Are Knights and Cavaliers the same thing?

[Tuzenbach]

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?


Thanks!!!

 

[The Crimson Binome]

One of the problems of 3E was that they had so many clever ideas about mechanical implementations that they didn't always stop to make sure there was an in-game reason to justify the new mechanics. This was most obvious with the Wizard and Sorcerer, where the latter is just the former but using the new spontaneous spellcasting mechanics.

To answer your question, though, there was never an edition (that I know of) which included both a Cavalier class and a Knight class. AD&D had the Cavalier class, and 3.5 might had the Knight class, but they're more-or-less equivalent to each other in everything but name. Kind of like how AD&D had Fighters and Basic had Fighting-Men, or AD&D had Mages and later editions had Wizards.

Of course, you could always use the Fighter to represent any sort of non-magical Cavalier or Knight, so both were always superfluous.

 

[Tuzenbach]

One of the problems of 3E was that they had so many clever ideas about mechanical implementations that they didn't always stop to make sure there was an in-game reason to justify the new mechanics. This was most obvious with the Wizard and Sorcerer, where the latter is just the former but using the new spontaneous spellcasting mechanics.

To answer your question, though, there was never an edition (that I know of) which included both a Cavalier class and a Knight class. AD&D had the Cavalier class, and 3.5 might had the Knight class, but they're more-or-less equivalent to each other in everything but name. Kind of like how AD&D had Fighters and Basic had Fighting-Men, or AD&D had Mages and later editions had Wizards.

Of course, you could always use the Fighter to represent any sort of non-magical Cavalier or Knight, so both were always superfluous.

Thank you for the response!


I wonder a few things......



1) Which build was more powerful? The 1E Cavalier or the 3.5E Knight?

2) Did the two respective builds have ANYTHING in common, or were the powers/abilities completely different from one another?

3) Which was *better*? I.e., which of the two builds properly captured the overall "spirit" of the class?

4) Did 4E have an equivalent? How about 5E? Will there be an eventual 5E equivalent if none currently exists?


Thanks Again!!!

 

[GMMichael]

1) 1e to 3.5e is apples to oranges.
3) a "cavalier" sounds more like a horseman, while a "knight" sounds like nobility. Or maybe, cavaliers are more French?
4) Be patient.

I'd draw the line at this: "knights" have more privileges, legally and socially, than cavaliers.

 

[Tuzenbach]

1) 1e to 3.5e is apples to oranges.
3) a "cavalier" sounds more like a horseman, while a "knight" sounds like nobility. Or maybe, cavaliers are more French?
4) Be patient.

I'd draw the line at this: "knights" have more privileges, legally and socially, than cavaliers.

Call me crazy, but it sounds as if you're implying that Knights and Cavaliers are NOT the same thing! Am I correct?

 

[Whisper72]

In my view, cavalier and knight are classwise / in terms of powers and skills pretty much the same thing.

If you want to get into more historical perspecive, a cavalier is a heavily armed horseman, but can be in the service of anyone and does not necessarily imply real nobility per se. A knight is foremost a noble title, with the obligation to posess a horse and adequate arms and armor, and to come to the aid of your lord when called to serve, but also with own holdings and allowed to tithe serfs and freemen in his own domain.

As to why the name Cavalier was used in 1st edition, it may have been done to distinguishe from the unofficial 'knight' class which i seem to recall was described in an earlier Dragon magazine during the 1e era.

 

[Mishihari Lord]

"Cavalier" is the slightly anglicized form of "Chevalier" which is just the French word for "knight." So in real world terms they're exactly the same thing. I can see using both classes, translated to whatever version, if you want to model different orders of knights with different training. Otherwise, I see no particular reason to have both.

 

[delericho]

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?

In terms of the game, sure. They're just labels that can be applied, so one could potentially use 'Knight' as the label for one type of mounted warrior and 'Cavalier' as another slightly different flavour of mounted warrior.

It really depends on how you want to structure your classes. My preference would actually to have neither a Knight nor a Cavalier class, but rather have both be represented as subclasses (or builds, or whatever) of the over-arching Fighter class. (And whether you have two separate subclasses or one to cover both would be a matter of taste.)

 

[Morrus]

Tom Jones, Michael Caine, and Paul McCartney are all knights. I don't think they're cavaliers, though Tom Jones has been known to be somewhat cavalier at times.

 

[nerfherder]

Tom Jones has been known to be somewhat cavalier at times.

It's not unusual...