kieran_of_the_dark_peaks
Explorer
Exactly - it's very much a storytime knight. Not so much troops and war leaders at a young level! Do you think the rules work?
D&D 5E Design Thread - "What makes a Knight?"
- Thread starter kieran_of_the_dark_peaks
- Start date
Exactly - it's very much a storytime knight. Not so much troops and war leaders at a young level! Do you think the rules work?
kieran_of_the_dark_peaks
Explorer
[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.
[/QUOTE]
Your campaign sound awesome! Very knightly and an excellent sounding story. So, could you elaborate a little more on what you mean when you say using the Ideals, bonds and flaws to matter?
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.
[/QUOTE]
Your campaign sound awesome! Very knightly and an excellent sounding story. So, could you elaborate a little more on what you mean when you say using the Ideals, bonds and flaws to matter?
Paul Farquhar
Legend
Even in real life, the main historical purpose of knights was to act as heavy cavalry. When you are fielding 5000 knights, they can't all be leaders...
kieran_of_the_dark_peaks
Explorer
Excellent, thank you for the comments. I think the numbers really need to be work upon, they are very rough. Do you think it would work to get rid of them completely? I mean, the higher they go the more conceptual they become. We could skip it completely and leave it to the DM?
Yeah, the vow acts are tricky because they need to be representative and not require the DM to say 'yes', but still relatively tricky to achieve so getting a vow point back is something you can do only on a semi regular basis.
Thanks!
My 5e-fu is weak, but I would be looking at the Ideal to do some of the work you are using Vows for, and probably Bond to fill the same conceptua space as Quests.
So if you allow Inspriation to be stored up to the CHA bonus of the character (or whatever is appropriate given considerations of mechanical balance), this already increases the importance of these traits.
Then you might also have, say, self-healing that is triggered by acting in pursuit of the knight's Ideal or Bond (perhaps requireing spending a stored Inspiriation die). Spend a die to oblige the GM to explain how a just-encountered NPC/being is related to the kinght's Bond. Etc.
It's not going to be the same as Traits and Passions in Pendragon, or Beliefs in Burning Wheel, but might sit in a broadly similar space of relating the PCs' core commitments to the actual play of the character by the player.
Olrox17
Hero
Having some numbers can be an helpful guideline for the DM, and you already explain in the sidebar that the quests in the table are just example, which is good. In fact, the only numbers that seem a bit out of whack are for the "Hold back the dark" quest. The rest is fine.
Then Vow of Mercy and perhaps Vow of Generosity need some limitations. Perhaps a "once per combat encounter" clause?
Vow of Courage should probably specify that the enemy creature must not be influenced by a magical effect (it's too easy to punch down an opponent paralyzed by the party wizard's hold person spell, and not that honorable!).
I'd recommend Knights also regain Vow after a long rest, perhaps flavored like a Wizard's preparations, the Knight renews the vow as part of their morning routines.
Foot Knight's shoulder charge is a Wisdom save. That seems odd. I'd suggest Strength if anything.
Likewise, the Knight being a Wis class seems off. Intelligence fits the "Knightly Knowledge" of heraldry and history. Plus Investigation fits several of the Albion tales. Or Charisma, if you want them to be charming...which you put as a mission statement, but I feel isn't reflected in the class except one of the quests.
Foot Knight's shoulder charge is a Wisdom save. That seems odd. I'd suggest Strength if anything.
Likewise, the Knight being a Wis class seems off. Intelligence fits the "Knightly Knowledge" of heraldry and history. Plus Investigation fits several of the Albion tales. Or Charisma, if you want them to be charming...which you put as a mission statement, but I feel isn't reflected in the class except one of the quests.
LuisCarlos17f
Legend
Members of the noble houses what can allow themself to spend the money from the taxes to buy the best weapons and armours. If Tony Stark "Iron Man" is an artificer then James Rhodes "Warmachine" would be the knight/cavalier. Other times they can't buy those super-expensive item, but they are the heirs of some strange legacy, for example a "relic", a weapon enough old to become a sentient tsukimogami (tool-spirit) working like a simbiont like Eddie Brock and Venom.
en.wiktionary.org
en.wikipedia.org
en.wikipedia.org
My opinion is this concept or archetype should be a base class and not only a subclass.
Knecht - Wiktionary, the free dictionary
Housecarl - Wikipedia
Thegn - Wikipedia
My opinion is this concept or archetype should be a base class and not only a subclass.
I'll just comment on the mechanical points for now. I have not looked at the subclasses; so this is just about the class itself.
Armour: I like the exclusion of light armour in principal, it breaks the established rule though. For consistency with other classes you might want to add it.
