Rogue subclass - Knight Errant

[Greywander]

Yo, you want a rogue who wear half-plate and wields a greatsword? I gotchu, fam. You even get your own commoner squire eventually. It's like a knight, but dirtier and with less prestige and wealth.

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1moDcwWF_zVSARwUCfZQuB311o7c8kCA2Lu-cMnvvR_A/edit?usp=sharing

[CTurbo]

It's interesting but I think the level 17 ability is probably too strong. Maybe make it a once per short/long rest feature? Otherwise this is probably the new "hardest to kill" character.

[Trandir]

This reminds me of the valor bard.

Anyway:
What does the Dishonorable Duelist's "Additionally, if you hit a creature with a melee weapon, you may use your bonus action to use your Sneak Attack with that attack" means? The wording is a bit messy.

Ignoble Steed is a weird one since the base game does not list any penality for riding a mount without a saddle. Also you should list for how long the THP last and give it some sort of trigger. And fun fact now your kobold rogue can ride the barbarian without any penality and can provide the big guy with infinite THP.

The squire is there because? Can't you just pay a regular NPC to do your bidding?

The extra attack comes online late but it's good.

So if I am reading this correctly at 17th level you gain immunity to death by DM and instead drop to 0 HP but only the 17th time in a day. This rogue is immortal. I mean really immortal with a decent AC you can stall a dragon for a couple of minutes while the others hit it. This seems a bit overtuned.

[Greywander]

It's interesting but I think the level 17 ability is probably too strong. Maybe make it a once per short/long rest feature? Otherwise this is probably the new "hardest to kill" character.
Yeah, I need to tune this ability a bit to get it right. Maybe I should make it use a reaction, so you can't trigger it more than once per round. (Updated, now it does.) When you do trigger it, you won't be getting a lot of HP back, so you'll go down again quick. A group of enemies or a single enemy with multiattack would still be able to take you down with little difficulty, provided they can get you to 0 HP in the first place.

If you're curious, this is based on the story of Sir Gawain and the Green Knight (Sir Gawain is apparently the OG knight errant). In the story, Gawain chops off the Green Knight's head, and he doesn't die. Gawain later gets an enchanted silk girdle that prevents the wearer from dying. I wasn't sure what to do for the 17th level feature, so this provided me the inspiration for this ability.

This is a 17th level feature, so it's the same level wizards are getting Wish. I realize it needs to be scaled back, but I think the basic concept should work for a 17th level feature. And given the nature of the archetype, I'd think anyone picking this archetype would be looking for a tankier rogue, anyway, so I think it's a good fit thematically.


What does the Dishonorable Duelist's "Additionally, if you hit a creature with a melee weapon, you may use your bonus action to use your Sneak Attack with that attack" means? The wording is a bit messy.
The intent is that you can use your bonus action to force an attack to qualify for Sneak Attack damage. Knights errant aren't necessarily sneaky types, so I wanted to give them another way to trigger a sneak attack. I'll see if I can reword it at some point to be more clear, but I don't want it to get too wordy, either.

Edit: I went ahead and changed the wording, so it should hopefully be more clear. I also tweaked the bonus action thing to work with any "melee attack", which would technically include spell attacks. Could make for some interesting multiclass setups, or maybe grab Magic Initiate or Spell Sniper for Thorn Whip. Since it uses your bonus action, I think it's probably balanced.


Ignoble Steed is a weird one since the base game does not list any penality for riding a mount without a saddle. Also you should list for how long the THP last and give it some sort of trigger. And fun fact now your kobold rogue can ride the barbarian without any penality and can provide the big guy with infinite THP.
No, but it does save your DM from having to invent a penalty when you do inevitably mount a creature without a saddle. Ideally you'd still want the war saddle. Temp HP lasts indefinitely and is refreshed every time you mount up. The idea is to make more common animals like horses more viable as mounts. Temp HP doesn't stack, so mounting the barbarian only gives them a small initial boost, unless you want to burn your movement to dismount/mount every round. Hmm, actually, that might be a problem. I'll think about ways to tweak this ability. You actually can't mount or dismount more than once per turn, as per the rules, so this shouldn't be as much of a problem.


The squire is there because? Can't you just pay a regular NPC to do your bidding?
Because I was grasping for something flavorful rather than just mechanical (like, say, a fighting style), and suddenly remembered that knights often have squires. Sure, you can pay an NPC, but this gives you one for free, and guaranties you can find one any time you're in town. It's kind of like, say, how Find Steed gives you a mount. You could just buy a mount, but being able to get one for free is nice, too.


