Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Mercule" data-source="post: 6677627" data-attributes="member: 5100">It depends on your definition of &quot;knight&quot;.The whole historic knights were Fighters bit has already been touched on. I could even see early knights being statted as Barbarians, since many Roman and Roman-wannabe rulers of the early Medieval period (a.k.a. Dark Ages) used Germanic brutes as their elite troops and bodyguards and the heaviest armor to see much real use would have been &quot;medium armor&quot;, in D&amp;D terms. It was also the &quot;barbaric&quot; Germans who first used the stirrup in Europe to school the Byzantines (some controversy may exist, but that's what I was taught).If you want the stalwart hero who excels in skill at arms and can lead troops of men, then I'd go with either flavor of mundane Fighter. Give him the soldier background and call it a day. If he's exceptionally inspiring, make him a Paladin of Devotion. If he's real salt of the earth, use peasant hero Fighter.For Lancelot, use a Paladin of Devotion with the noble (knight) background. Various other flavors of high-chivalry knights could be created by combining the Fighter, Paladin, or even the Cleric classes with the acolyte, noble, sage, or soldier.The (positively) romanticized Knights Templar or other crusaders could be done with the Cleric (which is specifically called out in the 1E PHB as &quot;bear[ing] a certain resemblance to religious orders of knighthood of medieval times&quot;).For others (green knight, avenging knight, etc.), the description of the various Paladin oaths are littered with the word &quot;knight&quot;. For that reason, it has the best claim to being the class of knights. Really, though, I think it very, very much depends on the definition you have of the word &quot;knight&quot;. I don't think there's any reason to create another class or subclass explicitly for knights, though.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Mercule, post: 6677627, member: 5100"] It depends on your definition of "knight". The whole historic knights were Fighters bit has already been touched on. I could even see early knights being statted as Barbarians, since many Roman and Roman-wannabe rulers of the early Medieval period (a.k.a. Dark Ages) used Germanic brutes as their elite troops and bodyguards and the heaviest armor to see much real use would have been "medium armor", in D&D terms. It was also the "barbaric" Germans who first used the stirrup in Europe to school the Byzantines (some controversy may exist, but that's what I was taught). If you want the stalwart hero who excels in skill at arms and can lead troops of men, then I'd go with either flavor of mundane Fighter. Give him the soldier background and call it a day. If he's exceptionally inspiring, make him a Paladin of Devotion. If he's real salt of the earth, use peasant hero Fighter. For Lancelot, use a Paladin of Devotion with the noble (knight) background. Various other flavors of high-chivalry knights could be created by combining the Fighter, Paladin, or even the Cleric classes with the acolyte, noble, sage, or soldier. The (positively) romanticized Knights Templar or other crusaders could be done with the Cleric (which is specifically called out in the 1E PHB as "bear[ing] a certain resemblance to religious orders of knighthood of medieval times"). For others (green knight, avenging knight, etc.), the description of the various Paladin oaths are littered with the word "knight". For that reason, it has the best claim to being the class of knights. Really, though, I think it very, very much depends on the definition you have of the word "knight". I [U]don't[/U] think there's any reason to create another class or subclass explicitly for knights, though. [/QUOTE]

Verification