Weapons: Fine
Tools: Armourer's tools are not part of the PHB I think. Maybe change it to Smith's tools? I personally think this should be a level 1 feature similar to Elegant Courtier from the Battle Master. Give one or two fitting suggestions, but leave it in the hands of the player.
Completely removing it, as tool proficiencies are generally handled by the background, is also fine I think.
Saves: Fine
Skills: I personally would switch Arcana for Religion and maybe add Medicine. Religion seems more along the lines of the (european) idea of a knight.
Equipment: Breastplates are way too expensive for level 1. Instead I would like to see a chain shirt. For weapons I would simply require two martial melee weapons or one weapon and a shield. Seems more natural to read. The equipment pack does not exist in the PHB. Again I would change it to something in the core rules and if I recall correctly all classes start with a choice of two packs here - diplomat and scholar seem fitting.
Mount: I would remove this or at least the difference in cost as bonus gold. This again just feels to different from the established starting equipment.
Ironside: Only usable in heavy armor. This makes medium armor even worse. I would extend it to medium armor. (This is extra weird, as you cannot start with heavy armor in this draft)
Challenge: Fine, maybe clarify what happens if the creature cannot attack you (dash?).
Leadership: This is very dependent on the order of combat. If six enemies can act after you and before your first companion, this might be completely useless. On the other hand if only friendlies act directly after you, this becomes super strong. I would change it to work until your next turn and increase the duration on certain levels. It's still very strong then if one has enough Vow points, but it's easier to track and less dependent on something that players have almost no influence on (initiative).
Extra Attack: The placement leaves 5 as a dead level. I really dislike this, as level 5 is a huge power boost for every other class in the book. Getting the third attack might annoy some fighters, but I think it is fair.
For Honour: This feels significantly worse than leadership for three times the cost. If the cost is adjusted (or leadership capped to once per rest) I like it.
General thoughts: I dislike the Vow resources management. It seems difficult to track (e.g. Courage) and lead to doing things just because you want the points (e.g. Mercy). I would remove the mechanical implications of this completely and make the points short or long rest dependent.
The Quest mechanic can probably be expanded to be a general thing for all characters with adequate rewards. As of now a Knight player might feel bad if their group is not eager to follow the knight's quest.
Armour: I like the exclusion of light armour in principal, it breaks the established rule though. For consistency with other classes you might want to add it.
Weapons: Fine
Tools: Armourer's tools are not part of the PHB I think. Maybe change it to Smith's tools? I personally think this should be a level 1 feature similar to Elegant Courtier from the Battle Master. Give one or two fitting suggestions, but leave it in the hands of the player.
Completely removing it, as tool proficiencies are generally handled by the background, is also fine I think.
Saves: Fine
Skills: I personally would switch Arcana for Religion and maybe add Medicine. Religion seems more along the lines of the (european) idea of a knight.
Equipment: Breastplates are way too expensive for level 1. Instead I would like to see a chain shirt. For weapons I would simply require two martial melee weapons or one weapon and a shield. Seems more natural to read. The equipment pack does not exist in the PHB. Again I would change it to something in the core rules and if I recall correctly all classes start with a choice of two packs here - diplomat and scholar seem fitting.
Mount: I would remove this or at least the difference in cost as bonus gold. This again just feels to different from the established starting equipment.
Ironside: Only usable in heavy armor. This makes medium armor even worse. I would extend it to medium armor. (This is extra weird, as you cannot start with heavy armor in this draft)
Challenge: Fine, maybe clarify what happens if the creature cannot attack you (dash?).
Leadership: This is very dependent on the order of combat. If six enemies can act after you and before your first companion, this might be completely useless. On the other hand if only friendlies act directly after you, this becomes super strong. I would change it to work until your next turn and increase the duration on certain levels. It's still very strong then if one has enough Vow points, but it's easier to track and less dependent on something that players have almost no influence on (initiative).
Extra Attack: The placement leaves 5 as a dead level. I really dislike this, as level 5 is a huge power boost for every other class in the book. Getting the third attack might annoy some fighters, but I think it is fair.
For Honour: This feels significantly worse than leadership for three times the cost. If the cost is adjusted (or leadership capped to once per rest) I like it.
General thoughts: I dislike the Vow resources management. It seems difficult to track (e.g. Courage) and lead to doing things just because you want the points (e.g. Mercy). I would remove the mechanical implications of this completely and make the points short or long rest dependent.
The Quest mechanic can probably be expanded to be a general thing for all characters with adequate rewards. As of now a Knight player might feel bad if their group is not eager to follow the knight's quest.
The Mirrorball Man
Aventurier
Thematically, I just can’t see how the game can sustain a Paladin class and a Knight class. They seem very similar to me, and I’d rather have a Knight subclass.
Similar Threads
