Talk:Knight (5e Class)

I like the alignment ability I think it is a good idea, but I changed the name to be more suitable. Azernath (talk) 22:52, 28 March 2015 (MDT)

There's a lot of crossover with the Fighter, so why not just make it a fighter archetype? Marasmusine (talk) 04:00, 29 March 2015 (MDT)

The reason is that I have great ideas for this class, I am trying to make it a part fighter, part paladin, and part ranger. Each archetype have its on way to make the knight more different. Azernath (talk) 09:30, 29 March 2015 (MDT)

Any one have other ideas? or do you want me to do it all by myself. :) Azernath (talk) 12:38, 6 April 2015 (MDT)

I have to agree with Mara on this one. This class is much too similar to the fighter class, both structurally and in flavor. It seems you are using a realistic version of the knight, so my advice would be maybe push away from that and make it more like the romanticized version, to separate it more from the fighter. For example, instead of Prayer, which seems just like a second wind, why not make them follow an Oath or something. While they are performing the Oath, (protecting someone, doing tasks for their lord, fighting windmills) they gain some kind of benefit, when they break it they lose the benifit (similar to the Samurai class from Rokugan d and d 3.5 with bushido). Either way, to make a new class you should make it substantially different from an existing class. As of now, I could make a knight by making a fighter with the noble backstory. With that in mind make the knight have abilities that the fighter would not have and take away abilities that the fighter has to make the class more unique. That's all I can give as I'm not that talented at coming up with game mechanics. Good luck. --Balthazar (talk) 12:57, 6 April 2015 (MDT)

Makeing it entirely a mounted combat oriented class may be interesting... --Balthazar (talk) 13:00, 6 April 2015 (MDT)

What do you think of the new changes? Azernath (talk) 17:14, 27 April 2015 (MDT)

After reading the vibe you're going for I feel like Charisma would be better suited than Wisdom. The knights in stories are rarely wise, usually falling for simple tricks by the villain and falling back on their physical strength and determination. Charisma does step on the Paladin's toes a little but I think it is a step in the right direction. In fact if you went with Charisma you could also change the class's name to something along the lines of Dashing Knight which captures a number of different character styles while differentiating itself from the fighter and paladin classes. As for the rest, I would trade Insight for Performance as Knights know all about heroes from stories and would likely be good at telling them. "Stubborn Fighter" might be better if simplified it to Good, Neutral or Evil and gave a +1 to attack for opposite alignment, no bonus or penalty for neutral, and a -1 to attack for same alignment. Might need to give something to neutral characters though(but maybe say that 99% of knights are either good or evil). "Shield of Honor" is too strong and should be a reaction when he is attacked. The trap part of "Vigilant Protector" seems a little strange, maybe replace it with advantage vs traps and if someone within X (half?) of your speed of you is hit by a trap and you are not you can become the target of the trap instead. Lastly for "Prayer" instead of regaining HP I'd change it to the Inspiring Leader feat (temp hp instead of regaining hp and fits in with the heroic stories theme). Thank you for posting this class Azernath. --Twisted9 (talk) 21:12, 27 April 2015 (MDT)

Would like to see mounted combat based class. This is similar to Cavalier from PathfinderRPG (what I played before 5e) WinglessDwarf.Cavalier! This class in PathfinderRPG is different enough from fighter with both advantages and disadvantages. The cavalier is extremely good at fighting in a 1 v 1 but less effective against large groups of enemies unless leadin and army (through the banner class feature). The cavalier pretty much sums up my thoughts about knights as leaders and men (or women) following a strict code. It does however allow for different morals f9r your character. Check it out

Thank you WinglessDwarf, you just give me the idea of using the challenge feature which can be used perfectly with the theme of the knight. Azernath (talk) 10:55, 19 October 2015 (MDT)

Assessment of the Situation

The greatest difficulty in making a dedicated Knight class, is that you can already make pretty convincing knights out of Paladins and Fighters with either the Soldier or Noble backgrounds. Those give you the ability to create 4 styles of knights- those of high or low birth, and of them, those who fought for king or god. That's a lot of rich, complex, deep, thematic content! It opens up a ton of opportunities for roleplaying, and a bazillion build options and play styles! Not to mention, we also have the homebrewed Squire background here on the wiki, making a total of 6 versions of the knight! How do you compete with that? If successful, adding a dedicated Knight background will up the total versions of the "knightly" character to 9. I have a few ideas on how this can be done.

