[3.5] What Base Class Makes the Best Knight

[AnimeTheCat]

So, this is an off shoot of the "Why Play A Fighter" (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?529677-Why-play-a-Fighter) Thread.

At the end we were discussing what base class made the best "Knight" character.

I stand by the idea that a Fighter makes the fastest "Knight" with being able to get Mounted Combat, Ride-By-Attack, and Spirited Charge all within first or second level depending on race. This fits my mental image of an armored warrior riding in to combat atop a mount with a lance which is what I think of when I think of Knights. From what I've learned about knights, they weren't commonly nice people and the code of chivalry was used as a medieval **** measuring contest more than a code of ethics that governed their every action.

I concede this is not the "Best" knight however, which is what my title is asking.

I think that when it's all said and done the Paladin probably makes the best "Knight" from fantasy. Knight in shining armor, mount, chivalrous, lawful, charismatic, diplomatic, etc. I would, however, argue that taking two levels of Figther for level 1 and 2 would really spur the Paladin forward in terms of combat capability and in the flavor text that can be the "Knight's" time as a squire.

What do the rest of you think?

[OldTrees1]

Depends

Depending on the prime features of what the player calls a knight & on the optimization level of the table
In no particular order:
Fighter, Rogue(Martial), Knight, Warblade, Crusader, Cleric, or Paladin

[Jormengand]

I think the paladin's a relatively good contender. He actually has much of the relevant knowledge to being a member of the nobility, and the kind of code of honour that you would expect from a knight, even if you didn't actually always recieve it. He also has a guaranteed horse which actually scales meaningfully with his character level, which is hardly bad for the appearance of knight and the ability to stay appearing like a knight even as enemies target your mount, who has enough HP to survive a few shots.

Samurai makes a relatively good knight if you remind yourself that a katana is just a masterwork bastard sword: you actually have a lot of the skills you require to do basic knight stuff (though rarely the points you need to fill them) and you have the "Strikes fear into the hearts of evildoers with a mere glare" thing which is neat for the knight in shining armour image. It's an awful class, but at least it's good for making a believable knight. Or even a believable samurai, at that.

[Afgncaap5]

In no way offering this as a "best" base class, but I think a nod of the head should be made for the bard. In terms of play style they're not really good at fitting the mental image of the plate-mail garbed warrior who rides into battle with a lance, but for those who like some of the knights who appear in Swashbuckler films or tales of highwaymen, the bard fills a lot of niche story points.

[AnimeTheCat]

OldTrees1, I'm thinking less in an interparty image and more of a crunch meeting the fluff image, which is why I liked the idea of fighter 2/paladin X. It fits even from a squire to knight progression viewpoint and crunch wise, learning those feats (how to fight) comes before you learn what to fight (the knowledge aspects) that a paladin offers.

Do Warblade and Crusader get ride as a class skill? I can't remember and I'm AFB right now. If so I would think crusader before warblade, but I could see both. Again, with any of them, I think two levels of fighter at the beginning is acceptable as a squire time period, but that just fits what I envision as a knight.

Something that baffled me about the PHB II Knight class was the lack of a fort save bonus, and skill points. Knights were educated (whether they chose to spend those skill points on jump, climb and other instead of knowledge, handle animal, etc is what makes a bad knight a bad knight in that case) so I think 4+ skill points would be acceptable, but that's just homebrewing and not the point. Knight, as a base class, doesn't fit the Knightly image I think of.

[Necroticplague]

Depends on what part of the 'knight' concept you consider important. I always considered the archetypal knight's most important traits to be resilience. They're a tough bloke who willingly throws himself into relative danger because he knows he can take burdens that others can't. To this end, I think a Crusader makes the best knights.

[OldTrees1]

OldTrees1, I'm thinking less in an interparty image and more of a crunch meeting the fluff image, which is why I liked the idea of fighter 2/paladin X. It fits even from a squire to knight progression viewpoint and crunch wise, learning those feats (how to fight) comes before you learn what to fight (the knowledge aspects) that a paladin offers.

Do Warblade and Crusader get ride as a class skill? I can't remember and I'm AFB right now. If so I would think crusader before warblade, but I could see both. Again, with any of them, I think two levels of fighter at the beginning is acceptable as a squire time period, but that just fits what I envision as a knight.