The extra attack comes online late but it's good.
I was pretty sure I wanted to give them an extra attack, but there didn't seem to be a good spot for it. 3rd level is way too early. Other rogues seem to get more fluff/ribbon features at 9th level, and 17th level would have been too late.


So if I am reading this correctly at 17th level you gain immunity to death by DM and instead drop to 0 HP but only the 17th time in a day. This rogue is immortal. I mean really immortal with a decent AC you can stall a dragon for a couple of minutes while the others hit it. This seems a bit overtuned.
The two aspects of this ability can't be used together. Either (a) you get hit with instant death, and instead drop to 0 HP and begin making death saves, or (b) you drop to 0 HP and spend a hit die to heal. Maybe it's not clear in how its worded, but instant death effects don't allow you to spend a hit die to heal. Otherwise, yeah, I think I'll change it to use your reaction, that way you can't use it more than once a round.

[Trandir]

The intent is that you can use your bonus action to force an attack to qualify for Sneak Attack damage. Knights errant aren't necessarily sneaky types, so I wanted to give them another way to trigger a sneak attack. I'll see if I can reword it at some point to be more clear, but I don't want it to get too wordy, either.


Well that makes sense. Maybe even add that as a use for cunning action for theme points.




No, but it does save your DM from having to invent a penalty when you do inevitably mount a creature without a saddle. Ideally you'd still want the war saddle. Temp HP lasts indefinitely and is refreshed every time you mount up. The idea is to make more common animals like horses more viable as mounts. Temp HP doesn't stack, so mounting the barbarian only gives them a small initial boost, unless you want to burn your movement to dismount/mount every round. Hmm, actually, that might be a problem. I'll think about ways to tweak this ability. You actually can't mount or dismount more than once per turn, as per the rules, so this shouldn't be as much of a problem.


Because I was grasping for something flavorful rather than just mechanical (like, say, a fighting style), and suddenly remembered that knights often have squires. Sure, you can pay an NPC, but this gives you one for free, and guaranties you can find one any time you're in town. It's kind of like, say, how Find Steed gives you a mount. You could just buy a mount, but being able to get one for free is nice, too.


So you are getting 2 "ribbon features" at 9th level, ok.

Yes you can give at least 9 THP to all pary members larger than you since they don't expire nor they require you to still ride the mount to maintain them. You can give a party member those THP once every 2 rounds without actions. This still has problems.

Fair enough. I do not like features that influemce the world around in this way but it's flavorful.




I was pretty sure I wanted to give them an extra attack, but there didn't seem to be a good spot for it. 3rd level is way too early. Other rogues seem to get more fluff/ribbon features at 9th level, and 17th level would have been too late.


Fair enough.



The two aspects of this ability can't be used together. Either (a) you get hit with instant death, and instead drop to 0 HP and begin making death saves, or (b) you drop to 0 HP and spend a hit die to heal. Maybe it's not clear in how its worded, but instant death effects don't allow you to spend a hit die to heal. Otherwise, yeah, I think I'll change it to use your reaction, that way you can't use it more than once a round.

You might want to compare this to the other subclasses capstone.

[Durazno]

I love this concept.

You might consider offering a more limited list of weapons that they can make sneak attacks with, rather than saying any weapon. Alternatively, you could let them pick a weapon when they hit level 3 and then become able to do sneak attacks with that, but not just anything they can pick up.

Another thing you might consider is giving dishonorable duelist a different trigger, such as a creature missing you in combat, so that they can't just have sneak attacks be "always on." (That said, I suppose a bonus action is a bigger opportunity cost for rogues than for many other classes.)

One possibility that occurred to me was that if the errant successfully performs a trip, shove, etc, they could spend their bonus action to make a sneak attack while their opponent is still reeling. However, that might be more powerful than the ability as it stands!

I wish that archetypes had more space to play, because it would be fun to see the crude squire getting sneaky and underhanded abilities. You ride into town and you send them out to gather gossip or win enough money at dice to put your horse up for the night.

