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

[TheCosmicKid]

If the character is to be focused on wearing heavy armor and hitting bad guys with edged weapons, that's a fighter.

If the character is to be focused on something else, then there is perhaps room for a distinct knight class.

So the question becomes: what is there to the concept of knighthood besides wearing heavy armor and hitting bad guys with edged weapons?

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.

 

[Winterthorn]

If the character is to be focused on wearing heavy armor and hitting bad guys with edged weapons, that's a fighter.

If the character is to be focused on something else, then there is perhaps room for a distinct knight class.

So the question becomes: what is there to the concept of knighthood besides wearing heavy armor and hitting bad guys with edged weapons?

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.

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.)

 

[Tony Vargas]

I've seen "Knight" being mentioned a few times and I would like to know what exactly makes a Knight, well a Knight?

I thought Knights were basically a status and they were identified by their wearing of full plate armour. I've never known Knights to have any sort of ability.

The Cavalier in 1e, the Knight in late 3.5, and the Knight in Essentials all got various abilities to try to make them more knightly or better at the sort of 'defend the weak' shtick.

Essentials presented two fighter sub-classes, the Slayer and the Knight. The 5e Champion is very similar to the Slayer, so a 5e Knight sub-class might look a lot like it's Essentials counterpart. Maybe not to the point of having a "Defender's Aura."

I also thought the Paladin was supposed to be the typical heroic knight in shining armour.

The empowered-by-God/divine-grace Galahad extreme of the knight in shining armor, yes.

What would a current 5th edition Knight class look like and what would be it's flavour/thing?

I'd expect it to harken back to the 1e-UA Cavalier, which was a full class, technically, that the Paladin was ret-conned to be a sub-class of instead of fighter. Most likely, though, it'd be a Fighter sub-class. The Cavalier got bonuses knightly weapons, mounted combat and access to custom heavy armors that absorbed hp damage.
Perhaps in 5e it would get a new Combat Style or other bonuses with Weapon & Shield or mounted combat? Maybe it'd even get a credible lance. :shrug:

Another possibility for a Knight would be a non-divine Oath (to serve a King, knightly Order or other cause, for instance), perhaps even giving you a non-casting paladin.

 

[Winterthorn]

Hmmm... the Knight as a non-casting Paladin subclass... Oath of Fealty!

 

[aramis erak]

I've seen "Knight" being mentioned a few times and I would like to know what exactly makes a Knight, well a Knight?

I thought Knights were basically a status and they were identified by their wearing of full plate armour. I've never known Knights to have any sort of ability. I also thought the Paladin was supposed to be the typical heroic knight in shining armour.

What would a current 5th edition Knight class look like and what would be it's flavour/thing?

Noble background, either Paladin or Fighter. Fighting style: Mounted or Sword-n-shield. Specialties within fighter would be champion or battlemaster, depending upon focus; Within Paladin, any.

Possibly also Ranger, but then the fighting style choices are mounted or two weapon, and beastmaster, with the war-mount being the beast-companion.

 

[TheCosmicKid]

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.)

Just terminologically speaking, "cavalier" to me says "mount specialist fighter subclass". My thinking may be shaped by 3E lance charge builds, but I associate that specific term with burst damage, not leadership. "Knight" places the emphasis on the character's social standing rather than battle tactics, and thus is more suited for the leadership class.

 

[Hussar]

A knight is just an example of a flavourful name that could be applied to a fighter build. A more "D&D" name might be the cavalier.
A theoretical cavalier would gain proficiency in Animal Handling and get a free horse. They'd gain potential abilities like being able to mount and dismount more quickly, reliably control their mount, and have the mount make an attack. They could have a bonus on damage or advantage on attack rolls when making a charge with a weapon such as a pike or lance. And the cavalier would likely be able to control and direct the mount in combat, even when not mounted.

There's a lot of potential for cool knightly powers related to being "the dude with a horse" that don't even overlap with the Mounted Combat feat, or even toeing into the territory of Pathfinder's cavalier. And I'm sure there's some other ideas from 1e's Unearthed Arcana that could be pulled for inspiration.

I've always preferred hussar to cavalier...

what? ;p

 

[Quickleaf]

From a fantasy/D&D perspective, and consistent with historical context, a Knight class would have to have the following attributes/equipment:

Mounted Combat Proficiency
Melee Combat Proficiency
Lance/Long Spear proficiency and Ability to Charge/Joust
Simple and Martial Weapons
All Armor and Shields
Not a Ranged Weapon Combatant
Possible Adherence to Chivalry, Definite Fealty to a Liege
A Liege Lord or Hedge Knight status
Own a horse or have a horse provided by a Liege
Own weapons and armor or provided by a Liege
Spurs

Nice summation.
[MENTION=6776548]Corpsetaker[/MENTION] I played a 3.5e knight (here) in a friend's game briefly. I wanted to play a fighter because I like fighters and the group needed a front-line guy, but the DM quickly directed me to the knight class instead because "fighters suck in this edition."

I played a knight errant - so no liege lord - but all the rest of the stuff on this list were part of it. Other things that were essential to capturing the feel, for me, were:

Issuing a challenge and having it carry weight
Hard for enemies to get by me
Good with a shield & able to shield others
Resistant to charm and fear effects

 

[Hriston]

Looking back at the 1E Cavalier, I find it striking how much EGG still seemed to conceive of the game as a form of Chainmail without minis. Particularly I'm talking about the order in which the Cavalier is compelled to attack certain targets in "battle-type" situations. This, of course, hearkens back to the obedience check that would be made for Knight figures in Chainmail if they were in the presence of a Knight on the opposing side. If the check was failed, the Knight would go charging off to fight the other Knight, or slay the Dragon, or whatever, no matter what the player controlling him wanted him to do.

I can't imagine what how players of Paladin characters must have reacted to the DM telling them that their character, now subsumed into the Cavalier class, was going to go off and attack something without the player's consent.

I didn't expect to see something like this still included as late as UA.

 

[Staffan]

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.