Something that baffled me about the PHB II Knight class was the lack of a fort save bonus, and skill points. Knights were educated (whether they chose to spend those skill points on jump, climb and other instead of knowledge, handle animal, etc is what makes a bad knight a bad knight in that case) so I think 4+ skill points would be acceptable, but that's just homebrewing and not the point. Knight, as a base class, doesn't fit the Knightly image I think of.

I was exclusively answering the crunch meeting the fluff question BUT with the proper contextualization. The problem is Knight means different things to different people and the classes perform differently when different optimization levels are in play.

The conceptualization of Knight ranges from Sir George(the historic) through Sir George(the myth), from Sir Lancelot(the perfect) through Sir Lancelot(the flawed), and from Richard III(the nobility) through Richard III(the combatant).

As a minor example: After a certain optimization level you do not need Ride as a class skill to be a Knight.



I hear Afgncaap5's comments about Bard. I cannot see Bard as fitting in the spectrum of generic Knights. However the dueling noble, inspiring guard-captain, & swashbucklering knight should at the very least consider Bard.

[gkathellar]

What exactly do you mean by knight?

[Afgncaap5]

I hear Afgncaap5's comments about Bard. I cannot see Bard as fitting in the spectrum of generic Knights. However the dueling noble, inspiring guard-captain, & swashbucklering knight should at the very least consider Bard.

Right. Like I said, definitely not "the classic" knight, but certain specialized cavalier-style characters fit better.

[Nifft]

I think I've seen an argument for Marshal / Bard, but I like the Crusader too.

For me, the Cleric is a fine Knight -- especially if a Knight is supposed to have religious connotations.

The UA Prestige Paladin may be the best way to create a union between good-fighting + religious-connotations.

[Waker]

The big ones have been mentioned, so I'll bring up the less obvious choices.
Factotum- With access to all skills, boosts to everything and a good selection of weapons and armor, the class can do a reasonable impression of a well-educated noble-turned warrior. The lack of a mount hurts if mounted combat is a big part of your image of a knight.
Ranger- A Ranger's animal companion might not do great as it's own combatant, but can serve admirably as a mount. The lack of Knowledge (Nobility) really hurts, but they otherwise make for a good hedge knight. The Cityscape (http://archive.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/we/20070228a) ACFs can really add to your options, especially Skilled City-Dweller, Voice of the City and Rival Organization (for enemy noble houses and churches).

[Goaty14]

I vote crusader, if not, Martial Rogue (UA)

[Jopustopin]

I have played a factotum that was lawful good and a knight in Dragonlance (where there are a lot of knightly orders). Honestly, being a "knight" is mostly role playing.

[Menzath]

I think I second the bard/marshal for being the leader type do direct a unit and rally troops, but on the other side knights often do have to prove their prowess in combat, making fighter/paladin/samurai/crusader/warblade work extremely well.

As for fantasy knights I'm surprised hexblade and duskblade haven't been mentioned, although they aren't the best classes they have a neat thematic quality.

[Lord Raziere]

If we're being exact, I'd myself define a knight as:
1. someone who wears heavy armor, uses a shield, rides a mount and probably a spear as a weapon. this basically covers the physical parts.

2. moral code is optional actually. historically speaking, chivalry started out just meaning "to be good at riding at horse while armed and fighting on a horse" because knights are chevaliers and chivalry comes from chevaliers. Over time people started using it for knights general behavior, and it just came to mean whatever the person ordering the knight wanted it to mean, and depending on the person the ideals of "chivalry" could be quite contradictory when comapred to anothers. in the end, chivalry's real definition became "whatever the lord I'm serving wants me to do so that I can keep having a dry roof over my head, consistent meals and a good bed." and the knights themselves historically speaking were quite pragmatic and did whatever they could get away with just like everyone else- their response to another knight in real battle was to basically knock them over, pull out their dagger and kill them cleanly between their plate while they were down, because daggers could more easily be angled to fit between plate armor. any consistent knightly code only started getting produced after the knights were no longer a thing.

3. meaning basically, a knight if we're being realistic was basically an elite soldier whose training was to use any and all advantages they could to win in battle, which includes being on a mount, in plate armor- which is more mobile than people think-, ramming spears through whoever they pass by while they charge, always using your shield to block, taking advantage of a foes foolish over-extension to kill the enemy as a counter-attack and basically be the most terrifying thing to face on the battlefield. that sort of thing.

