D&D 5E An awkward cross-classing idea

[Li Shenron]

Just had in mind what Mearls wrote in todays L&L column about re-introducing a sub-class choice to the Fighter class. He mentioned Knight and Gladiator gaining different proficiencies and some unique feature, so probably the whole thing will be totally different from previous Fighting Styles granting maneuvers.

Anyway, I got he impression that the Knight background will be removed and turned into a Fighter-only sub-class choice.

No big deal, but for some reason I thought I really liked the idea that anyone could be a knight. I'm not sure, but I think famous non-fighter characters such as Merlin and Gandalf could in fact have been Wizards with a Knight background.

I had a minor feeling there, that I was going to miss this little option as a background, and then thought... what if I tried to slap the Knight fighter's theme (or whatever it will be called) on top of a Wizard, or a Cleric or anybody?

Obviously there would need to be a trade-off, something to give up but then the answer was already there: what if you could pick another class' sub-class choice instead of your own?

What if you could play a Wizard that instead of a Tradition has a Fighter's Theme? A Fighter with a Cleric's Deity? A Rogue with a Wizard's Tradition?

I'm thinking about house rules here, no need for the game to officially support this, but rather the DM will check if the combination makes sense. But you know what... most of them actually do!

First of all, the trade-off of course needs to be balanced. Paladin's Oaths are straight inferior (although not too much) than Cleric's Deities, they both grant domain spells and channeling options, but the Deities grant more. Monk's Traditions are the smallest, and they grant only Ki abilities which only some with Ki can use.

But other classes are not that bad to mix this way, and maybe you could assume that when a subclass grants an extra daily use of ability X and you don't have it at all, you can treat it as having 0/day (thus a Fighter with Circle of the Moon gets 0+1=1 wildshapes/day), or if it grants options for ability Y that you don't have, you get 1/day by default (could be the case if you get energy channeling and domain spells).

Definitely heavy house rules territory here... but I think it could lead to some interesting character concepts.

Feel free to suggest your combos or to point out the troublesome ones!

 

[Warbringer]

Well, hoping that is the new territory for feats

 

[the Jester]

Interesting idea. It seems likely to build some very weird combinations.

 

[jrowland]

I am not sure the premise of the OP is going to be necessarily true. The background as it stands now is basically a skill list (which will go away), and equipment list (which may or may not go away) that includes a lance and horse, and then "knights station". What part of that is "fighter"?

I assume if the Fighter takes "knight" it will be a mounted combat "build". The background will then either be renamed (knight errant?) or be absorbed by another background (Noble?).

 

[gyor]

I'd like to point out that the Paladin has being a knight in the class description and that did not interfer with having a knight background and I doubt this will either.

Think of it this way, having a knight background is just having been knighted by someone, so you have a recognized title by some order or kingdom, a fighter-knight or Paladin is a knight not just by title, but by training as well. A fighter-knight might have no title, just the training, like in that movie were the peasant trains like a knight and fakes it so he can compete in jousts.A Paladin is kind of recognize by everybody, no matter thier background, because which Monarch wants to argue about authorization with a God.

Think of it this way, being a knight is like being a memeber of the Air Force, a air force mechanic is still apart of the air force (knight background), but that doesn't make him a airforce pilot (Paladin or Fighter-Knight).

 

[Li Shenron]

Forget about the background... it was just what started the series of thoughts leading to this idea, but it's not the topic of the thread

 

[RHGreen]

If you go by old rules, in order to be knighted you need to have fought in a campaign. You can, if you wish, stay a Squire forever, though you usually have to pay to avoid that typical requirement. Some squires avoid becoming Knights to follow a life as a businessman or academics. You can also be a squire and submit yourself to the church. If you do that you lose all entitlements to inheritance/title/class - becoming legally dead - you change your name and become simply one of the clergy.

You could have a background of Middle Class of which Knights, Squires and Gentlemen are. Gentlemen cover anyone who has earned a degree from a university, or those who serve in a particularly high position. If you serve as the Steward to one of the King's manors you might be raised to a Gentleman, for example. Sometimes Men-At-Arms can be considered Middle Class Gentlemen (or Sergeant-At-Arms, Sergeant meaning Servant).

Later on Bankers, Merchants and even highly skilled crafters were seen as Gentlemen (they used lending and debt as a way of gaining rights and influence - now the western world is run by them).

Gentlemen eventually gained the right to bear arms like the squires and knights, even though they did not fight. These arms became the equivalent to the modern day company logo.

Upper Class is anyone Noble - Baron and up - but offspring of nobles are not noble. They would be squires or become knights until such point they receive their father's title upon his death. Then they would be considered upper class.

Anyway, my point is make it more general and call it Background Middle Class. Horse riding, Etiquette, Money Bonus, etc, etc.