I want to ask, though, what does everyone think of making this a prestige class, as using the rules in Unearthed Arcana's Rune Scribe? I know they aren't official rules yet, but we use unofficial rules all the time here on the wiki. It would reduce the number of levels we'd need to write features for, which would be greatly to our benefit. On the other hand, it means a character cannot officially become a knight by class until at least third level. That may make sense in some ways, a level 1 character is supposed to be a nobody for the most part... On the other hand, there were certainly a few nobody knights in history.

I'm thinking, in order to make it stand out, we need to focus very strongly on two things that make knights what they are: Mounted combat, and responsibility or duties of service. We can also look at the more symbolic elements of what makes these characters, such as chivalry, faith, leadership, tactics, etc.

Ok, let's get into this. I notice you have empty levels, where the character gains no new features. This is a little uncharacteristic. The precedent in 5e is that combat classes get something every level, while spellcasters are the only ones with feature gaps. I'm not saying it NEEDS to be that way, I'm cool with breaking tradition, but I think that there needs to be a reason for it on a mechanical level. If you have gaps, you need to justify how the features it already has are beefy enough to account for the power gain that other combat classes are getting. How does your class compare at the same level? If you have feature gaps and the class is comparatively weak, that means you still have work to do.

"Expert Raider" should be "Expert Rider".

"When you roll a 1 or 2 on a damage die for an attack you make with a melee weapon that you are wielding with two hands, you can reroll the die and must use the new roll. The weapon must have the two-handed or versatile property for you to gain this benefit." should read, "On a successful melee attack with a two-handed or versatile weapon, you may reroll the damage die if the result is less than 3, but you must use the new result." I do not care that you are using the PHB wording, it is still a disorganized mess!

Favored Mount needs an upgrade. It works the same as normal mounted combat, except the mount's stats rise with you. Nothing about that actually makes you a better mounted combatant. It also makes certain types of mounts insanely desirable, compared to the traditional steed. Also, why do we need to verbally command our animals? Most animals are commanded through gestures and touches, and only supplemented by verbal commands. There needs to be something about mounted combat as a Knight that is special. You also need to find some way to fix the "horse in a dungeon" problem. Almost all dungeon crawls assume everyone is on foot, and ultimately create a series of situations where a horse is either impractical, impossible, or a hazard. How do you resolve this issue? A defining feature tied to a creature that can't be used on the most fundamental adventure type leaves the character shattered and broken, with a gaping hole in it. And what of steed mortality? What if your horse gets eaten by a dragon? How will you stay competitive for the rest of the fight? And what about arsehole DMs who make you do animal handling checks every time you tell your animal to do anything?

Here's my recommendations:

