6 TH and 1d6+4 Damage
The Light Warhorse costs 150 gp, 3 HD, Str 16, Dex 13, Con 17, Base Speed 60', attacks with the Hoof for +4 TH and 1d4+3 Damage
The War Pony costs 100 gp but I can't find any stats for it.
I figure this Warhorse is a decent start, but it doesn't sound like any of the ones I listed above. It's certainly not as expensive as full plate armor at 1,500 GP, wheras a Destrier historically could have been more. I think we need a better warhorse worth a lot more money.
So lets make the standard Heavy Warhorse and Light Warhorse our basic template, and we can build from there for our more exotic 'Deluxe' types: the Destrier, the Palfrey, the Courser, the Jennet and the Hobbie.
The first change from the standard Warhorse template is going to be about acceleration. If you have ever seen a joust at a Ren Faire or even on TV, you will be struck by how fast a trained jousting horse can accelerate to charging speed - they are fast out the gate, much like a trained racehorse. So all of our 'Deluxe' warhorses can move to charge speed as a free action, and confers a +1 initiative bonus to their rider.
Another thing a really quality WarHorse seems to have been able to do historically, is deliver it's strength into your attacks, particularly with a spear or a lance.
To model this, I'm going to say all our 'deluxe' Warhorses confer their own strength bonus into the To Hit and Damage rolls for any attack made by a rider during a charge. Now that is a warhorse! It also makes it more valuable to have a stronger horse.
Furthermore, Warhorses were agile and could be made by their riders to perform all kinds of tricky moves, for example when Robert the Bruce so famously split the head of Henry De Bohun, he avoided Henry's lance thrust by spurring his horse into a sideward leap.
Our 'Deluxe' class warhorse can allow a rider who has the Mounted Combat feat to use a Ride skill check to negate a hit to his or herself and not just on the mount. Why not? If it works for the mount why not for the rider? And I'm so crazy I'll even let you throw the Horses Dex bonus into your roll if it's higher than your own. Crazier yet, let the rider optionally do the same for a reflex saving throw once per round too.
I don't think this is any more radical than a flaming sword or a lightning bolt spell personally, and it confers real power to a knight without having to rely on magic items or buffing spells. You can decide if you think these are viable or balanced or not for yourself. I'll use them in my campaign and let you know how they work out
A warhorse was a very valuable commodity in real life, these two little improvements make our 'deluxe' warhorses equally valuable in standard 3.5 DnD.
So Destrier a Palfrey or a Courser costs 100 Gp per point of Strength plus 100 Gp per point of Dexterity
A Hobbie or a Jennet costs 50 Gp per point of Strength plus 100 Gp per point of Dexterity.
Finally, we know lances did break in combat frequently, especially on good hits, so lets make lances break any time the rider rolls a natural 20, whether it ends up being a critical hit or not.
Maybe some of these options could spice up a knight in your campaign, whether he was a 4th level Aristocrat, a 3rd level Warrior or a 2nd Level fighter
G.
3.5 OGL SRD I am looking at right now lists three types: a heavy and a light warhorse, and a war pony.
SRD - Animals
The Heavy Warhorse costs 400 gp, 4 HD, Str 18, Dex 13, Con 17, Base Speed 50', attacks with the Hoof for +6 TH and 1d6+4 Damage
The Light Warhorse costs 150 gp, 3 HD, Str 16, Dex 13, Con 17, Base Speed 60', attacks with the Hoof for +4 TH and 1d4+3 Damage
The War Pony costs 100 gp but I can't find any stats for it.
I figure this Warhorse is a decent start, but it doesn't sound like any of the ones I listed above. It's certainly not as expensive as full plate armor at 1,500 GP, wheras a Destrier historically could have been more. I think we need a better warhorse worth a lot more money.
So lets make the standard Heavy Warhorse and Light Warhorse our basic template, and we can build from there for our more exotic 'Deluxe' types: the Destrier, the Palfrey, the Courser, the Jennet and the Hobbie.
