D&D 5E (2014) What would a current "Knight" class look like?

[Ahrimon]

Make a mounted combat weapon style for the paladin, fighter, and ranger. Done.

Everything else is just mechanics for the special snowflake syndrome IMO.

 

[Corpsetaker]

From a mechanical standpoint, the most important thing to add to a "Mounted warrior" class or subclass is some sort of mount symbiosis. Being on a mount should provide significant bonuses, and also some significant protections to the mount.

One of the weird things about D&D is that hit points escalate pretty quickly. A fighter will probably get about 7 hp per level, including Con bonus. But a war horse's hit points stay stuck at 19 - one good fireball and it's dead. That's one of the main issues with just using existing rules to build knights - there's nothing that gives the mount any survivability. So any mounted warrior class will need something to handle that, perhaps using the Beastmaster's defensive (but probably not offensive) bonuses to the mount.

But all of that ignores another important issue abut the mounted warrior, and that's that the typical D&D character spends a lot of time in dungeons and other environments where horses (and other mounts) are impractical. This is essentially a variant of the discussion we had about the ranger and what bonuses they should get for favored enemy and/or terrain - if those bonuses are significant in combat, they will either be overpowered in the right circumstance, underpowered in the wrong, or both.

Well with the Mounted Combat feat the horse as the option of taking no damage if it is effected by something that grants a dex saving throw. Also the feat allows the rider to become the subject of an attack instead of the horse.

 

[steeldragons]

I would argue we do have game mechanic precedent from the Beastmaster's animal companion (going off memory, so apologies if this isn't exactly right, but the gist is...) add the [cavalier's] proficiency modifier to the mount's AC, HP max. and attack & damage rolls. Gains an increasing AC, increasing HP max...could modify that to just ad to the animal's actual HP as well...doesn't/wouldn't strike me as OPed. And/or the HP max thing is something like the mount[animal companion] gets their normal max + cavalier's[ranger's] prof bonus OR 4 X the [ranger's]cavalier's level, "whichever is higher." So, as the cav increases in levels, the mount would gain higher HPs/be able to stay on its feet a little longer.

Undoubtedly, no matter what you do, the poor thing's going to need healing somewhere along the way. Which is why both my cavalier subclass and my ranger [beastmaster] rewrites include a feature that lets the master use their HD to heal [at least partially] the animal/mount during rests.

 

[mlund]

Implementing a Knight class is more trouble than it is worth. There's never been an implementation as a stand-alone class the really satisfied more than a particular niche of people.

• If you build the knight as a mounted combat specialist you've created a niche class. You run into the "can't fit a warhorse into a dungeon crawl" problem. You wind up creating oddball rules to magically prevent the bane of the knight's tactics (getting his horse cut out from under him). You even run into historical problems if you over specialize, since very little of a knight's time was actually spent doing battle from the saddle.
• If you build the knight as a "taunt" warrior you wind up creating a worse niche for the Fighter and you'll get people freaking out online about "non-magical magical mind-control," or the abilities wind up being trash.
• You can't build the classic Cavalier (AD&D Unearthed Arcana) in this sort of addition. The idea of a "better fighter with more stat requirements" doesn't fit modern design.

5th Edition already handled the Knight role will as a combination of Background and the Fighter class. If you find yourself getting a large number of heavily armored warriors into shock formation on horses ... well that's what rulings are for.

 

[El Mahdi]

I've always preferred hussar to cavalier...

what? ;p

I can't imagine why...


Seriously though, Hussars were not Knights (cavaliers/chevaliers).

They were light cavalry meant for skirmishing and scouting. They didn't use charging tactics, but instead used hit and run attacks. They were not trained in the lancer (though light/small spear wasn't out of the question), they were lightly armored, and they used bows from horseback.

In response to @Corpsetaker and others, historical context does mean mechanical differences. You can't just slap a name on something then make whatever mechanics you want and consider it a done deal. Historical context and mechanics can't be divorced without the concept losing all meaning except as purely a mechanical construct...whether one cares for history or not. Even from a purely fantasy aspect, it still matters.

But since D&D is fantasy, this could be any form of mounted combat and any culture. Sticking to just European historical definitions is a silly thing in a game with elves and mages.