[JellyPooga]

I like the concept of Dishonourable Duelist giving you a "dirty trick" bonus action option to enable Sneak Attack; throwing sand/dirt in the eyes, yanking on cloaks, etc. Good stuff! I'm not a big fan of allowing Sneak Attack with any weapon though; either thematically or mechanically. Maybe allow Sneak Attack with any 1-handed weapons (including Versatile one)? Opens up a whole slew of character archetypes, with Longswords, Quarterstaves, Battleaxes and the Lance added to the list, among others, but without totally skewing things.

I don't like Ignoble Steed granting temp HP upon mounting. Too abusable as written ("Hmm, I'll just hop off my horse and back on again...and voila! TempHP restored!"). It's also a little lacklustre. Perhaps, instead, have it grant a steed you're riding Evasion and/or Cunning Action, allowing you to pull off some really crazy stunts while mounted.

Crude Squire feels...a little superfluous. If you want a squire, you can go recruit or hire one. No need for a class feature to do it for you. I don't like abilities that force you to take something that should be optional, unless that thing is the focus of the class or subclass (e.g. Beastmaster Ranger forces you to have an animal companion, but that's the point of choosing that subclass). I think that if you beef up Ignoble Steed a little, you don't need a second 9th level feature.

Straight up; I don't like Rogue getting Extra Attack. Even as late as 13th. It also feels like a lazy add (whether it is or not is beside the point; it feels lazy to me) and as such is underwhelming. I would honestly see something a bit more ribbon-ish here, given the previous abilities. Perhaps something akin to Crude Squire in theme; along the Bandit Leader line of thinking. Not an NPC follower or followers, but something that might benefit having them. Perhaps advantage on Intimidation or Charisma checks; perhaps with a caveat that they must be of lower station or rank than you? Something along those sort of lines.

Green Knight....eeeehhhhh, I can see where you're going with it, but I get the impression it's going off track a little for the concept. It's a bit too Oath of Ancients Paladin...like, it's treading on their toes to the extent of "if that's your character concept, why aren't you playing that instead?" level of toe-treading. On top of that, Rogues are hard enough to kill as it is; no need to go making them harder to kill than the local Barbarian. Level 17 is functionally the capstone of the subclass, so it should be something good, but I'm not sure where I'd go with this.

I love the concept, though; definitely an unexplored niche.

[Greywander]

Yes you can give at least 9 THP to all pary members larger than you since they don't expire nor they require you to still ride the mount to maintain them. You can give a party member those THP once every 2 rounds without actions. This still has problems.
Good point. I've added a clause that states the temp HP are lost when you dismount, so at least now you can't share it with everyone, and you have to stay mounted for them to benefit from it.


You might want to compare this to the other subclasses capstone.
You're right, I didn't look too closely at other rogue subclass capstones for comparison. They're all mostly pretty powerful, but not to this degree. I'll scale it back somehow.


You might consider offering a more limited list of weapons that they can make sneak attacks with, rather than saying any weapon. Alternatively, you could let them pick a weapon when they hit level 3 and then become able to do sneak attacks with that, but not just anything they can pick up.
I could understand restricting the list somewhat. The Great Weapon Fighting style could be a problem if combo'd with Sneak Attack, but those are also stereotypical knight weapons, so I don't know. I don't see what's accomplished by limiting the number but letting the player choose freely, or how this is better than just letting them use anything.


(That said, I suppose a bonus action is a bigger opportunity cost for rogues than for many other classes.)
Yeah, rogues have a lot of uses for bonus actions, so it was my intent to balance this feature against all the other ways you could be using your bonus action. As for "always on" sneak attack, it's meant to be similar to how the Swashbuckler and a couple of other subclasses can bypass the normal sneak attack restrictions. Granted, they generally still have some kind of restriction, so maybe it still needs tweaking. Not sure exactly how I'd change it though.


I wish that archetypes had more space to play, because it would be fun to see the crude squire getting sneaky and underhanded abilities. You ride into town and you send them out to gather gossip or win enough money at dice to put your horse up for the night.
You could totally do this using the Sidekicks UA. Would be interesting to bake it into the subclass, but it is, after all, meant more as a ribbon than a core part of the subclass.


I like the concept of Dishonourable Duelist giving you a "dirty trick" bonus action option to enable Sneak Attack; throwing sand/dirt in the eyes, yanking on cloaks, etc. Good stuff!
This is kind of how I see the use of this feature, too. Maybe I should add some flavor text for this?


