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

[Corpsetaker]

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?

 

[Hriston]

Mounted, heavy armored, noble or social climbing (a la Knight's Tale). Heavy hitter who prefers to fight other heavy hitters: other Knights, dragons, etc. They like to go on quests. Sort of a nonmagical Paladin.

This was the 1E Cavalier class of which Paladins were the holy warrior subclass post UA.

 

[DEFCON 1]

I could certainly see someone adapting the "non-magical ranger" variant to the paladin and then creating the Cavalier sub-class for it (Oath of the Cavalier). Take away the spells and add in battlemaster maneuvers and superiority dice... then creating some special maneuvers that are mounted combat focused.

Granted, using the paladin base class would bother a few people due to Channel Divinity and would prefer a completely magic-washed subclass... in which case you could port over the maneuvers to the battlemaster and maybe drop the number of maneuvers it gets to start with to add in a few more sub-class abilities that help boost its mounted combat efficiency.

Shouldn't be too hard to make a Cavalier up I shouldn't think.

 

[Leatherhead]

what exactly makes a Knight, well a Knight?

Money and Politics. The same things that separates the noble from the peasant.

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

For a class?

It would have heavy armor, shields, and swords, because swords are "noble." Possibly some mounted combat gimmick as a subclass, because jousting was a thing. Or something to do with Samurai, which will later become their own base class for reasons. Some exclusive "boss npcs around" mechanics that are totally unnecessary just to make them special, give them niche exclusivity, and some justification as to why you didn't just pick the Noble background.

They would have a Code of Conduct with a bunch of arbitrary rules as a class feature instead of a character motivation, because such things just can't be RPed out. Their main combat feature would be "Knightly edicts." Allowing them to taunt monsters or give pep talks with a limited daily resource that is tied off of CHA. This does exciting things like impose (dis)advantage on rolls, or give out temp hp because it totally isn't magical at all.

In retrospect, that game off as rather aggressive. Possibly because I really hate how the Fighter is considered to be too generic of a class to represent such a special character concept. Or how baseline skill proficiency isn't considered good enough to actually use the skill anymore. Or even how whenever a potentially good idea for a Fighter subclass or ability comes along, it has to be robbed from them and given to a new or different class, or even worse all the classes as a generic combat rule.

Because Fighters just aren't good enough for anything other than swinging a sword.

 

[epithet]

A classic knight would a fighter (champion) with a noble (knight) background. A fighter (battlemaster) would also work. Knights were mounted and heavily armored warriors with staff. Some (battlemaster build) were effective and inspiring battlefield commanders, but it was hardly a defining characteristic.

A high-fantasy knight would be a paladin with the noble (knight) background.

If the character has a different background, for example an outlaw that was pardoned and knighted by a king for saving the princess from the BBEG, then he'll want to be sure he learns to ride a horse and hire a couple of retainers. Even if he can't wear any armor with proficiency, he'll want to pick up a shiny breastplate to wear in parades and such. In combat, studded leather and a surcoat should be adequate, but the armor should be high quality, preferably with some "bling" so as to properly convey your elevated status.

There's really no need for a knight class, or subclass.

 

[Remathilis]

D&D's knight-based classes (including Paizo's cavalier) have defined with the following traits: excellent horseback warrior, good tanking (later knights have had a challenge mechanic to keep aggro on them), and a code of honor. There might be enough there to make a good subclass, especially one that focuses on challenges/marking and defensive maneuvers (with the horseback stuff basically ribbons).

That said, if all you want is a dude who has been knighted, a fighter (champion or battlemaster) or paladin (oath of devotion) with the noble (knight variant) is all you need to fill the check boxes.

Lastly, Purple Dragon Knight (the knighthood of Cormyr) is coming out in Sword Coast Adventurer's Guide; you might want to check that out.

 

[Jester David]

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.

