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

[Corpsetaker]

This thread was basically about the validity of the Knight as a class and not a historic segment.

 

[El Mahdi]

This thread was basically about the validity of the Knight as a class and not a historic segment.

Which is why I addressed that also.

Not to mention that a class is more than just mechanics, it's also an idea - a narrative.

It's for a role-playing game...

 

[Jester David]

Alternatively, a "knight" could emulate the build of the same class from D&D Essentials and essentially be a "tank". The knight could stop movement around her, push back foes, turn crits against her into regular hits, and challenge foes imposing a penalty against attacking anyone else.

 

[Minigiant]

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.

Those were straight up dictionary copy&paste.
But you're right. Knights were just mercenary cavalry that people with armies trusted to not stink at mounted combat.

But since D&D is fantasy, this could be any form of mounted combat and any culture. Sticking to just European historical definitions is a silly thing in a game with elves and mages.

One culture could have mounted archer knights modelled like Hunnic and Mongolian ones.
Another could have chariot knights with a squire steering and the knight chucking spears.
Another could have discovered guns but due rarity or expense, only the mounted knights used them.
And other would have giant warbeast cavalier knights with ballistas mounted on them.

But all that matters is the mount.

 

[Bluenose]

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)

Desert Knight

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

]

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.

 

[Wik]

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.

 

[Mercule]

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 don't think there's any reason to create another class or subclass explicitly for knights, though.

 

[steeldragons]

Interesting topic, especially considering Excalibur (1981) is airing on BBC America, as I type. hahaha.

The answer, for the game, as is, now:

1. Any class with the "Noble variant: Knight" background. Roleplay as a knight (or simply someone who believes they are or wants to emulate knightly/chivalric behavior, a la A Knight's Tale) and you are a knight.

2. If you want the combat/military side of being a knight, take Fighter or Paladin (or Barbarian or Ranger, for that matter) -subclass doesn't matter- and the Knight background. Roleplay yourself as a knight. POOF! You're a knight.

3. If you want to be/add the "leader of men" knight angle, do either of the above and put a good score in your Charisma.

If you are using the optional customization features of Multiclassing and/or Feats, the avenues splay wide open. Use any of the following with or without a Knight background and roleplay your character as a knight:

4. Multiclass any character with Fighter or Paladin.

5. Be a Fighter or Paladin and take the Mounted Combatant Feat for the "cavalier" knight.

6. Be a Fighter or Paladin and take the Martial Adept and/or Weapon Master Feats for a couple of maneuvers and/or improvements in battle/the "greatest swordsman, jouster, etc... of renown"

If you are not above going "off script" and/or capable of creating homebrew [or simply finding someone else's online and using that], then the options, again widen to whatever your particular favored flavor of knight is...with or without [necessarily] needing the options of multiclassing or feats:

7. Homebrew a "Cavalier" -mounted combat expert subclass of Fighter.

8. Homebrew a "Cavalier" subclass of Paladin.

9. Do a conversion of Pathfinder's Cavalier class and call it a Knight.

10. Homebrew a "mundane Paladin" Knight. I'm think something more along the lines of "Oath of Allegiance" to bring in the whole swearing fealty thing, whether it is a liege, a land or a cause...but stripping out the Divine Magic flavor without necessarily altering base class features too much...or maybe just not adding to them...I don't know. It's homebrewing, I'm just spit balling here.

11. Homebrew your own, more fully realized, Knight background option for more of the social side of things.

12. Homebrew a "Knight" subclass of Fighter that can cover a broader number of concepts (but not so broad as a battlemaster) with focus on "Codes of Conduct" vs. the divine/magical Oath stuff. (I believe Castles & Crusades has something like this and I do something similar with my own World of Orea Knight class).

13. Create a "Knight" Feat -or perhaps introduce a Feat chain- to offer you mounted combat , social and melee attack bonuses.

14. Or go whole hog and create a "Knight" base class with Cavalier, Something else I, and Something else [magical/with spells] II, as its subclasses.

If you can't find yourself a Knight you want to play in 5e, you're just not trying. [EDIT to add and that is the beauty of 5e![/edit]

 

[Minigiant]

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.

The desert people in my setting are sword & mace. It was hard to pick any other real world examples so I stopped bothering.


____

The Way I'd do a knight class is 4 parts.

First, the knight picks two weapon categories. They will tend to choose the preferred type of their culture.
Second is a Damage Bonus. When using their preferred cultural weapons, they get a damage bonus. They also get it on any weapon when mounted. And if mounted and using a cultural weapon, the bonus is doubled.

So a level 5 knight is from a culture that prefers swords and bows.
When he is wielding a longsword, shortsword, greatsword, shortbow, and longbow, he gains a +5 bonus to damage rolls with that weapon.
When he is wielding a weapon while mounted, he gains a +5 bonus to damage rolls with that weapon.
So on a horse and with a longsword, he's doing 1d8+Str+10 two times. In the dungeon, he still has +5 without his horse.

Third, the knight gets mounted bonus. He only speeds 5 ft of movement to mount or dismount. If an effect moves his mount against its will while he's on it or if he's knocked prone while mounted, he has advantage on the Dex saving throw. Etc

Fourth, the knight gets some bonus to checks on a mental attribute of choice. This reflects their growing status and the knights learning how to use their status that other classes do not focus on.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Just spit balling here, but if I were hired to do a class for the next book, here is what I would do...

Go look at the 1e cavalry, go look at the 3.5 phb2 knight,

I would give them d12 HD and a fighting style at level 1 (defensive, protective, mounted or two handed) ((Mounted would add +1d6 damage to weapon attacks well mounted, or +2d6 if charging)