4. problem is, in a fantasy setting, a knight is certainly not the most terrifying thing on the battlefield, mainly because magic and monsters like dragons and giants exist. either one if we're realistic, would pretty much easily kill a knight without needing magic, just their size and strength or a dragon's firebreath would be enough. so to face those foes, a knight would either need some serious magical buffing or radically change their tactics to defeat them, which probably involves using siege weaponry if magic isn't involved.

So, the question becomes whether or not we count a knight who radically changes their tactics to defeat the truly monstrous foes that threaten a fantasy world a knight or not. given knights are pragmatic and their primary purpose is to protect their lands as an elite soldier, a knight probably wouldn't care for the distinction as long as they kill the thing and get out of it alive, and probably ask you what your definition of chivalry is while they're at it so that can act accordingly to it as a means of social manipulation and then drop it as soon as he can leave your presence.

[Ellrin]

I don't mind using this more pragmatic view of knighthood, but the problem thereafter becomes that what constitutes a knight even in utterly practical terms varies based on time period and location. A French chevalier of the fifteenth century is going to be equipped and trained far differently than a teutonic knight from the sixth crusade. Mounted combat was generally only one of several combat skills a knight was expected to be fluent in--many battles required on-foot fighting. On foot, knights would typically use reach weapons and/or two-handed weapons--swords were typically only brought out as backup weapons for very close quarters fighting, especially after the advent of plate armor, which was more adequately defeated by heavy crushing weapons or tripping weapons.

The main problem with representing the historical knight in the d20 system is that, at least during the late medieval period, knights tended to be generalists--skilled in mounted combat, archery, and close-quarters fighting, to say nothing of their survival and courtly skills. In 3e, though, it's really difficult to be more than barely adequate at two or more of these combat styles, let alone the rest.

Without getting into traditional casting or maneuvers, a factotum or fighter is probably your best shot at being decent at all of this in the same combat, though sprinkling in some incarnum or pact magic may help with more infrequent makeovers.

[Particle_Man]

FWIW, I think that in 1st ed the cleric was described as being inspired by the Knights Templar. And if we are going for effectiveness in d20, well, clerics are Tier 1 for a reason.

For "good guy" knight, paladin or Good crusader is a solid choice, fluff-wise. Knight and Samurai work for the more secular, non-religious sorts. I guess I should mention Soulborn, just so that somebody does.

That said, I wonder how far a Beguiler could get with faking it. Phantom Steed for "my summoned mount" and so forth. ;)

[OldTrees1]

The main problem with representing the historical knight in the d20 system is that, at least during the late medieval period, knights tended to be generalists--skilled in mounted combat, archery, and close-quarters fighting, to say nothing of their survival and courtly skills. In 3e, though, it's really difficult to be more than barely adequate at two or more of these combat styles, let alone the rest.

Perhaps not too surprisingly, it is easier to be a generalist at low level when equipment and raw talent can help you out.

[Gildedragon]

Depends on what you see as knightly
Paladin fits a lot of the fluff
As does the Crusader and the Warblade

A couple of things are needed
Heavy armor
Full BAB / Weapons training (Melee)
Kn Nobility (others are a bonus)
Ride
A mount
Those requirements are pretty easy to clear.

[Florian]

"historical realistic" knight or "romantic" knight?
Fighter for the former, Paladin for the later.

[Lvl 2 Expert]

Import the Pathfinder cavalier?

Optimized for mounted combat, customizable code of honor, leads and inspires allies.

(Or the Path third party knight, but that just sounds like cheating.)

For larger groups of knights mixes of aristocrat (npc class) and fighter levels probably work surprisingly well. The more "I am a noble, and I can also fight" characters get more aristocrat levels, the "I fight for everyone's honor" folks are mostly or all fighter. Maybe a few pure fighter or warrior sergeants attached to the richer knights.

[Pleh]

I recently made a couple of these guys for one of my players to fight in a series of honor duels. I used different classes to suit different themes and make each duel feel a little different.

Player was a level 5 gestalt vow of poverty monk type and each "knight" was nongestalt of the same level. He fought each knight seperately, but sequentially with the option to rest between or take them each without resting for extra glory points. He opted for the glory points. Beat the first two outright and fought the third to a standstill where it became clear the fight was just rolling to see who would finally land the winning blow. Since the purpose of the duels was to see who was most fit to lead, the duel referee declared that the PC was clearly equally matched for all three of his contenders combined and had established right to rule.

