Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Sadrik" data-source="post: 6296761" data-attributes="member: 14506">I don't agree with this. I think it is inferred that a low level knight might be a squire or he is simply a knight in training and he has not necessarily been "knighted" yet. That concept may not even exists in d&d. I think it more projects the tropes of heavily armored warrior with a shield and sword and lance and perhaps more adherence to duty than a typical soldier.This can also be conceptually applied to every background. A background is not just what they did prior to adventuring and then their class takes over, it is not your level 0, it is what they do now and in the future too. So the term "background" may not be entirely right. Naming convention for a background should be what they become and not call them what they are at low level. Call it a knight and a priest because they will eventually be there. Much better than a squire and an acolyteThe priest vs. the acolyte, I can see them both existing. Why can only one of them exist anyway? One other thing about backgrounds, I think settings can really be were backgrounds can shine. The backgrounds in Dark Sun vs the backgrounds in Eberon can be quite different with very little overlap. This is why I really like backgrounds. The plurality can exist without fundamentally changing the basics of the game.</blockquote>