Knight core class

Anime Kidd

Explorer
This has probably been posted before, but since I can't search... :(

I'm in search of a core class that is based around the normal knight; no paladins, holy knights, etc. I know there are PrCs that are essentially knights, they don't cut it. I do have a core class written up, but I'm not quite finished with it yet.

Basically, the class is mildly built aroud the paladin, but instead of spellcasting and spell-like abilities, I gave them an entourage, Aura of Courage, a Spirited Mount (as Spaladin's Special Mount but toned down), Favoured Enemy, and a few bonus feats tacked on.
They also have a code of conduct that is based around chivalry and loyalty, etc. I also have a few notes about multiclassed Knights and Paladins and on trading the Warrior NPC class for Knight levels.

So anyone else have any ideas, suggsstions, links to help me out?
 

log in or register to remove this ad


I like the idea of a Knight core class and Paladin prestige class. Both of you, Kidd and Hong, have designed interesting and very viable classes. Personally, I'd try to design a Paladin PrC that meshes smoothly with the Knight, and so that might affect certain abilities. For example, what's the difference between a mounted Knight and a mounted Paladin? Should Paladins get special mounts, or should all Knights have access to special mounts? I haven't decided.

Anyway, let's get to some specifics. Kidd, I like both Aura of Courage and the bonus feats. The Mount is also good, but I'm torn between making it the same as the Paladin's, and toning it down. Maybe some of the mounted combat feats should be wired into the Knight's abilities (but he still gets some bonus feats). The Knight should be an expert at mounted combat, but he should also be very viable without a mount. And since many campaigns don't necessarily use mounted combat often, they would be good as freebies. Maybe that's a little overpowered, I'm not sure.

At first, Favored Enemy seemed odd, but now that I think about it, I can see it as very appropriate in campaigns with clearly defined regions, like the Forgotten Realms. But choice of Favored Enemies should be very restricted. I wouldn't add more Favored Enemies at higher levels.

The entourage is also fitting to a Knight, but I'm not sure what the best way to do it is. The simplest would seem to be a free Leadership feat, with some notes on the types of followers that may be selected.

Knights also have more authority than common adventurers. Fo example, the Blade of the Emperor (from Path of the Sword) gets bonuses that let him request aid, supplies, or information from loyal citizens. I've seen several variations of this concept, but none that really stood out mechanically.

Hong, I like your version of the Knight. There are a couple things I would think about changing, if I used it. I'm not sure if I'd use an alignment restriction. Although I see it as very appropriate, I'd probably do it more like the Samurai. The code is more of a cultural/role-play thing, and there are unfortunately many Knights who completely fail to live up to it, but aren't necessarily Black Knights. I'm also not sure about losing Mounted Combat with Elves, Dwarves, and so on. Again, I see why you did it, but now it seems to lose something to me. It becomes hard to tell the difference between an Elven Fighter and an Elven Knight.
 

Re: Re: Knight core class

Chun-tzu said:

The entourage is also fitting to a Knight, but I'm not sure what the best way to do it is. The simplest would seem to be a free Leadership feat, with some notes on the types of followers that may be selected.

I'd make it a bonus feat that can be selected if the player wants it. Not all knights have entourages.


Hong, I like your version of the Knight. There are a couple things I would think about changing, if I used it. I'm not sure if I'd use an alignment restriction. Although I see it as very appropriate, I'd probably do it more like the Samurai.

Um, the samurai also has an alignment restriction.

IMO, it would be more odd to have a code of honour that essentially said you had to behave in a good-guy fashion, but not follow through with any requirements on alignment. Alignment is just a game mechanic that's used to represent the underlying concept. Personally, I try not to fixate on the mechanic; as long as the player is RPing the character well, and not cynically trying to rort the system, I'm happy. The map is not the terrain, as the saying goes.


The code is more of a cultural/role-play thing, and there are unfortunately many Knights who completely fail to live up to it, but aren't necessarily Black Knights.

Well, the main thing here is that the code is what defines the knight, and that code mandates behaviour that correlates with what most "normal" societies would call good and upstanding conduct. Unless you have that code of honour, there's no difference between you and a bog-standard fighter. I've made it a bit more flexible than the paladin's code, so that you can be LN and NG as well as LG, but the point remains: if you don't live up to the code, you really shouldn't be a knight.


I'm also not sure about losing Mounted Combat with Elves, Dwarves, and so on. Again, I see why you did it, but now it seems to lose something to me. It becomes hard to tell the difference between an Elven Fighter and an Elven Knight.

I solved this problem in my campaign by getting rid of elves and dwarves. :)

The problem here is that we're talking about completely different source material. You don't get stereotypical "knights in shining armour" in LOTR, except in a peripheral manner (Imrahil at the battle of the Pelennor Fields), so the underlying archetype needs to be modified to fit. I guess you could say that the difference is that an elf knight takes his responsibilities to abstract concepts like truth, justice, and the elven way more seriously than the average elf fighter or warrior, whose loyalties might lie with more concrete things like his family, his tribe, or whatever. That's not a particularly rigorous handwave, and there'll be exceptions to the rule -- but then, you could also ask what's the difference between a paladin and a fighter, or a paladin and a cleric. The fact is that the roles overlap, and they'll continue to do so when you replace the paladin with the knight. Whether this overlap is sufficient reason to remove the class is something for the individual DM to decide.
 
