Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Wik" data-source="post: 6677612" data-attributes="member: 40177">If we're looking a the subject as a knight class, I'd actually prefer something like &quot;mounted warrior&quot;.&nbsp; The fact is, knighthood is pretty limited in what it represents, and a class, as defined in D&amp;D, should be much more broad&nbsp; But a mounted warrior would represent roman equites, persian immortals, japanese samurai, as well as fantasy versions like dwarven boar riders, elven pegasus knights, and more.&nbsp; Ideally, I'd prefer the &quot;knight&quot; to be a subclass of fighter, where i think it makes more sense.&nbsp; But since we're asking for a knight &quot;class&quot;, here's my take on the subject, from a GAME DESIGN approach, and not a historical one.&nbsp; I can take history until I'm blue in the face.&nbsp; *&nbsp; Mounted abilities.&nbsp; I would argue against having a specific animal companion, but instead have the class grant abilities to the mount.&nbsp; The ability to prevent the mount from taking damage should be a big one.&nbsp; I'd say &quot;While mounted, your mount uses your defences, and any save it makes uses either your saving throw bonus or it's own, whichever is higher.&nbsp; In addition, while mounted, your mount has resistance to all damage.&quot;Having some neat mounted tricks would also be helpful.&nbsp; The ability to call your mount with a whistle, for example.&nbsp; Since 5e lacks a ride skill, there shouldn't be too many checks to do any of this stuff.&nbsp; It should just happen.&nbsp; Plus, a knight should never really fail a common ride check.&nbsp; I played one in PF who couldn't even regularly pass the ride check to quickly saddle his horse because his armour check penalty was so high.&nbsp; Despite maxing out ride.&nbsp; Not cool. *&nbsp; Some sort of combat ability on a charge.&nbsp; Double damage on lance attacks makes sense for a knight.&nbsp; Roman Equites threw javelins and harried foes.&nbsp; Parthian light cavalry would get close, shoot their bows, and then shoot their bows again as they retreated (the fabled &quot;Parthian shot&quot;, now known as a &quot;Parting shot&quot;).&nbsp; So, since we're going for a class approach, this combat ability while mounted would be tied to a subclass.&nbsp; *&nbsp; A social ability.&nbsp; Most mounted cavalry had a social aspect to it.&nbsp; They got higher pay in the army, at the very least.&nbsp; Even today, if you're in the &quot;Cav&quot; in the army, which usually just means you ride a helicopter regularly, you tend to have bragging rights over the &quot;groundpounders&quot;.&nbsp; And that's nothing compared to how it USED to be, where all knights were functionally officers and had an entirely different social scene to look forward to outside of battle.&nbsp; I liked the idea above of tying different subclasses to different &quot;mental attributes&quot;.&nbsp; It's nice, and something I'd steal as well.&nbsp; These social abilities would work well as &quot;ribbons&quot; tied to a subclass.&nbsp; They shouldn't be big.&nbsp; I'd also give them some sort of artisan's tools skill.&nbsp; Samurai liked Calligraphy, and knights liked poetry, for example.&nbsp; *&nbsp; Fighting Style.&nbsp; I'd allow protection, archery, defence, and duelling.&nbsp; *&nbsp; Mental toughness.&nbsp; Advantage on saving throws versus the frightened condition.&nbsp; Knights need it.&nbsp; In my own homebrewed 3e rules, I let fighters and warrior types to use their constitution instead of wisdom on all saves versus fear.&nbsp; It worked nicely.&nbsp; *&nbsp; Fantasy allowances&nbsp; D&amp;D is a fantasy game, so I'd make sure the class isn't tied too much to history.&nbsp; Allow aerial knights, for example, and realize that the number one character you'll actually see in play is a halfling or gnome mounted on a medium size mount so they can still go into dungeons.&nbsp; Realize that this is going to happen, and be okay with it.&nbsp; *&nbsp; Dungeon ability.&nbsp; Make sure that the character is alright when not on his mount, but don't turn him into a fighter.&nbsp; The idea of one on one combat is an ice one.&nbsp; Maybe &quot;While not mounted, if you are in base to base with a foe that has not been targeted by an ally's attack is not adjacent to any other characters besides yourself, you have advantage on all attack rolls&quot; or something like that.