First was a straight sword n' board Knight using the class of the same name. He excels more at mounted combat than man to man duels, but he's a straightforward Test of Mettle knight, so he's wearing +1 banded mail with a +1 heavy shield for a whopping 21 AC. In a duel, he relies more on Knight's Challenge than Test of Mettle for obvious reasons, but he took a feat to use a +1 bastard sword for his attacks (in real combat, he likes to double damage on a mounted charge, but the duel didn't allow mounts) netting him +8 to hit with 1d10+3 damage. His tactic for the duel was largely attrition, hoping his AC would make him untouchable so he could just keep swinging his sword. Unfortunately for him, his AC was only moderately challenging to the PC and his damage was soaked up by healing magic.

A pretty successful "knight" I'd say, even if it's not exactly going to win any optimization competitions.

Another was a marshal/bard, and while single combat is not where he shines, he was still able to wear +1 halfplate (17 AC), wield +1 greatsword (thf), throw on minor aura (motivate Dex for initiative), major aura (motivate attack), and then Inspire Courage netting him +7 to hit dealing 2d6+3 damage (with auras and IC active*). He stumbled with some bad rolls and the bonuses didn't seem to make much difference.

Definitely much more a leader of men than a direct combatant, but still effective in combat and totally suiting the role of "knight".

*I remember there being some dispute on forums over if marshal auras and IC stack, but as DM creating an NPC, I ruled that they did because I likely would have given my players the same benefit had they been making the character.

Last one was a straight Paladin, but this guy was a little less by the book in his build. He took the ACF to trade in his special mount for the healing spirit guardian and dedicated all character resources (including WBL: he had to get a Reliquary Holy Symbol) to DMM Persist his one and only spell. I choose the Silverbeard spell (wasn't looking to make him all that deadly, just fun to fight) so he'd get a bonus to AC, combined with his nonmagical halfplate and masterwork shield came out to AC 20 (with 42 HP). His simple +1 longsword got him +6 to hit with 1d8+2 damage.

He was actually wasn't the most powerful martial opponent, but the ability for his healing spirit to dispense Lay on Hands proved more effective than Knight's Challenge or the Marshal's auras and songs and his AC was just high enough that hitting him just wasn't guaranteed, making him more effective at attrition than the Knight class knight. Both him and the PC expended all their healing and it came down to who was gonna hit first. Then the fight dragged on as attack rolls began missing and I ruled it as the characters were tiring from the exertion.

Could I have built the Paladin with Cleric (or crusader) levels instead? Yes, of course, but I was making NPC's that were more or less intended to lose to a more optimized (and gestalted) build.

My point is that they each suited the knight style and theme rather flawlessly. You could easily tinker with their construction to ramp up their power level, but I was going more for theme than power. Even then, they were still reasonable threats to the hero.

[Grod_The_Giant]

"Knight," to me, usually means heavy armor, toughness, Charisma, swordsmanship, and a horse. That's why I kind of have to go with a Crusader who nabbed Wild Cohort. Maybe dip Bard and grab Song of the White Raven, too. No-one does "tough" quite like the Crusader, and they're pretty good at leadership, too. Plus, maneuvers are nicely compatible with mounted mobility

[Florian]

Charisma

How comes? Knights were already a dead concept when later the whole concept of chivalric/courtly behavior came up, mostly around light cavalry and musketeers. Flair and panache didn't have that much to do with the former incarnation of knights, which were mostly heavily armed and trained brutes. "Raubritter" (Robber Knights) was part of their main occupation, after all.

[Pleh]

How comes? Knights were already a dead concept when later the whole concept of chivalric/courtly behavior came up, mostly around light cavalry and musketeers. Flair and panache didn't have that much to do with the former incarnation of knights, which were mostly heavily armed and trained brutes. "Raubritter" (Robber Knights) was part of their main occupation, after all.

Intimidation is still built on Charisma.

[Ellrin]

How comes? Knights were already a dead concept when later the whole concept of chivalric/courtly behavior came up, mostly around light cavalry and musketeers. Flair and panache didn't have that much to do with the former incarnation of knights, which were mostly heavily armed and trained brutes. "Raubritter" (Robber Knights) was part of their main occupation, after all.

While I'll agree that it was never a standardized or codified thing, and there were plenty of historical knights who pretty much did what they wanted, I don't know why people keep claiming chivalry didn't exist at all.