Last edited:

Hmm, if this was second ed I'd say go for it, a core knight would be nice, but seeing how versatile the fighter class is, why can't a knight just be a fighter with feats and skills selected so they are knightly?
 

Re: Re: Re: Knight core class

hong said:
Um, the samurai also has an alignment restriction.

[looks up OA] Hey, you're right.
:confused:
[looks up Rokugan] Okay, now I get it. The lawful restriction for Samurai has been dropped in Rokugan, because, well, they have non-lawful (and dishonorable) Samurai.


IMO, it would be more odd to have a code of honour that essentially said you had to behave in a good-guy fashion, but not follow through with any requirements on alignment.

Good point. While there are certain alignment restrictions for certain classes that seem silly to me, there is much more justification for your Knight and for OA's Samurai than, say, no lawful Bards.


I solved this problem in my campaign by getting rid of elves and dwarves. :)

I guess you could say that the difference is that an elf knight takes his responsibilities to abstract concepts like truth, justice, and the elven way more seriously than the average elf fighter or warrior, whose loyalties might lie with more concrete things like his family, his tribe, or whatever.

Your solution is a good one! But I'd probably still interpret armor and mounts as being key features for Elven, Dwarven, and Gnomish Knights. For example, elves might wear medium armor (like Elven Half-Plate) and ride Horses, Unicorns and Griffins. Of course, Unicorns and Griffins are a little powerful, so maybe that's better covered with prestige classes. I suppose organizations would also be critical for Knights. Even a Knight Errant should have trained in some order of Knights somewhere. Those three features (armor, mounts, and orders) are probably key in any Knight that I'd design.
 

The 'normal knight', with no spellcasting and such, is one of the primary archetypes for the Fighter class. Introducing another class to do its work is sort of like introducing a 'thief' class because you want to have burglars in your game.

Take Mounted Combat and Ride-By Attack at first level, Spirited Charge at second. Fighters have plenty of feats, so they're by far the most likely to be able to spend one of their character-level feats on Leadership (there's your squire, and later the rest of your entourage). Choose your alignment to reflect your view of the codes of chivalry - most 'honorable' knights ought to be LG (or at the worst LN).

I'm not sure why you want to give knights 'super horses' or auras of courage - paladins have those because of the power of the forces they serve, and you're looking for a non-magical knight.

Whenever you go to make a new core class, ask yourself 'why can't I do this concept with the existing classes?' Chances are, you can.

J
 

drnuncheon said:
The 'normal knight', with no spellcasting and such, is one of the primary archetypes for the Fighter class. Introducing another class to do its work is sort of like introducing a 'thief' class because you want to have burglars in your game.

I agree with this in principle, but I think there is a place for a Knight core class, if the Paladin is removed (or made into a prestige class).

Sure, you can do a good simulation of a knight with a Fighter. But it's not necessarily the best d20 simulation. You're saying "the Knight isn't really necessary from a mechanics perspective, because the Fighter is pretty close." I'm saying, "yeah, the Fighter's close to a Knight, but it's really missing out on some key features that could be expressed much better through class abilities."

Fighters are terrible at anything skill-related. You could say, "just take the Cosmopolitan feat, to gain access to Diplomacy and Knowledge: Nobility." But that seems like a high price to pay for something that you're taking to better simulate the appropriate character type. It's like a Wizard having to spend an extra feat to gain Alchemy, which isn't necessary, but should be available.

Why should non-magical Knights have mounts that can advance? Because D&D is a game of advancement, and mounts are so integral to the Knight (and Paladin) that they should be more or less permanent NPCs. How long do you think a normal horse will last in a high-level campaign? That's an important class feature that CAN'T be simulated by feats.

Do relatively minor tinkerings justify a separate class? In some cases, I'd say yes. The Samurai from Oriental Adventures is not very different from a Fighter. But I think it fits much better than a Fighter-approximation of a Samurai.
 

The reason for a knight class is because I feel the fighter class doesnt cut it, it doesnt have that 'knightly' feel to it; its not unique.

As for the aura ability, while it is magical it, its more like a "Ooooo, Im fighting alongside Sir Blah! This is so cool!" type effect.

Anyways, here is my version.

Edit -------------------

As for knightly orders, I also have written up 3 orders. One is the Order of the Alliance, knighthood centered around the protection of a group of nations/kingdoms; another is an elven knighthood who ride griffons, the Knighthood of the Griffon; and the third is a human knighthood that patrols the borders of the human lands, the Knighthood of the Wolf.
Each order has notes on their typical description, goals, relations with other orders, typical alignemnt, and any class changes.
 
Last edited:

Remove ads

Top