1. By spending 8 hours meditating with a willing animal, you form a magical bond with it. This animal must be at least one size larger than you, (obviously) have anatomy capable of safely carrying you, (So, for example, no basilisks) cannot be more than one step different in alignment from you, (So a lawful good hero can't ride a Nightmare) and its Challenge Rating must be below your Knight level. If the creature has an INT score of 10 or greater, you must make an INT contest against the creature. If you fail this check, the creature decides it would rather remain apart, and you can never attempt to form a bond with it in the future. (You need to be at least level 2 to ride a hippogriff; level 3 to ride a griffon or pegasus; level 12 to ride a roc; riding a gynosphynx would require you to be level 12, L/N, N/N, or L/G, but N/G would be too far removed, and you'd need to be fairly smart and lucky; and nobody can ride an elder dragon or Tarrasque)
2. Your steed is bonded to you on a deeper level than most animals- it is almost like an extension of yourself. This bond is broken if you intentionally abuse the animal or part ways with it, and can never be regained once broken. So long as you maintain your bond with your steed, you gain the following benefits:
3. Your steed will do anything you command, no matter how suicidal, without complaint or fear.
4. While you are riding your steed, any attacks or effects targeting it will instead target you.
5. Moving while riding is exactly the same as moving when you aren't riding, you just use your animal's speed stat instead of your own.
6. On your turn, you may use one of your steed's attacks in the place of one of your own attack actions. You have proficiency with these attacks, even if the steed did not.
7. Your steed recognizes and obeys only you. It cannot be stolen by simply riding off with the animal. If it senses that it is being taken against your will, it will fight as if you are riding it, (Using your attacks, proficiency bonus, HP, etc.) in an effort to free itself. Other riders may be granted permission to ride by whispering a secret password, of your choosing, into the steed's ear, but even then it will only obey them in the capacity of a standard mount.
8. Your steed is welcome in places where they are not normally allowed, such as the grand hall of a palace, though still barred from more intimate areas, such as someone's home.
9. If you are separated from your steed, you may use an action focusing on your bond with the animal. This allows you to fight as if you are mounted for 1 minute. This can be done a number of times equal to your Knight level, and requires a Short or Long rest to restore usage.
10. If your steed is somehow killed in combat, you are filled with a vengeful rage. You have advantage on all attack rolls, checks, and saves until the end of combat. (Seems broken, but the only way this can happen is if the PC essentially abandons the steed in combat, which is abuse of the animal which breaks the bond, or by the DM flatly using rule 0 to kill it.)

Does it seem a little overpowered? That's fine. This kind of feature has impact all the way through, from level 1 to level 20. It gives a reason to have some gaps in features, while staying competitive , and simultaneously dealing with some inherent problems with animal allies in D&D.

"At 2nd level, due to your great knowledge of stories about heroic act made by knights from saving a princess using needling to killing a dragon by simply hitting hard enough." That is not a coherent sentence. What if it worked more like Bardic Inspiration, with the Knight effectively improving his companions by shouting tactics at them, or by inspiring them by leading a charge. This makes the knight come across as more of a leader, or at least a team player. That makes sense, as knights were the leadership of medieval military forces.

You should state choosing an archetype as a level 3 feature. You should also state, in the chart, when the class gains its archetype features. I take it that the Knight's archetypes are called Chivalrous Virtues or something? Check you Chivalry and the Seven Virtues.

Virtue of Gallantry

• Courageous should read, "When a creature would cause you to become frightened, they must pass a wisdom contest against you. If they succeed, you are frightened, if they fail, they are instead frightened of you."
• Stubborn fighter is nearly incomprehensible, it is written so poorly. It also makes Knights sound like racists. Needs new flavor text. I think you could do better, mechanically. I'm pretty sure that you already add your proficiency bonus to damage, provided you are proficient with the weapon or attack. You can't stack proficiency, so this grants nothing important. Also, why are neutral characters given a bonus against chaotic evil? Theoretically, a Neutral character would be OK with the occasional bout of chaotic evil activity. I agree with Twisted9, this should grant a static bonus or advantage. If it grants advantage, it should be an on-use thing, with limited uses tied to a short rest.
• Heroic charge is blank! Yay!
• Death to cowards is completely insane! This is not characteristic of gallantry in any way! This virtue should be renamed "Virtue of UNYIELDING HATRED!!!!" Also, the mechanics are very mushy. How can you tell if an enemy is running away, mechanically? What if they're just repositioning themselves for a tactical advantage?