One culture could have mounted archer knights modelled like Hunnic and Mongolian ones.
Another could have chariot knights with a squire steering and the knight chucking spears.
Another could have discovered guns but due rarity or expense, only the mounted knights used them.
And other would have giant warbeast cavalier knights with ballistas mounted on them.

But all that matters is the mount.

Knight means a very specific cultural group of heavy cavalry. Knight as a class name only works, even in a silly game of elves and mages, if said fantasy is Eurocentric. If not, the word loses all meaning. And, all that matters is most certainly not the mount.

Knights are specifically European heavy cavalry, and not all heavy cavalry are Knights.

If the goal is to model any type of mounted combatant, then the class name cannot be Knight. Instead, the class is Cavalry or Mounted Warrior. Then make subclasses/archetypes for the different types:

Knight - European Heavy Cavalry, Feudal Fealty, Chivalry (not consistent across all historical periods, but consistent with romantic fantasy) - heavy chargers (lance), shield, heavy armor.

Samurai - Japanese Light Cavalry (though irregular and poorly organized as a unit), Feudal Fealty, Code of Honor; non-charging skirmishers trained in sword, melee polearms (again, non-charging), and mounted archery (daikyu/hankyu) - medium to heavy armor, no shields - Bushi-Samurai were later-period swordsmen following Bushido (though Bushido is a relatively modern term), and not cavalry/mounted warriors

Hussar - Eastern European (Hungarian/Magyar) irregular Light Cavalry, no code (actually considered rather unscrupulous) trained in skirmishing with saber, axes, and mounted combat with small composite bows (consistent with Mongol and Turkish Light Cavalry) - light armor, no shields - occasionally spears (not lance)

Stradioti - European Light Cavalry - some charging skills (small and medium spears) but primarily skirmishers and scouts - non-archery cavalry - light to medium armor, no shields - occasionally spears (but no lance) - socially and militarily not knights, yet medieval European mounted warriors

Cataphracts - Byzantine Heavy and Light Cavalry (died out around the 1200's) - middle-class landowners - heavy cataphracts (clibanarii) were very similar to European knights (excepting social status): heavy armor, lances, shield - light cataphracts were very similar to Persian light cavalry: light armor, non-chargers, no shields, mounted archery (unlike European knights)

Faris - Saracen Cavalry - a mix of heavy and light cavalry - trained in the charge and skirmishing, using the spear both for charging and close melee - medium to heavy armor - shields - individual training in mounted archery (trained more for individual targets rather than organized volleys) - followed a code and standard of training similar to Chivalry called Furusiya

And there are certainly more out there...

And the first answer that springs to my mind is status, rank, leadership.

In other words, I think what we're talking about here is the elusive 5E warlord by another name.

Absolutely not.

Not all Knights were Noble.

Not all Knights were leaders. All Warlords are leaders. Not all Warlords are Warriors.

Knight most certainly does not equal Warlord.

For more, follow this conversation - Warlording the fighter , and especially here

 

[steeldragons]

And the word that comes up over and over, using @El Mahdi 's historic fighter types, the word that comes up over an over is "Cavalry"...which, incidentally, is not a class name, but a military style or position-with-the-armed-forces name, the word you're looking for, of a person...who is a member of the cavalry...is...wait for it...Cavalier. THAT is your class/subclass name.

If you want "a knight", add or homebrew the Knight background. If you want a "samurai" analogue in your fantasy, put them in light armor and flavor your longsword or scimitar as a "katana" with the finesse trait. If you want a Mongolian, Saracen or "hussar", use whatever armor, bows, and other appropriate weapons...But they're all cavaliers [i.e. members of the cavalry].

 

[Mercule]

And the first answer that springs to my mind is status, rank, leadership.

In other words, I think what we're talking about here is the elusive 5E warlord by another name.

Disagree. What we're talking about is a Valor Bard with noble or soldier background. Maybe pick up heavy armor or mounted combat at 4th level. Or, start as a Fighter and switch to Bard at 2nd. Granted, it's a bit of a hack, but as elusive as the definition of "knight" seems to be, it's a lot better than spinning up a new class that would literally steal 90% of it's stuff from an existing multiclass combination.

