Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="W'rkncacnter" data-source="post: 9365902" data-attributes="member: 7033455">ignoring the suboptimal comment because we've been here all day about it, you didn't specify a non-combat priority as a criteria. if you wanted it to be one, you should have specified as such, and i would have accounted for it. but not only that, you went ahead and picked a subclass that has exactly 1 non-combat feature to make your character that you don't want to be combat focused?and also, knights fought. that's like...the entire reason they existed. they were fighting nobility. a warrior class. how are you going to make a knight without caring about combat at all?but again, you're making a knight fighter. that's most of what you do.the banneret has good persuasion and possibly proficiency in one bonus skill that any fighter can start with (aside from performance, which...doesn't feel particularly knightly to me if i'm being honest). that's it.just because they don't literally have "knight" in the name doesn't mean you can't play them as knights (and vice versa). i mean, do you think the only possible way to play a samurai is to play a samurai fighter? kensei monk players would like a word with you... so does the battlemaster. namely student of war, know your enemy, commanding presence, and tactical assessment.ignoring for a moment that samurai were effectively the japanese equivalent of knights (yes i know they're not the same don't blow up on me about it)...you can play the subclass like a knight. nothing is stopping you but yourself.and okay, maybe you're not comfortable with that because you think "samurai" carries an overly heavy cultural connotation. i can get that...but there's still the battle master. i would think that's a pretty apt way to describe a knight, too.well that's a bit snobbish.i would be insulted if every time someone asked me a question i had to roll persuasion, even if it were a totally innocent question. but moreover...singular people speak for groups all the time. that's like, one of the major parts of being a leader, is speaking on behalf of your group (though, of course, in dnd, we don't necessarily conflate party facing with leadership, which is why "party face" even exists as a term).so sure, the king might ask the barbarian something personally and get upset if the bard interjects, but if the king is addressing the group and the bard answers, he'll likely just assume the bard is their leader....then don't go cavalier...?sure, but they're not straight jackets. if they were, then bannerets could only ever be company leaders or knights of specifically the cormyrian army, depending on what name you go with.tautology.which you can reasonably play as knights.yeah, i figured you didn't.uh...yes i did. that you (seemingly) didn't read it isn't my problem.</blockquote>

Verification