Virtue of Honor

• Honorable Attack is... Bad. First off, there is nothing inherently inferior about striking honorably, it just means you don't stab unsuspecting victims from the shadows. The attitude behind this concept is juvenile at best. Second, how much extra damage dice does my attack deal, and how is that different than critical damage?
• Shield of Honor is badass. Brokenly badass, but badass nonetheless. I like it so much, I don't want to change it! I love it! But it's SO incorrect! AGH!
• Vigilant Protector is an extremely weak feature. You can never be within 5ft of everyone in your party, and everyone will get attacked, so you can never truly win. The safest strategy would be to just team up with another melee guy and go hammering goblins together all the time. Or ignore this feature and fight as if you didn't even have it.
• Fix the spelling errors on Honorable Warrior.

Virtue of Mercy

• Merciful heart is... A weird version of Lay on Hands? I thought this wasn't supposed to be a Paladin?

I find it interesting that you gave them the extra attack feature, but truncated it severely. This makes Knights nowhere near as good at actually "fighting" as their Fighter and Paladin counterparts. Being the case, you need to beef the hell out of their attacks, or give them something else that they can use, in order to stay competitive.

If I have +5 WIS MOD, zephyr speed increases my mount's speed by 25 ft, (3 squares) and later by 50ft, (6 squares). If I were riding a Nightmare, (which was acceptable by your original rules) it would ultimately have a speed of 110ft, or 22 squares. Holy bananas.

Chivalry is busted. If I can roleplay it, I can swing advantage to every single check ever. Also, why doesn't my Knight become chivalrous until level 10?

Eternal Knighthood is blank! Yay!

Going forward, here's some food for thought:

• A knight is a specialized fighter. Historically, they were the mounted leaders of cavalry charges. They played an essential role in medieval warfare and culture, and the vast majority were of noble birth. Almost all knights were of high rank, and were expected to command many other soldiers. This can be represented by giving them abilities which protect and buff allies, kind of like a bard.
• A knight was, more than anything, a cavalry unit, and their steed was their most important piece of equipment, and their closest ally on the battlefield. In this way, the steed is much like a Ranger's animal companion. That said, animal companion rules in 5e are absolute garbage, and should be completely rewritten at the earliest opportunity.
• Knights are romantacized as following a code of conduct called Chivalry, (kind of like how people romanticize Samurai to follow Bushido, even though most of them were actually a bunch of back-stabbing sociopaths) If you're going to base any aspect of the class off of chivalry, or the religious aspects of knighthood, you should understand chivalry on a basic level. You can't just throw words around without consideration for their actual meaning.

--Kydo (talk) 14:44, 17 October 2015 (MDT)

I agree with most of what you and Twisted9; however, I am currently too busy with so many thing at work this week, so tell you what. You have full authority to do what ever you want, yet I would like if you keep the theme of the archetypes as the same. I will back to help you out as soon as I can, sorry to leave you alone with this. Azernath (talk) 20:43, 17 October 2015 (MDT)

So, I did some research... Levels 7, 11, and 15 are all fairly uncommon levels for a class to gain archetype features at, particularly for a mundane class. What was the reasoning behind that layout? --Kydo (talk) 14:14, 6 November 2015 (MST)

No reason, you can change it if you like. Azernath (talk) 21:51, 6 November 2015 (MST)

I don't plan to. There's nothing wrong with it. It's actually quite practical; 4 features, (a standard for most archetypes) each 4 levels apart, (nice and even) with the last feature at 75% of character advancement, none landing on an ability score increase. I was just curious about it. --Kydo (talk) 11:21, 7 November 2015 (MST)

I would like to keep the virtues theme because chivalry is something all knights have to a great extent, but not all knights are extremely courage, honorable, or merciful. Each knight should have something beside chivalry that is what I think. Azernath (talk) 22:03, 6 November 2015 (MST)

