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

[TheCosmicKid]

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

I can't help but get the impression that you're more interested in proving that you're the most historically knowledgeable poster in the thread than you are in actually addressing what people are saying. But I'm not challenging your historical knowledge. And I didn't say what you think I said, either. I did not say that all knights were noble -- I said that the concept of knighthood connoted rank and status. And I did not say that all knights were leaders -- I said that if, if, there is to be a distinct "knight" class, then leadership is the next most prominent theme to give it, since "armed combat expert" is amply covered by the fighter class.

Not all historical barbarians were massively muscled berserkers, either. But the "barbarian" class is, because it's a common association in the popular consciousness and also a distinctive mechanical identity the game can work with. If you want to make a barbarian character who doesn't rage, you don't have to use the "barbarian" class to do it. Why should the "knight" class function any differently?

And no, I'm not going to follow a forty-three-page thread in order to have a conversation on a four-page thread. I'm sorry if this requires you to repeat some points you've made, but I don't think that's as unduly burdensome for you as the reverse would be unduly burdensome for me. And frankly, I don't see how the particular post you linked is all that relevant to this conversation, so perhaps rephrasing what you think is important about it to fit this thread's context could actually do your case some good.

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

I have a hard time reconciling the concept of "knight" with a full arcane spellcasting progression and abilities like "Jack of all Trades".

 

[El Mahdi]

I can't help but get the impression that you're more interested in proving that you're the most historically knowledgeable poster in the thread than you are in actually addressing what people are saying.

I'm not trying to prove anything other than one cannot divorce the cultural and narrative roots of the knight from the concept of a knight class...period.

And I'm pretty sure I've said that more than once.

Any other impressions are simply an attempt at mind-reading. Something that never turns out well as concerns internet forums.

As to Barbarians: just because one class is designed badly, doesn't mean we have to perpetuate those same mistakes with another.

And no, I'm not going to follow a forty-three-page thread in order to have a conversation on a four-page thread. I'm sorry if this requires you to repeat some points you've made, but I don't think that's as unduly burdensome for you as the reverse would be unduly burdensome for me. And frankly, I don't see how the particular post you linked is all that relevant to this conversation, so perhaps rephrasing what you think is important about it to fit this thread's context could actually do your case some good.

The post I linked is self-explanatory, and right in the middle of the relevant portions of the thread. I'm not going to drag the Warlord discussion into this thread. It belongs right where it is. If you don't want to read it, that's fine. However it does make clear why the Warlord has nothing to do with a default aspect of Knights.

Leadership as an option for Knights? Yes. Leadership as a defining element of a Knight class? Absolutely not.

If you're unable to understand the context of what I linked to on your own, my explaining it would be an exercise in futility.


Cheers

 

[TheCosmicKid]

I'm not trying to prove anything other than one cannot divorce the cultural and narrative roots of the knight from the concept of a knight class...period.

You say "cannot", and yet the barbarian apparently did. You say the barbarian was designed "badly", and yet it is a popular and generally accepted element of the D&D canon. Do you have better reasoning than "I personally do not like it because it offends my historical sensibilities"? Why would this be bad game design?

(And if you dislike the barbarian, what must you think of the bard, cleric, druid, monk, and paladin? How many classes have to demonstrate extremely loose historicity before you recognize that this is an extremely loosely historical game?)

The post I linked is self-explanatory, and right in the middle of the relevant portions of the thread. I'm not going to drag the Warlord discussion into this thread. It belongs right where it is. If you don't want to read it, that's fine. However it does make clear why the Warlord has nothing to do with a default aspect of Knights.

Leadership as an option for Knights? Yes. Leadership as a defining element of a Knight class? Absolutely not.

If you're unable to understand the context of what I linked to on your own, my explaining it would be an exercise in futility.

As you have astutely noted, I am not a mind-reader. Thus, what is obvious to you may not be obvious to me. In that post I see a well-thought-out set of basic design principles for "leader" class mechanics. What I do not see is any discussion of how these principles do or do not connect to the fantasy character archetype of "knight". The word "knight" is literally never used -- in fact, there is no discussion of the flavor side of the class at all. Which is fine given the context on that thread, but it's also why I don't understand its relevance here. As far as I'm able to discern, I could embrace every one of the design principles you enumerate, write a class, and call it a "knight", and there's nothing in that post telling me I'd be doing anything wrong.

 

[Quickleaf]

D&D demonstrates loose historiocity? Nobody told me!

So, maybe part of the question is how we seem to be conflating 3 distinct D&D archetypes: Cavalier, Marshal/Warlord, and Knight. While in real life history that may be significant overlap between some of these, in D&D they each have a particular niche (whether as a class, sub-class, or something else).

Cavalier - honorable mounted warrior
Marshal/Warlord - leading/"healing" warrior
Knight - oath of fealty defending/challenging warrior

 

[El Mahdi]

Cavalier - honorable mounted warrior
Marshal/Warlord - leading/"healing" warrior
Knight - oath of fealty defending/challenging warrior

Close.

If we use Cavalier as a generic class name for Mounted Warrior/Cavalry, then the honorable part should be disregarded. Especially as Hussars were often considered less than honorable, and they are also Cavaliers (by what seems to be the agreed upon definition of the thread - I don't agree, but I don't have a better alternative).