The first change from the standard Warhorse template is going to be about acceleration. If you have ever seen a joust at a Ren Faire or even on TV, you will be struck by how fast a trained jousting horse can accelerate to charging speed - they are fast out the gate, much like a trained racehorse. So all of our 'Deluxe' warhorses can move to charge speed as a free action, and confers a +1 initiative bonus to their rider.
Another thing a really quality WarHorse seems to have been able to do historically, is deliver it's strength into your attacks, particularly with a spear or a lance.
To model this, I'm going to say all our 'deluxe' Warhorses confer their own strength bonus into the To Hit and Damage rolls for any attack made by a rider during a charge. Now that is a warhorse! It also makes it more valuable to have a stronger horse.
Furthermore, Warhorses were agile and could be made by their riders to perform all kinds of tricky moves, for example when Robert the Bruce so famously split the head of Henry De Bohun, he avoided Henry's lance thrust by spurring his horse into a sideward leap.
Our 'Deluxe' class warhorse can allow a rider who has the Mounted Combat feat to use a Ride skill check to negate a hit to his or herself and not just on the mount. Why not? If it works for the mount why not for the rider? And I'm so crazy I'll even let you throw the Horses Dex bonus into your roll if it's higher than your own. Crazier yet, let the rider optionally do the same for a reflex saving throw once per round too.
I don't think this is any more radical than a flaming sword or a lightning bolt spell personally, and it confers real power to a knight without having to rely on magic items or buffing spells. You can decide if you think these are viable or balanced or not for yourself. I'll use them in my campaign and let you know how they work out
A warhorse was a very valuable commodity in real life, these two little improvements make our 'deluxe' warhorses equally valuable in standard 3.5 DnD.
So Destrier a Palfrey or a Courser costs 100 Gp per point of Strength plus 100 Gp per point of Dexterity
A Hobbie or a Jennet costs 50 Gp per point of Strength plus 100 Gp per point of Dexterity.
Finally, we know lances did break in combat frequently, especially on good hits, so lets make lances break any time the rider rolls a natural 20, whether it ends up being a critical hit or not.
Maybe some of these options could spice up a knight in your campaign, whether he was a 4th level Aristocrat, a 3rd level Warrior or a 2nd Level fighter
G.
Last edited:
Galloglaich
First Post
Yes but keep in mind, that is only one way of playing - maybe the way the rules tend to push you in 3.5 / 3.75, but not everybody wants or needs to play godlike characters. Quite a few people play DnD low-magic / low fantasy and enjoy playing something similar to one of the real-life heros from the OP in this thread, like a Xenophon, a Musashi or a Roger de Flor whose actual historical adventures were more gripping and dramatic than 90% of RPG games anyone has ever played. People who play for example using E6 rules would probably find an enhanced 6th level knight fun to play and more than powerful enough for their game.
But that said, this is just a template for a basic entry level knight, most of the knights and other warriors listed in the OP were probably more than 6th level, even if they didn't have 200 hit points. They clearly had skills and abilities that were beyond those of ordinary men and women.
I'm planning to get into a few more things which might enhance knights for higher levels as well, especially in areas they are very vulnerable like dealing with Magic. Just getting started here And as with the three famous individuals you mentioened as the levels go higher more mythological elements can be introduced...
G.
But that said, this is just a template for a basic entry level knight, most of the knights and other warriors listed in the OP were probably more than 6th level, even if they didn't have 200 hit points. They clearly had skills and abilities that were beyond those of ordinary men and women.
I'm planning to get into a few more things which might enhance knights for higher levels as well, especially in areas they are very vulnerable like dealing with Magic. Just getting started here
And as with the three famous individuals you mentioened as the levels go higher more mythological elements can be introduced...G.
Last edited:
Galloglaich
First Post
On the subject of knights, here is a cool website on Greathelms, if you ever wanted to know anything about them.
75years - Great Helms
75years - Great Helms
