Are Knights and Cavaliers the same thing?

[pemerton]

Having played this game since 1979, I'm well familiar with the inclusion of the Cavalier in 1985 (1E). Also, I have memories of a Knight being brought in somewhere in the mid-2000's (3.5E).


Aren't these classes just variations on the same theme, but with a different name & different "feel"?


I guess what I'm trying to say is, can anyone successfully justify the existence of BOTH a Cavalier AND a Knight class in the same game? If so, how?

You are correct that knight and cavalier are the same archetype/theme.

So are the classic cleric and the paladin: in his PHB Gygax describes the cleric as inspired by the fighting orders of the crusades, who were - in self-conception - the pinnacle of knightly chivalry, which is exactly the same archetype as a paladin. Both classes are heavy armour-wearing, heavy weapon-wielding front-line combatants who can perform miracles, particularly healing and turning away evil spirits.

If there is nevertheless a justification for having both traditional clerics and paladins in the game, it will have to be at the level of mechanical differentiation rather than archetype. (Eg in AD&D a paladin has better attacks and hit points, a cleric has better miracles.)

The same sort of justification could be used for having both a knight and a cavalier in the game: same archetype, but mechanical differences that matter to D&D play. (Eg the knight could be a 'defender', the cavalier more of a damage dealer by means of mounted charging.)

there was never an edition (that I know of) which included both a Cavalier class and a Knight class.

In AD&D, 'chevalier' was level title for both paladins (in the PHB) and cavaliers (in UA). Cavaliers also had various 'knight' level titles (from around 4th level, I think) while the ranger became a 'ranger knight' at 9th level.

In 4e, as [MENTION=996]Tony Vargas[/MENTION] pointed out, there is a 'knight' sub-class of the fighter and a 'cavalier' sub-class of the paladin. From the point of view of archetype they are very close - both use heavy armour and weapons and both are eminently capable of defending their allies. The paladin (cavalie) has some miracle-working (healing others) and can do radiant damage on attacks (which hurts undead), and the fighter (knight) has a bit more battlefield control, but they are very, very similar classes. (Much more similar than the fighter and paladin in the 4e PHB.)

 

[Voadam]

4e also has the chevalier theme for mounted combat specialization I believe.

 

[Tuzenbach]

Very comprehensive answers. Thanks!!!!

 

[Tuzenbach]

So are the classic cleric and the paladin: in his PHB Gygax describes the cleric as inspired by the fighting orders of the crusades, who were - in self-conception - the pinnacle of knightly chivalry, which is exactly the same archetype as a paladin. Both classes are heavy armour-wearing, heavy weapon-wielding front-line combatants who can perform miracles, particularly healing and turning away evil spirits.

If there is nevertheless a justification for having both traditional clerics and paladins in the game, it will have to be at the level of mechanical differentiation rather than archetype. (Eg in AD&D a paladin has better attacks and hit points, a cleric has better miracles.)

Wait a minute...... has the word "spells", in relation to a cleric (or paladin or knight, et. al.), been replaced with the word "miracles"???

 

[pemerton]

Wait a minute...... has the word "spells", in relation to a cleric (or paladin or knight, et. al.), been replaced with the word "miracles"???

No - though in 4e they are called "prayers" in the rulebook.

The word "miracles" is the word used by the people who actually experienced/invented the archetype used to describe the supernatural powers of the saints and prophets that underpin the D&D archetypes of clerics and paladins (turning sticks to snakes, laying on hands to heal injury and drive out disease or demons, making springs flow in the desert, etc).

 

[TrippyHippy]

I think the ‘Knight’ concept has landed pretty much where it should have always been - as a Background. In terms of Class, having a Fighter or Paladin with a Noble (Knight) background largely fits. Cavaliers, as per 1E AU rules did, however, tend to specialise in horse based combat IIRC. I’m not sure that 5E have really done much on that level yet.

 

[SirAntoine]

I have often received calls from players to make a knight class available, or let them play in DragonLance. The game has room for the cavalier, the paladin, and for both the fighter and ranger to be a little knight like themselves, too.

 

[Cyclone Duke]

3.5 had both the Knight (basic class, PHB2) and Cavelier (P. Class, Complete Warrior).

Knight was a super-tank with heavy armor + tower shields like fighter, but with the rare huge d12 hit die, and "taunt"/you have to fight me mechanics. Heavy on honour, moreso than the paladin but less about good, more about fair fighting (you took penalties if you chose to attack a flat footed/unarmed opponent or even to flank).

Cavelier was a presteige class all about mounted combat. That's all the class was - fighting on a mount, improving your mount and dealing lots of damage with lances and other mounted attacks.

The two are seperate and justified so - though there is some minor elements of mounted combat with the knight. Some (optional ofc) class skills were for mounts, and some of their possible bonus feats were related to mounts. But it was a minor part of the class overall (I got it homebrewed out for more shield-related feats) and the Cavelier was a whole other level of mount-focus.

 

[steeldragons]

Yeah. Unless I was creating a setting/entering a campaign in which battlefields, war-scale interactions, and use of mounts were going to be a given/come up repeatedly, I don't know that I'd offer both/separate classes.

The crux of the "difference", as this thread seems to illustrate, in Knight and Cavalier is that the Cavalier [by its very name] is specifically for the "special/good while mounted" guy. They don't make sense as an archetype otherwise. Whereas Knight is a)given to the noble title/background in 5e and b) can work around/has myth supporting a non-mounted hero...still good mounted, better than others, but as a result of martial/combat training and not simply because they are on a horse, and c) lends itself to campaigns that will delve into social-castes, nobility and the like.

To introduce them to 5e, actually, I would do Knight as a class, and offer Cavalier as a sub-class thereof. Problem there being "Knight", really, is nothing more -imho of the archetype- than a subclass of Fighter and does not warrant their own class. As an archetype, it is a matter of flavor and trappings: heavy armor, specialized weapon training, [perhaps] noble background/title, a code of behavior [honor, chivalry, however you want to fluff that].

Coming up with different mechanics for a "knight" beyond what can already be done with Fighter: Battlemaster and some roleplay...just to have different mechanics as a justification of a new full class...is not a good way to go. Again, imho.

 

[Tuzenbach]

It looks like a divided opinion.....



1) Knights and Cavaliers CAN be justified to coexist, assuming the design work put into said classes is convincing/different enough, and.....

2) The current system of D&D (5E) contains certain rules that suggest both the Knight and Cavalier classes are ......what's a good word for it? "Extraneous"?



IMHO, the more ideas the better. If 5E limits and frowns upon outside ideas, I'd just assume not adhere to the 5E Mantra. Sue me.......