Paladins and Squires

[plisnithus8]

A "henchman" might be a better description. Squires were usually the sons of nobles, there to learn, rather than placed on the frontlines. You don't want to endanger the life of a noble if his father can squash you like a bug.

"In time of war Medieval Squires accompanied Knights on the battlefield, leading and tending the horses and dressing them in the Medieval Knights Armor. They came under fire from arrows and many Medieval Squires were killed doing their duty."

I think war-time could be a hook for a campaign as could other reasons a squire could accompany an adventure such as a very minor noble wanting his son/daughter to earn the fame and riches that local adventures have acquired.


http://m.medieval-life-and-times.info/medieval-knights/medieval-squires.htm

 

[Xeviat]

But what is a squire of a 20th level Paladin? What do they compare to?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[ajanders]

Well, "what the squire compares to" is based on the squire, not the knight. Traditionally, squires were expected to ascend to knighthood and go be independent. The knight would then take on a new squire. (Yes, like Batman and his Robins.)
In 5e D&D, it might be that the squire is a first or second level fighter: by third level they take their knight/warmaster/other advanced path and start adventuring on their own. The knight then gets a new lucky first level squire, who is very proud to be with a more famous/senior knight.
In short, the squire of a 20th level knight is the equivalent of the college intern personally assisting Bill Gates. Squires are not terribly helpful, and are certainly not contributing meaningful combat power to 20th -- or even 10th -- level characters.
It may become Batman and Dick Grayson, where eventually the squire becomes a knight on their own, then assists their former mentor. Such an NPC may be of high level and respectable power. But this sort of Nightwing is not a squire, he's an NPC ally acquired through good roleplay.

(Inevitable grain of salt: it is certainly possible to make adventuring parties where one PC is playing the squire to the other PC's knight: this comment is not meant to address that situation.)

 

[Hussar]

Well, "what the squire compares to" is based on the squire, not the knight. Traditionally, squires were expected to ascend to knighthood and go be independent. The knight would then take on a new squire. (Yes, like Batman and his Robins.)
In 5e D&D, it might be that the squire is a first or second level fighter: by third level they take their knight/warmaster/other advanced path and start adventuring on their own. The knight then gets a new lucky first level squire, who is very proud to be with a more famous/senior knight.
In short, the squire of a 20th level knight is the equivalent of the college intern personally assisting Bill Gates. Squires are not terribly helpful, and are certainly not contributing meaningful combat power to 20th -- or even 10th -- level characters.
It may become Batman and Dick Grayson, where eventually the squire becomes a knight on their own, then assists their former mentor. Such an NPC may be of high level and respectable power. But this sort of Nightwing is not a squire, he's an NPC ally acquired through good roleplay.

(Inevitable grain of salt: it is certainly possible to make adventuring parties where one PC is playing the squire to the other PC's knight: this comment is not meant to address that situation.)

The problem with that being that as a class element, it has to be balanced (at least somewhat) with what the character is expected to do. After all, a ranger's pet advances in levels and never wanders off to go have babies or whatever. Which means if your high level party is babysitting a 1st level NPC, that class feature isn't adding a whole lot of anything to the game and is, in fact, probably a much larger drain.

I like the idea of squires, but, it's something that would be very, very hard to implement. I mean, even if you just take Robin (whichever Robin you care to look at), he's hardly a 1st level fighter. He's maybe not quite as bad ass as Batman, but, he can most certainly take care of himself. I mean, depending on which comic books you read (or which TV shows you watch), Robin's taken on pretty much any of Batman's gallery of bad guys and not been turned into paste in the first hit, which is what a 1st level fighter is going to do. Robin's gone toe to toe with Deathstroke and come out on top, at least in Teen Titans. That puts him head and shoulders above any 1st level character.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

I really didn't mean a Squire as an NPC, but as a "pet"-style class feature. Also, I only meant "Squire" as one possible interpretation of the "assistant" character.

Mechanically, I mean it very much like the Beastmaster Ranger (though hopefully better designed than the PHB one!) I guess I am wondering, why not?

Seeing as the beastmaster already anthropomorphises the pet, has ways of bringing it back to life (I already think those same mechanics could/should be made to prevent it from dying in the first place!) and roughly balances to the abilities of the other classes or subclasses, a Knight and Squire combination should be very little different in play from a Ranger and Pet, shouldn't it?