I'm not a big fan of allowing Sneak Attack with any weapon though; either thematically or mechanically. Maybe allow Sneak Attack with any 1-handed weapons (including Versatile one)? Opens up a whole slew of character archetypes, with Longswords, Quarterstaves, Battleaxes and the Lance added to the list, among others, but without totally skewing things.
As I was saying to Durazno above, I genuinely don't understand the trepidation here. Could you expand on why it bothers you to allow sneak attacks with any weapon? 5e design philosophy is generally to paint in broad strokes and general rules, rather than to nitpick the details.


("Hmm, I'll just hop off my horse and back on again...and voila! TempHP restored!")
This is intentional. Mounts are squishy, so it's nice that you can refresh that temp HP between fights.


Perhaps, instead, have it grant a steed you're riding Evasion and/or Cunning Action, allowing you to pull off some really crazy stunts while mounted.
Mounts get evasion from the Mounted Combatant feat, and Dashing is one of the few options they have for their action, unless you let them control themselves. Maybe there's something else I could do, but it should be something you can't get elsewhere, or at least something you weren't going to get anyway. Beefing up your mount with temp HP is what I came up with, but maybe there's something better we could do.


Crude Squire feels...a little superfluous. [...] I think that if you beef up Ignoble Steed a little, you don't need a second 9th level feature.
Part of the reason for the squire is because not everyone will want a mount. This way, even if you don't play a mounted character, you still get something interesting. Sure, it's something you could do anyway, but this falls in line with a number of abilities that let you do things you could already do, but easier. A classic example is that anyone can attempt to disarm or trip an opponent, but the Battle Master gets to do so more easily.

And while not everyone will want a permanent squire, being able to walk into a tavern, "hire" someone to run an errand for you, and then dismiss them afterwards with no cost is still a useful ability. Who wouldn't want to run a menial errand for the great Sir _____?


Straight up; I don't like Rogue getting Extra Attack.
It's unusual, I'll grant you, as most other subclasses that give Extra Attack typically do so at 6th level. But I just feel like Extra Attack is mandatory for a martial type of character. It makes you feel a bit more like a fighter or paladin in that regard, which is important in selling the concept of a knight.


I would honestly see something a bit more ribbon-ish here, [...] Perhaps advantage on Intimidation or Charisma checks; perhaps with a caveat that they must be of lower station or rank than you? Something along those sort of lines.
I was playing with the idea of some sort of social feature at one point, but was having trouble working out the details of it. This could be good replacement for, say, the 9th level feature if I decide to get rid of Ignoble Steed and/or Crude Squire.


"if that's your character concept, why aren't you playing that instead?"
Aside from the name, I don't really see how this relates to the Ancients paladin. Also, I think it's useful to have different classes that can offer similar flavor, as it gives you more options when deciding how to build a concept. Maybe you don't want spells, for example.


On top of that, Rogues are hard enough to kill as it is; no need to go making them harder to kill than the local Barbarian. Level 17 is functionally the capstone of the subclass, so it should be something good, but I'm not sure where I'd go with this.
Hmm, I think I might have it. First of all, I changed the immunity to instant death to only work while not unconscious. So while the first Disintegrate might only knock you out, the second one will still destroy your body.

Second, rather than healing, you now spend hit dice to reduce the damage taken. Just took 40 damage while at 5 HP? You're going to have to spend a lot of hit dice to come back from that one. Basically, you're "healing" the negative HP, and you can't "heal" yourself above what you were before getting hit. Oh yeah, and effects that just straight up knock you down to 0 can't be helped, since there is no damage to reduce.


I love the concept, though; definitely an unexplored niche.
Yep. I'm not sure how I arrived at this, but I find it interesting how using rogue as the chassis basically subverts the expectations of a knight right out of the bag, but it works. It's definitely a different twist on that concept, and we've been sorely needing a STR-based rogue subclass.

[Trandir]

Sounds good.
Now you just got to playtest it and polish the wording.
But this seems like a fun roguish archetype (make way for the sneaky goliath)

[JellyPooga]

As I was saying to Durazno above, I genuinely don't understand the trepidation here. Could you expand on why it bothers you to allow sneak attacks with any weapon? 5e design philosophy is generally to paint in broad strokes and general rules, rather than to nitpick the details.