Also, Warlord is not necessarily a Warrior. A more accurate description is a Leader with inspiration based healing that possesses some Martial Ability. Any class can be a Warlord. (From the aforementioned thread that seems to be too much for some to handle...)
[MENTION=996]Tony Vargas[/MENTION] described it best. Basically, the Warlord doesn't hit the enemy himself, he hits the enemy with another party member. A Warlord enables/facilitates the actions of other characters, and motivates/inspires them to stay in the fight.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Close.

If we use Cavalier as a generic class name for Mounted Warrior/Cavalry, then the honorable part should be disregarded. Especially as Hussars were often considered less than honorable, and they are also Cavaliers (by what seems to be the agreed upon definition of the thread - I don't agree, but I don't have a better alternative).

It would be sensible, though not very flavorful, to separate the honorable Knightly aspect from the mounted-combat cavalry aspect.

Also, Warlord is not necessarily a Warrior. A more accurate description is a Leader with inspiration based healing that possesses some Martial Ability. Any class can be a Warlord. (From the aforementioned thread that seems to be too much for some to handle...)

The original concept was necessarily a warrior. Fans took one build to an extreme that allowed you to get away with not being a warrior, though, and it'd be cool if 5e still allowed that. No, any class cannot be a Warlord, not anymore than any class can be a Cleric or Rogue or anything else that's worthy of a full class. Any character might mix in some Warlord, though, via MCing or other options. 5e does have feats and backgrounds that lift a little of a given class, and Inspiring Leader might be like one of those feats for the Warlord, and 5e does have hybrid (sub)classes in lieu of multi-classing, like the EK, and you might have sub-classes that are as much warlords as an EK is a wizard, for instance.

[MENTION=996]Tony Vargas[/MENTION] described it best. Basically, the Warlord doesn't hit the enemy himself, he hits the enemy with another party member. A Warlord enables/facilitates the actions of other characters, and motivates/inspires them to stay in the fight.

That's not mine, it's an old one, I have no idea who came up with it. Some Warlords, though, did the 'lead by example' thing and were competent warriors, though no match for a fighter or barbarian.

 

[Quickleaf]

Close.

If we use Cavalier as a generic class name for Mounted Warrior/Cavalry, then the honorable part should be disregarded. Especially as Hussars were often considered less than honorable, and they are also Cavaliers (by what seems to be the agreed upon definition of the thread - I don't agree, but I don't have a better alternative).

Also, Warlord is not necessarily a Warrior. A more accurate description is a Leader with inspiration based healing that possesses some Martial Ability. Any class can be a Warlord. (From the aforementioned thread that seems to be too much for some to handle...)

[MENTION=996]Tony Vargas[/MENTION] described it best. Basically, the Warlord doesn't hit the enemy himself, he hits the enemy with another party member. A Warlord enables/facilitates the actions of other characters, and motivates/inspires them to stay in the fight.

I was speaking historically in terms of how these archetypes have been handled in D&D.

You're speaking proscriptively, about how you think they should be handled.

It's different.

 

[TheCosmicKid]

Also, Warlord is not necessarily a Warrior.

Neither is a knight necessarily a warrior. Notwithstanding the Elder Scrolls series, I am unaware that Sir Elton John has ever held a sword. You may object that he is a ridiculous example, but I assure you I'm being serious. Think about it: if the actual British monarchy does not see any problem with bestowing an actual order of knighthood on a man like Sir Elton, how much more ridiculous must we be, if we insist that the label of "knight" in a make-believe game must hew so closely to its historical roots? (Or is the modern institution of knighthood just "poorly designed" too?)

And what of those historical roots? After all, it's not just modern knights like Sir Elton John. Historically, knighthoods were bestowed upon military commanders and other prominent political figures all the time. The rank was fundamentally military in nature, I'm certainly not disputing that, and given the times most would have known their way around arms and armor. So in that broad sense you could say that all knights are "warriors". But using that same broad sense, wouldn't all warlords be "warriors" too? If you mean something more specific by "warrior" like "in-your-face personal butt-kicker", this does not match up with all warlords, but surely it doesn't match up with all historical knights either.

Any class can be a Warlord.

As Tony Vargas said, this makes no sense when discussing the warlord as a distinct class.

It would be sensible, though not very flavorful, to separate the honorable Knightly aspect from the mounted-combat cavalry aspect.

The first objection I'd foresee to this would be that, if we accept that both of these aspects combine to create the "knight" character archetype, it's weird to have to multiclass to arrive at this archetype. Especially since 5E multiclassing is an optional rule.

 

[Tony Vargas]

The first objection I'd foresee to this would be that, if we accept that both of these aspects combine to create the "knight" character archetype, it's weird to have to multiclass to arrive at this archetype. Especially since 5E multiclassing is an optional rule.

I'd assume it'd be something like making a Cavalier or Cavalry or something sub-class, that gets the Mounted-Combat goodies, then taking a Noble or specific Knight background to be a Knight, or Soldier Background or custom Lancer, Hussar background, or whatever...