Sent from my LG-D852 using EN World mobile app

 

[BoldItalic]

Suppose the player character is the squire and the class feature is "you have a noble master"?

Noble Squire
You are squire to a powerful nobleman who has many powerful noble enemies. Your master is far too busy and important to engage in combat himself - that's what he employs you for - but you can go to him for instruction and guidance sometimes. Any treasure you acquire is automatically his, but he will pay for your equipment and reasonable living expenses while you are adventuring at his behest. Also, you get advantage on Persuasion-based checks involving NPCs who are friendly towards him but disadvantage if they are hostile (DM's call).

 

[mellored]

There's no reason why it couldn't be balanced, mainly by not letting them have a class. And no reason you couldn't find stray pesants to follow you. (Though there should be a rule that they abandon you and tell of your betrayal if you don’t protect them, such as sending them to trigger traps).

However there's a spotlight difference between running an animal that doesn't talk, and a full extra intelligent personality. So there should probably be some rule about them only saying "yes sir" or something.

 

[TallIan]

I've only just started a character with a squire in 5e using the Knight variant of the PHB noble background. The squire obviously can't follow into a dungeon or whatever, but it's proving to be a nice RP addition to the character.

I've run similar set ups for a squire/servant/sherpa in other systems/editions (as a player and a GM) and it always works really well as a RP element.

As much as I like pet classes even familiar pets are far too easy to abuse, so having an intelligent "pet" I think would be really hard to balance.

As much as squires did get killed in battles, they weren't front line fighters, more like front line support. Holding spare weapons, keeping horses ready, puking injured knights of the front line. Certainly within stabbing distance of the enemy but not fighting unless absolutely necessary.

For an adventuring party I see a squire as much more of a camp guard. The party, with squire/servants/sherpa, rides thier mounts around the country until they find the Den of Evil. The heros go to smite the BBEG while the squire/servants/sherpas guard the horses, tents and other stuff.

Sent from my HTC One using Tapatalk

 

[Li Shenron]

I've just had a thought. I'm sure I'm not the first.

If we can have Beastmaster Rangers, why not Squire-master Paladins?

Oath of the Instructor

I find it a little odd that it seems we are happy with reckless animal-endangerment, but would feel bad about endangering a youth.

Or does it just pull away the curtain and make it too obvious that petmaster subclasses allow a player to play TWO characters, even if one is weak(-ish?). (I guess they are both, by themselves weak, but together should be balanced to other characters).

Would the "pet" being human (or other D&D race) cross a line?

I kind of like the idea. What do you think?

No.

Any attempt at baking a secondary character into a class is doomed to have problems.

The real question is not "If we can have Beastmaster Rangers, why not Squire-master Paladins?" but rather "If we can't have Squire-master Paladins, why Beastmaster Rangers?" The truth is, they should not have even tried it in the first place... just look at how much time they have been wasting trying to fix it in UA.

The best way to implement a secondary character is always as an NPC, and then let the DM make the principal decision of if/when to allow it, and how much the control of such NPC should be split between player and DM.

 

[Hussar]

No.

Any attempt at baking a secondary character into a class is doomed to have problems.

The real question is not "If we can have Beastmaster Rangers, why not Squire-master Paladins?" but rather "If we can't have Squire-master Paladins, why Beastmaster Rangers?" The truth is, they should not have even tried it in the first place... just look at how much time they have been wasting trying to fix it in UA.

The best way to implement a secondary character is always as an NPC, and then let the DM make the principal decision of if/when to allow it, and how much the control of such NPC should be split between player and DM.

This I'm not sure I agree with. There are fundamental differences between a "pet" and a "squire". The pet, for all intents and purposes, can't really act independently. It's not like you can send your pet wolf to the store to buy food. Additionally, the pet simply can't bring anywhere near the resources to the table that a classed individual can. The problem with the 3e Leadership feat was that your cohort was such a massive boost to the character that had it.

Or, to put it another way, your pet wolf isn't casting spells. But, there's no reason your squire might not be able to. Or feed you potions of healing if needed. Or whatever.

Pets are not hugely difficult to implement. Squires are much, much more difficult.