Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Bluenose" data-source="post: 6677610" data-attributes="member: 49017">Some fairly culturally stereotyped ones their, though that's not necessarily a bad thing. Your 'desert' cavalryman (not the elite ghulam cavalry recruited from the steppes) was also a lancer, I'll note. If you want to include some others, 'aristocratic' cavalry from the steppe cultures are primarily bow and various hand weapons; the Sassanids are bow and mace; Chakars are lance and bow; Rathors are lance and axe.Anyway, in D&amp;D tradition how you'd do a 'Knight' class could vary. As the mounted combat specialist it might be like the various Cavalier class/kits/sub-classes that have existed, with bonuses to fighting mounted and other small benefits. Or it might be a class that manages aggro, encouraging or directly forcing enemies to engage it as the 3e/4e versions did without any particular reference to mounted combat. Status is probably more easily derived from a background, though.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Bluenose, post: 6677610, member: 49017"] Some fairly culturally stereotyped ones their, though that's not necessarily a bad thing. Your 'desert' cavalryman (not the elite ghulam cavalry recruited from the steppes) was also a lancer, I'll note. If you want to include some others, 'aristocratic' cavalry from the steppe cultures are primarily bow and various hand weapons; the Sassanids are bow and mace; Chakars are lance and bow; Rathors are lance and axe. Anyway, in D&D tradition how you'd do a 'Knight' class could vary. As the mounted combat specialist it might be like the various Cavalier class/kits/sub-classes that have existed, with bonuses to fighting mounted and other small benefits. Or it might be a class that manages aggro, encouraging or directly forcing enemies to engage it as the 3e/4e versions did without any particular reference to mounted combat. Status is probably more easily derived from a background, though. [/QUOTE]

Verification