...But the virtues you chose are chivalric virtues. And your opening flavour paragraph bluntly stated that not all knights are chivalrous or virtuous. (Though I emphasized that a little more) I only changed it to "chivalric order" because that's the proper term for "knightly brotherhood", which is what you had it titled in the features list. I was merely correcting the terminology. ... What do you think chivalry is? --Kydo (talk) 08:51, 7 November 2015 (MST)

The source of what I think is chivalry can be shown in the Wikipedia Site that talks about chivalry, and unless I am wrong they don't mention bravery, honor, or mercy in any of the rules of being a knight except in a vague and indirect way which means that only the bases of these principles are implemented, but not the full idea for which they stand by these virtues. Azernath (talk) 09:59, 9 November 2015 (MST)

Except those aren't the words you used in the class. You said gallantry, (Kindness and gentleness toward women) honor, (Simply the state of following the code of chivalry) and mercy, (which is actually a christian value which winds up being lumped into chivalry as a part of their religious duties). --Kydo (talk) 05:50, 10 November 2015 (MST)

You know what? I really want to see this class completed and added to the magazine- so I can just get over myself and accept it for what it is. (Although I still feel that styling the archetypes off of the three styles of chivalric fiction would be more practical, flavorful, and interesting)

Stubborn Fighter needs a complete rewrite. The alignment thing has nothing to do with the flavor or name of the feature, and makes no sense. It needs to have something to do with actually fighting stubbornly, either granting a bonus for fighting when you shouldn't, or making it easier to keep fighting where others would turn tail.

We need to write Heroic Charge. I'm guessing it's supposed to be something like a bullrush?

Death to the cowards needs to go. I'm sorry, there is nothing heroic, chivalrous, or even remotely sane about this feature.

Honorable attack makes no sense on a philosophical or practical level. What is it representing here? How about the character can nolonger make attacks of opportunity, or maybe sacrifice their turn if they get a surprise round on an enemy, in return for some other bonus during normal combat? Like, for example, "If an enemy would provoke an attack of opportunity from you, and you decide not to attack, you have advantage on all attack rolls during your next turn." or "If you pass your turn during a surprise round for your party, I dunno, something nifty happens for you or your team."

Shield of Honor is a little off. A logical player would get +5 WIS ASAP and aim for this feature. The total AC granted by full plate, a shield, and this feature, is 18+1+5=24. A level 7 character usually has the 1500gp for a suit of plate, so the expense is not a limiting factor at all. I'm pretty sure that's higher than any of the core class feature-derived AC abilities. Even an optimized UAC Monk tops out at 20AC. (Or 21, I can't remember, did Mike rule that they can hold shields with this ability or not?) What if it simply adds +1AC to heavy armor and shields, granting a character who wears both a total of +2AC. That brings their maximum possible AC to 21, which is more in-line with the other classes, while still being useful, AND fits the name of the feature!

Vigilant Protector is kind of like getting socks for Christmas; more of something you already have- it's a fighting style reworded into a feature. This feature is a great opportunity to expand on the idea of actually protecting your party members! Why not make it so that if a creature attacks an ally within your remaining movement range for the round, you can use your reaction to shove that person out of the way and take their spot, or move up to the attacker and make a melee attack on them, or something!

Duel Challenger makes very little sense. pas d'armes was a late medieval blood sport played by pompous fools who inherited their knightly title through birth, and had no conflict in which to earn their respect. It also sounds a little bit like wandering Ronin challenging each other to duels for honor and glory? The feature itself is an awkward taunt ability. This feature is earned at the same time as the first ability score increase. It probably shouldn't be quite so dramatic. What about keeping to the idea of chivalric games, while also toning it down a bit, and adding combat usefulness? My recommendation would be to go toward the Joust, because nothing else has had anything to do with being a cavalry unit for three levels at this point. As it is, polearms are two-handed, so a shield-and-lance charge is actually impossible by the core rules. What if we made this feature into something that allows you to make one-handed attacks with two-handed weapons while mounted, at some sort of penalty, like being forced to move a minimum distance first or something?