That assumes that you're using feats and multiclass rules, though. Also, if you're running a "Round Table" game, I could see wanting the chevalier as a pre-built package. That seems ideally suited to something for Dragon Magazine (or Unearthed Arcana, as the case may be) as an official variant that isn't necessarily as official as a hard-cover book. Is that non-committal enough?

Bingo! In reading this thread I was starting to think the same thing. Perhaps the Knight/Cavalier as subclass of Warlord? (The warlord doesn't seem to automatically assume skill or role as cavalry, but knights are almost always cavalry of some kind.)

I'd rather see Warlord as a subclass of Fighter that works a lot like Eldritch Knight, but borrows from the Bard, rather than the Wizard. A Cavalier definitely seems like it would be a good Fighter subclass.

But a war horse's hit points stay stuck at 19 - one good fireball and it's dead. That's one of the main issues with just using existing rules to build knights - there's nothing that gives the mount any survivability.

This is probably the biggest argument for having some way to deal with mounts. I don't really want to see that restricted to just a specific class/subclass because I'd like the Hun Barbarian to be able to get roughly as much use out of his horse as the Cavalier Fighter or a dedicated Cavalier class.

But all of that ignores another important issue abut the mounted warrior, and that's that the typical D&D character spends a lot of time in dungeons and other environments where horses (and other mounts) are impractical. This is essentially a variant of the discussion we had about the ranger and what bonuses they should get for favored enemy and/or terrain - if those bonuses are significant in combat, they will either be overpowered in the right circumstance, underpowered in the wrong, or both.

And, this is the biggest argument against worrying about it too much for a standard game. It would be nice, though, if it got enough attention that there was at least a framework for improving mounts. Looking at the DMG for creating/modifying critters, my simple solution might be to have a feat that allowed a character to add hit dice to a specific mount based on the character level (basically, when the character is above the CR of the mount, the mount gets additional HD). I wouldn't worry too much about upping the damage, but could see an argument for something about once per "tier". Only one mount at a time can benefit from this (assume ongoing training) and possibly only when it was within sight of the PC (not sure about that -- leaving the warhorse on guard duty is a genre staple). If the character replaced his mount, he'd have to work with the new mount for, say, one week per level he was trying to bridge (7th level Bard training his warhorse spends 7 weeks). That's probably horribly broken in some way, but it's something.

 

[Quickleaf]

5th Edition already handled the Knight role will as a combination of Background and the Fighter class. If you find yourself getting a large number of heavily armored warriors into shock formation on horses ... well that's what rulings are for.

While I agree that making a Knight class is probably overkill, I think the concept could merit a fighter sub-class. Why?

1. First, there's legacy. Look back at BD&D and the 3 specializations you could take as a fighter were Paladin, Avenger, and Knight (the latter being the only one not covered by the 5e Paladin). In 2e/3e there were Knights of Solamnia classes and Knight character kits/prestige classes. It's an archetype that appeals to people.

2. Second, the 3.5e Knight class (and to a lesser extent the 4e Essential Knight) introduced class abilities that were flavorful and are not replicable thru other means in 5th edition -- charging/jousting/mounted combat proficiency, challenges, hard for enemies to bypass, able to shield others, resistant to charm and fear.

3. Third, there are ways to handle challenges that won't get the "non-magical mind-control! non-magical mind control" brigade's panties in a bunch.

4. Fourth, conceptually such a character could have the Noble background, but not necessarily. Say the sub-class is called the Banner Knight. Others (NPCs or PCs of any class) may gain knighthood thru birthright or as a gift from a monarch, but the Banner Knight lives and breathes his oath of fealty whether he came into it because of his station or because his knighthood was earned in the field of battle.

 

[cmad1977]

If I were going to build a knight class it would look like the fighter.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Disagree. What we're talking about is a Valor Bard with noble or soldier background.

Knights, even in legend, were not exactly known for casting arcane spells every day. Perhaps singing or composing poetry or some other such accomplishment, because that sort of thing was expected of nobles, of course.

I'd rather see Warlord as a subclass of Fighter that works a lot like Eldritch Knight, but borrows from the Bard, rather than the Wizard.

Warlords also not known for casting arcane spells. Not particularly into the entertainment industry, either.

And, this is the biggest argument against worrying about it too much for a standard game.

That standard game is set in stone, so it's not an issue.