&nbsp; Subclasses:I'd go for three.&nbsp; The Medieval Knight, the Aerial Knight (featherfall at will!), and the Mounted Archer.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Wik, post: 6677612, member: 40177"] If we're looking a the subject as a knight class, I'd actually prefer something like "mounted warrior". The fact is, knighthood is pretty limited in what it represents, and a class, as defined in D&D, should be much more broad But a mounted warrior would represent roman equites, persian immortals, japanese samurai, as well as fantasy versions like dwarven boar riders, elven pegasus knights, and more. Ideally, I'd prefer the "knight" to be a subclass of fighter, where i think it makes more sense. But since we're asking for a knight "class", here's my take on the subject, from a GAME DESIGN approach, and not a historical one. I can take history until I'm blue in the face. * Mounted abilities. I would argue against having a specific animal companion, but instead have the class grant abilities to the mount. The ability to prevent the mount from taking damage should be a big one. I'd say "While mounted, your mount uses your defences, and any save it makes uses either your saving throw bonus or it's own, whichever is higher. In addition, while mounted, your mount has resistance to all damage." Having some neat mounted tricks would also be helpful. The ability to call your mount with a whistle, for example. Since 5e lacks a ride skill, there shouldn't be too many checks to do any of this stuff. It should just happen. Plus, a knight should never really fail a common ride check. I played one in PF who couldn't even regularly pass the ride check to quickly saddle his horse because his armour check penalty was so high. Despite maxing out ride. Not cool. * Some sort of combat ability on a charge. Double damage on lance attacks makes sense for a knight. Roman Equites threw javelins and harried foes. Parthian light cavalry would get close, shoot their bows, and then shoot their bows again as they retreated (the fabled "Parthian shot", now known as a "Parting shot"). So, since we're going for a class approach, this combat ability while mounted would be tied to a subclass. * A social ability. Most mounted cavalry had a social aspect to it. They got higher pay in the army, at the very least. Even today, if you're in the "Cav" in the army, which usually just means you ride a helicopter regularly, you tend to have bragging rights over the "groundpounders". And that's nothing compared to how it USED to be, where all knights were functionally officers and had an entirely different social scene to look forward to outside of battle. I liked the idea above of tying different subclasses to different "mental attributes". It's nice, and something I'd steal as well. These social abilities would work well as "ribbons" tied to a subclass. They shouldn't be big. I'd also give them some sort of artisan's tools skill. Samurai liked Calligraphy, and knights liked poetry, for example. * Fighting Style. I'd allow protection, archery, defence, and duelling. * Mental toughness. Advantage on saving throws versus the frightened condition. Knights need it. In my own homebrewed 3e rules, I let fighters and warrior types to use their constitution instead of wisdom on all saves versus fear. It worked nicely. * Fantasy allowances D&D is a fantasy game, so I'd make sure the class isn't tied too much to history. Allow aerial knights, for example, and realize that the number one character you'll actually see in play is a halfling or gnome mounted on a medium size mount so they can still go into dungeons. Realize that this is going to happen, and be okay with it. * Dungeon ability. Make sure that the character is alright when not on his mount, but don't turn him into a fighter. The idea of one on one combat is an ice one. Maybe "While not mounted, if you are in base to base with a foe that has not been targeted by an ally's attack is not adjacent to any other characters besides yourself, you have advantage on all attack rolls" or something like that. Subclasses: I'd go for three. The Medieval Knight, the Aerial Knight (featherfall at will!), and the Mounted Archer. [/QUOTE]

Verification