D&D 5E Design Thread - "What makes a Knight?"

[kieran_of_the_dark_peaks]

This could be a long OP, apologies!

For the next book from the Dark Peaks, I'm playing with the idea of writing "Aliena Brightlance's Tome of Knighthood." I've always liked Knights - knight to the extent of the romantic idea, like those from King Arthur stories.These are not, I repeat not, the Knights of real historical background. I'm not interesting in playing the Feudal ideal of the land-owning killing class.

The character concept is that of King Arthur and his knights - the romantic, chivalric ideal who goes on quests, demonstrates chivalric grace and the romantic ideal. For the rest of this post, I'm going to refer to these as 'storytime knights'. I am aware that they are completely unrealistic historically - but that's why we play D&D, right? Also knights /= paladins. It's warriors of god vs warriors of tangible gain. I don't want to get into that debate, i've already concluded they are different.

Wait, you might say! There are fighter sub-classes where you can play as a knight! In Xanathar's Guide to Everything there is a cavalier sub-class, and in the Sword Coast Adventurer's Guide there are Purple Dragon Knights (referred to in different settings as Bannaret). There are at least three named sub-classes where you can play as a knight, plus the eldritch knight which has 'knight' in the name. So why bother creating another character class? Why try and weasel yet more money from our weary, book-buying pockets, you swine!?

Well, firstly because this will be a fairly small part of the book. But also because (and I admit this is so subjective) ... none of those classes feel like Storytime knights. They are missing vital elements of those characters - I can't imagine playing Sir Gawain, for example, as a Purple Dragon Knight. There's no courtly love, no real chivalry, no quests and no heraldry. Granted, there could be in the background - but I feel like these elements are the core of the character class and should be implemented mechanically, as well as just in Player Generated background.

So, I present to you my concept for a Knight as a full Character class. This is presented with trepidation because it is still an initial idea, but I'd really like constructive and useful feedback on what I've written so far. This forum has so many smart and experienced people on it, and I'd love to see what everyone thinks. This is not finished, you'll see the gaps there and suggestions to fill those would be really appreciated.

To summarise the doc: There are three elements to a Knight. 1) The vow, which adhering to restores vow points and powers abilities in combat. 2) The Quest, which leads to promotion for the knight (from squire, onwards) and builds Heraldry. 3) Heraldry, which is a variety of symbols a knight can gain to their coat of arms as they succeed on quests. This heraldry allows them chosen buffs to equipment, which they can chose to combine as their heraldry becomes more elaborate. There are four sub-classes of knight, each with their own vow abilities, and different skills.

Like I said, I'd love to know what people think to this class. Thanks for reading - and please read to the end of the document before commenting!

[mandatory plug - the Blizzard of Axe and Sword has got 5* reviews and you should check it out. Click here]

 

[doctorbadwolf]

@pemerton is currently running Prince Valiant, and might have some useful feedback with Knights and their whole deal on the forefront of their creative mind?

 

[kieran_of_the_dark_peaks]

@pemerton is currently running Prince Valiant, and might have some useful feedback with Knights and their whole deal on the forefront of their creative mind?

That would be fantastic - is that a Twitter handle?

 

[doctorbadwolf]

That would be fantastic - is that a Twitter handle?

No it’s a user here.

 

[Haldrik]

The 4e Warlord makes the best Knight.

 

[Coroc]

Take a 2e Paladin (Not the exact mechanics, but the code of honor and such rules). Then take away some of the religious aspects, and add some romantic ones.

 

[Haldrik]

Take a 2e Paladin (Not the exact mechanics, but the code of honor and such rules). Then take away some of the religious aspects, and add some romantic ones.

Then add formal military training, military history, tactics and strategy, anatomy and treating wounds, leadership skills, aristorcratic status, and ...

Presto! Warlord.

5e can easily create a "Knight" class, thereby sneak in a 4e Warlord.

 

[Olrox17]

Very interesting design.

Some of the vows seem pretty easy to trigger reliably (vow of mercy in particular) while vow on nobility is the opposite (you have to successfully use challenge twice, spending two points, for the chance of gaining back one point?).

The idea of questing is nice, the numbers need to be looked at (80 cr5+ enemies?).

Are knight allowed to apply their heraldry both to weapons and armor? If so, that might be a little too good.
I’d probably eliminate the flat +1 to AC/attack rolls. Make it an hp or temp hp buff/damage buff.

 

[pemerton]

Prince Valiant sits in the same general thematic territory as Pendragon, but more light-heartedly. Our game currenlty has three PCs - two began the game as knights (father and son) and one (as per an Advanced PC building option) started as a squire but was knighted a few sessions in.

Mechanically Prince Valiant is pretty straightforward, and what distinguishes a knight or squire in mechanical terms is simply that they must begin with ranks in Arms and Riding. (Whereas, say, a viking must have ranks ain Arms and Shiphandling, a peasant in Farming and Crafting, etc.)

Our game has turned into one of military campaigning, as the PCs have founded a religious military order (the Order of St Sigobert), and have travelled from Britain to France to Italy to Dalmatia, then overland to Byazntium, then accross Anatolia, and now are trying to take Cyprus. But as well as battles we have had weddings, extra-marital romance, much jousting, forest bandits, a wise woman engaging in pagan practices who was converted to Christianity by a display of the miraculous power of St Sigobert, and the like.

I think core to Arthurian knights is errantry, jousting, war and romance. In my view, therefore, they need systems to support social as well as martial interaciton and contest (romance), mass combat (war), and satisfying one-on-one duels where riding a horse is a benefit rather than a mechanical chore and/or liability (jousting). For errantry to work in RPGIng I think there needs to be an emphasis on scene-framing with only light exploratory elements. Too much exploration makes it all about the rations and the mapping rather than the maiden being pursued by bandits or the restless spirt met on the forest path.

I don't realy know how I'd do this in D&D. But I'd be looking for ways to make a horse viable (similar to ranger animal companions at least in 3E and 4e); ways to make spotaneity and unexpected encouters turn the PCs way (which might use metagame mechanics similar perhaps to a Circles check in Burning Wheel or analogus to a bonus on reaction rolls in AD&D); and ways to make Ideals, Bonds and Flaws matter in the play of the character. Given that these are already part of the 5e framework, I don't see the need for a new Quest or Vow mechanic.

You might also want to look at ways to incentivise CHA so that at least some of the D&D knights are charming and/or impressive leaders. I don't know if storing Inspiration up to the CHA bonus would do the job, but that might be the sort of thing you could look at.

 

[Coroc]

Then add formal military training, military history, tactics and strategy, anatomy and treating wounds, leadership skills, aristorcratic status, and ...

Presto! Warlord.

5e can easily create a "Knight" class, thereby sneak in a 4e Warlord.

Except the main purpose of a knight in the legends was not to command troops around, but to execute the valiant deeds himself.

OP was not searching for a RL knight but for the romantic knight of the fairytales and sagas.