 

[Minigiant]

A knight is:
a mounted soldier serving under a feudal superior in the Middle Ages.
a soldier in the past who had a high social rank and who fought while riding a horse and usually wearing armor

Mounted: The character is good at fighting mounted
Soldier: The character is either a trained warrior or naturally gifted in combat
Armor: The character is trained in the best armors and weapons of his or her culture
Rank: The character is or should be trained in both military and government politics


A "knight class" would be a warrior who has bonuses to fighting while mounted. The also have bonuses using their cultures "favorite weapons and armor" and in conversations about the culture's "favored topics" (classic: swords & lances, elves: swords and bows, dwarves: axes and hammers, etc)

So the classic knight

• Weapons: Swords & lances
• Armor: Heavy armor
• Mental favoritism: Charisma

Samurai Knight

• Weapons: Swords & bows
• Armor: Heavy armor
• Mental favoritism: Intelligence?

Desert Knight

• Weapons: Swords & ???
• Armor: Light Armor
• Mental favoritism: Charisma

Forest knight

• Weapons: Axes & bows
• Armor: Medium
• Mental favoritism: Wisdom

Elven knight

• Weapons: Swords & bows
• Armor: Medium
• Mental favoritism: Intelligence

Dwarven knight

• Weapons: Axes & hammer
• Armor: Heavy armor
• Mental favoritism: Wisdom

 

[El Mahdi]

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

Historically, a Knight had the following aspects:

First and foremost, they were Cavalry - whether lightly armored or heavily armored, but shield use as standard - and trained in both the charge with lance (long spear) and melee combat from horseback (cruciform arming sword, falchion, mace, etc.). Cavalry is the etymological root of Chevalier/Cavalier.

Second, they served a liege lord - whether a baron, king, or church. Even hedge knights, when actually being a knight, served somebody - even if it was only temporary and mostly for the money, and very similar to the Japanese concept of Ronin. The etymology of Knight is servant/retainer.

Nobility was not a prerequisite for being a Knight. It made it easier, because one could better afford what a Knight required (horse, care of said horse, armor, weapons), but this stuff could be provided by a liege if one had the necessary training and skills - and could prove one had the necessary training and skills (a display of abilities, vouched for by another such as "he and I squired together for Baron Smith", etc).

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.

In the late medieval period, for the most part you'd be correct, but the medieval period encompassed almost a thousand years of history. The only constants throughout the entire period are what I listed above. Other aspects that were only important during certain parts of the medieval period were:

Chivalry - didn't become a thing until late 12th century/early 13th century - so only for about the last 200 to 300 years of the medieval period.

Plate Armor - didn't really come into being until the 13th century, and didn't hit its peak until almost the 15th century - so only for about the last 100 to 200 years of the medieval period and extending into the renaissance period for another hundred or so.


Finally, the thing that most symbolized a Knight wasn't armor, or even a sword (a sword symbolized money, and didn't necessarily signify nobility). In fact, not all knights used or preferred a sword. They often used a mace, Morningstar, or even an axe as a primary weapon; and if they did use a sword, it was just as likely (or possibly more likely) that they used a falchion rather than a cruciform "Knightly" sword.

What most symbolized a Knight was their spurs. Becoming a knight meant "earning your spurs." This goes back to the stipulation that Knights are first and foremost, Cavalry.

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

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

 

[El Mahdi]

...a soldier in the past who had a high social rank...

Historically and effectively, No.

In the later part of the medieval period, for the most part yes. For the lions-share of the medieval period, No.

Most Knights were nothing more than mercenaries with training in mounted combat.

Knights carried a social status lower than any other noble - and weren't even necessarily considered noble at all.

This held true until the late medieval period when a knight had a better chance of being landed (a property owner) and their status became linked to the size/prominence of their holding.

Often even non-noble merchants probably had a higher social status than most Knights, and even poor Freemen could have been held in higher social esteem.

Throughout the majority of the medieval period a Knight had respect because they were dangerous - not because of social status.

Remember that the idea of Knightly nobility and chivalry was a late medieval development. The chanson de geste about Charlemagne's Paladins were created 400 to 500 years after Charlemagne. In truth, Charlemagne's "Paladins" were brutal killers and did not adhere to any notion of chivalry or romantic sense of honor.