Maybe something between the Ranger's extra attacks and the Fighter's extra attacks. Right now it's not enough, but using the Fighter version of this feature may be a little OP.

Chivalry is a code of conduct that even a peasant can follow, not something restricted only to the finest warriors of the time. This feature should be renamed. Also, with Heroic Inspirationas it is, this is not a functioning feature.

Zephyr Rider is awesome. It's pretty crazy if you optimize for WIS and get a good steed, but it's awesome. Maybe there should be some kind of drawback to it that scales with the bonus, though? Like, the bigger your bonus, the bigger a slight penalty you get to something else? Maybe moving so fast imposes a penalty on attack rolls, because you become less accurate?

What did you want Eternal Knighthood to do? --Kydo (talk) 00:38, 14 November 2015 (MST)

Here is Everything You Need to Know About Chivalry. Hopefully, it will be useful to anyone who ever wishes to work on this subject in the future. --Kydo (talk) 00:30, 18 January 2016 (MST)

McAlester Gamerz Customer Says

When i saw the title, i was hoping for a very traditional knight as i have seen in some former editions. This is unfinished. The reference to the fighter and paladins...meh. The original knight had to function in courts and deal with nobles from time to time and could earn noble status. It wasnt an always given just because you were born from a noble that you would remain noble. I would be interested in a FULL traditional non magic casting knight. That alone should separate it from the Fighter and Paladin. By the way does anyone even know or realize that the word 'paladin' is a misnomer? I think its Secerrian in origin and talking about the Araibian Holy Knights, and NOT the WHITE MAN, holy knights...which were Templars....Something to that effect anyway.

I agree. --Kydo (talk) 06:23, 5 May 2016 (MDT)

I like what you think; however, I would also like to include the virtues idea with that. Maybe the the Honor virtue give you proficiency in Charisma (Persuasion), and even double the bonus when rolling against a noble birth NPC. Maybe if you chose a background other then a noble, you gain a class feature that grant you nobility a level 10, and even if you are already a noble it might be a promotion or an elevation to your noble status. If anyone can give me such ideas then I will make them in the class with no problem, and yes I know though I think the paladin is either a very renowned knight or members of the Charlemagne's court which is lead by Palatine, and not Palpatine from Star Wars movies because I am an Arabic and I never heard of paladins in arabic language, yet what do I know about the 12th to 15th century crusades history. :) Azernath (talk) 12:07, 5 May 2016 (MDT)

https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paladín

ok something weird is going on. To be honest, i am a person who lives in a world with at least 2 distorted history realities. Look it up its an actual thing, and thousands of people who never met each other, even before media...have the VERY EXACT MEMORIES of the altered history. This being one of them, now. Easyiest one to research is the beristien bear thing....thats creepy as stink because untill Hurricane Katrina...i had books from the altered...so....yeah as well as news papers...so....yeah...creepy...and i dont get it, since i am not the only one...and have no clue to what this means....anywho back to research in THIS reality...and yes i am re-researching trying to find the 'missing link' to what i was referring...i am finding some reference...

THIS is the only reference i can find of the original research form many (20+)years ago.

"On the other hand, I think the Arabs did have something like a chivalrous warrior ideal. Besides the obvious case of Saladin, I can't think of any examples--but you can find representations of scary Moorish knights all over the chivalry literature."

I need a break so i am going to go chill, my brain is...just wierded out...McAlester Gamerz Customer (talk) 13:43, 5 May 2016 (MDT)

Opposites?

Say, if i had a Chaotic Good knight, would it be strong against Lawful Evil, or Chaotic Evil, or Lawful Good?

Not sure exactly what feature is being asked about here. Haven't worked on this in ages. But the exact opposite of chaotic good would be lawful evil. --Kydo (talk) 13:32, 14 December 2016 (MST)