Really confused about knights

[Clouds]

okay so i used to play dnd a few years ago even though i didn't fully understand it, I'm just getting back into it and i was wondering about knights, i didnt see anything about them in the players handbook ?? at least i don't think i did...

PLEASE help me haha I'm really confused :/

[eggynack]

The knight class can be found in the Player's Handbook II, page 24. For a better class that fills the knight archetype, it may also be worth considering the crusader, from the Tome of Battle, page 8.

[Devils_Advocate]

Yeah, that'd be in Player's Handbook 2: The Revenge of Character Creation and Advancement. :P If you need to know where something is in the future, try checking the Consolidated Lists Archive (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/arch/lists). It can be quite a helpful resource.

[Urpriest]

In general, D&D 3.5 as it is played these days involves many different books, since the most balanced material was in many cases published later in the edition's development run. So much of the time you'll see classes discussed that were from other books than the Player's Handbook.

[Gavinfoxx]

Yeah, that'd be in Player's Handbook 2: The Revenge of Character Creation and Advancement. :P If you need to know where something is in the future, try checking the Consolidated Lists Archive (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/arch/lists). It can be quite a helpful resource.

Note that's not the actual name.

[Iwasforger03]

Before jumping to the crusader in favor of the Knight i'd recommend considering what sort of power level your party is. If you're a very casual group or a group that focuses heavily on character concept that knight will be a fine choice, but if you really get thrown the meat grinder or go heavy on the combat end of the scale the crusader may be more your man (not to say the Knight is inadequate, but the crusader, played well, is typically a little better at combat at least).

All depends on what you're trying to accomplish.

[Nihilarian]

Note that's not the actual name.It should be.

[Tohsaka Rin]

Yeah, that'd be in Player's Handbook 2: The Revenge of Character Creation and Advancement. :P If you need to know where something is in the future, try checking the Consolidated Lists Archive (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/arch/lists). It can be quite a helpful resource.

Also known as 'Chargen 2: Chargen Harder'.

[Devils_Advocate]

Incidentally, a quick Google search seems to indicate that no one has yet announced a 4E Laser Cleric build with the obvious pun. Internet, I am disappoint.


In general, D&D 3.5 as it is played these days involves many different books, since the most balanced material was in many cases published later in the edition's development run. So much of the time you'll see classes discussed that were from other books than the Player's Handbook.
Indeed. Although in this particular case, I think that the source of confusion may have been the fact that the class is from a book whose title is also "Player's Handbook", but with a "II" tacked on the end. Just two extra characters, overlooked or forgotten easily enough. So it's understandable that even someone aware of the multitude of non-core classes would incorrectly recall the Knight class being in the PHB.

But of course it's not in the PHB, just in a PHB. Sneaky, almost. :P Makes it quite possible to get things mixed up, especially if one doesn't even remember the sequel.