Chivalry, as a generalized concept of a code of conduct (mostly in battle) and a sort of guide to what knights should be skilled at, first developed in the twelfth century, and has relatively similar historical precedents going back at least to Roman times. It was popularized as a sort of ethical standard to which knights were meant to be held by the romances of the middle and late medieval periods, not during the renaissance. Many knights tended to be (petty) nobility directly serving, at least for significant stretches, more important nobles--ie, the people reading those romances--, and so it didn't take long for the word to be applied to behavior in court as much as to a knight's proficencies and battlefield conduct. The actual expectations certainly must have varied from region to region--probably from person to person, to some extent--but the common core of expectations generally would have included excellency in combat and certain other skills associated with the military elite of a given region; how to behave in battle, and sometimes out of it, so as not to invite criticism upon oneself or ones lord; and loyalty to that lord, and that lord's lord, etc.

Sure, it never really looked anything like what we see in the Matter of Britain or France, let alone later romantic chivalric poetry or stories; but chivalry existed during the medieval period as an informal guide to ethics and skill. Whether any given knight actually held himself to it was another matter, of course, but across much of Europe, it was there looming over the institution of knighthood.

[Bucky]

When I think Knight, I think heavy cavalry.

A knight should have a formidable mounted charge against a defensive position on favorable terrain.
A knight should also be able to dismount and hold the line on foot.

Important to the second role is a high enough AC to mostly ignore attacks from mooks.

[AnimeTheCat]

I'm going to throw down the definitions I saw when I googled "Knight Definition"

A man who served his sovereign or lord as a mounted soldier in armor (middle ages, synonym Cavalier)

A man raised by a sovereign to honorable military rank after services as a page and squire. (Middle Ages)

A man devoted to the services of a woman or a cause (Literary)

A man awarded a nonhereditary title by the sovereign in recognition of merit or service and entitled to the honorific "Sir" in front of his name.

I guess in the literary sense, anyone and everyone can be a knight, it doesn't matter what class you are :smalltongue:

[Grod_The_Giant]

How comes? Knights were already a dead concept when later the whole concept of chivalric/courtly behavior came up, mostly around light cavalry and musketeers. Flair and panache didn't have that much to do with the former incarnation of knights, which were mostly heavily armed and trained brutes. "Raubritter" (Robber Knights) was part of their main occupation, after all.
Yes, but when the concept of "knight" gets floated in a fantasy game, my-- and, I think, most people's-- mind goes the myths, not the reality-- King Arthur, Roland, and the like. I know that the chivalric codes were somewhere between an unlived ideal and a total fiction during the historic middle ages, but they're still a key part of the knightly image as it appears in modern fantasy. Knight implies noble (the rank, if not the quality), it implies courtly, it implies leadership. A good Charisma is a part of those things.

[DEMON]

Knight implies noble (the rank, if not the quality), it implies courtly, it implies leadership. A good Charisma is a part of those things.

To be fair, people like The Mountain and The Hound are from GoT/ASoIaF are supposed to be "knights" and I wouldn't liken them to much else than Fighters. An argument could be made for a Barbarian and a Rogue, or what have you, but what I meant is that even fantasy knights don't have to be all noble and courteous.

Even Gawain, while definitely having Paladin-like attributes (such as courteousness and compassion) isn't considered a great leader. At least in the works I've read, as there are different versions and depictions of these characters.

So without establishing what exactly is meant by "being a knight" a ton of different concepts can fit the bill and, subsequently, a ton of different classes and their combinations.

[Thunder999]

It has to be something with a mount, mounted combat is what makes a knight a knight, knights are at their core heavy cavalry, full plate would also be important to the image (knights were around before it existed, but when it was in use they're the ones who used it and it's a popular part of the image), proficiency in longswords and lances is also probably a good idea, but that's just standard martial prof.
With that in mind the obvious pick is paladin, they have heavy armour, martial weapons, and a mount as a class feature.
The feat wild cohort will get anyone a scaling mount though, so that means any class with heavy armour and martial weapons can fit my idea of a knight, so a crusader or warblade might be better.
Oh and there's that knight class, but the above ideas are probably actually better, cause it's not a great class.

[weckar]

I actually kind of like the idea of a Marshal/Knight as... a Knight.

[Nifft]

Yes, but when the concept of "knight" gets floated in a fantasy game, my-- and, I think, most people's-- mind goes the myths, not the reality-- King Arthur, Roland, and the like.

Indeed.

The Wizard isn't limited to historical realities -- the Knight shouldn't be limited either.