At the end of the day, while a subclass will determine the flavour of your character, the Class is who you are. A Knight Errant might be a knight, a warrior, a bandit leader, a ronin...but he's a Rogue first. This means something with regard to fighting styles and equipment. Using a subclass you can bend the rules a little (e.g. Bladesinger subverting the unarmoured Wizard trope by granting light armour proficiency and one weapon), but you can't bend it too much (e.g. if Bladesinger granted heavy armour proficiency and all martial weapons) without asking the question "why aren't you playing that other class?". It's not a question of balance, per se, after all two-handed weapons really only offer a couple of extra points of damage over lighter weapons and there are few enough features that would offer any kind of exploit...it's a matter of style and breaking down what the feature/class/subclass is and is supposed to be representing. This is a knight errant, not a knight proper. He's not your average upstanding citizen, he's underhanded, he uses dirty tactics, he's mobile, and slippery...he doesn't wear heavy armour, not necessarily because he doesn't know how but because it's not his style. Similarly for heavier weapons; he might know how to use them, but it doesn't fit his niche...specialising in those sort of weapons is the purview of more martially inclined warriors; the Fighter, Paladin and Barbarian.

As for broad strokes...well, there's broad strokes and there's broad strokes. Allowing 1-handed weapons for Sneak Attack is just as broad a stroke as the Dual Wielder doing the same for TWF and much broader than Moderately Armoured granting proficiency in Medium Armour only. Yeah, 5ed operates in largely broad strokes, but there's plenty of examples of things that are much more specific (like the Rogues list of weapon proficiencies, for example).


This is intentional. Mounts are squishy, so it's nice that you can refresh that temp HP between fights.

Who said anything about between fights? I'm talking mid-combat, you could jump off, jump on; fresh set of TempHP.


Mounts get evasion from the Mounted Combatant feat, and Dashing is one of the few options they have for their action, unless you let them control themselves. Maybe there's something else I could do, but it should be something you can't get elsewhere, or at least something you weren't going to get anyway. Beefing up your mount with temp HP is what I came up with, but maybe there's something better we could do.

If you don't want duplication, then the idiom "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" comes to mind and it begs the question; "why not grant it?". Granting the Mounted Combatant feat as part of the feature isn't a terrible idea. That said, plenty of features make other features or Feats obsolete or duplicate, in part, other features; you wouldn't find a Totem Barbarian with Rogue levels taking Eagle Totem, you rarely see classes with Extra Attack multiclassing to the extent that they'd duplicate the feature literally, similarly for Monk/Rogues and Evasion, Battlemasters are unlikely to take Martial Adept and few Wizard are going to bother taking Ritual Caster. The list goes on. There's a lot of overlap between features and that's not necessarily a bad thing; it allows you to take different approaches to a similar goal. By granting Evasion, you still have the option of taking Mounted Combatant for the other features it offers (much as a shield proficient Rogue might take Shield Master), but you could also forgo taking the Feat at all if that was the main reason you would have taken the feat and choose something else instead. Never forget that limitations and choice are just as important as identity.

As for Cunning Action, yes, Dash is one of the things a mount can do on it's turn, but so is Disengage. Granting the use of either/both as a bonus action allows them to do both, or to Dodge and do one of them. That's pretty unique and fairly powerful. It also gels well with the notion of riding without a saddle and fits the Rogue mould of being extra mobile and slippery, as opposed to the "Knight in shining armour on his barded warhorse". Like I said; "crazy tricks".

If you really wanted to push the boat out, you could even have this feature grant your steed the ability to make Attack actions or the Help action while controlled, turning it into a psuedo-Familiar/ally in that regard. This could be too powerful, however and would bear careful consideration. Other options might include adding Str or Dex mod to your mounts jump distance/height (similar to the Thief 2nd-Storey Work), duplicating the Mobile feat feature of ignoring difficult terrain when your steed takes the Dash action, or other mobility focused abilities. Always remember that as much as this subclass is subverting the usual Rogue tropes, it's still a Rogue subclass and should focus on what Rogues do best and what you play a Rogue for.


Part of the reason for the squire is because not everyone will want a mount. This way, even if you don't play a mounted character, you still get something interesting.

At this point, I think you need to think about the identity of the subclass you're designing. Yes, it's good to offer options and versatility, but at the same time, you don't want to be too unfocused. You don't want redundancy baked in. You want everyone taking this class to want a mount; that's why you implemented a feature to enhance having one. If they don't want a mount, then they're literally missing out on a feature and need to consider whether they want to take this subclass. Think of it this way; it'd be kind of like offering Arcane Tricksters Invocations as well as spellcasting because not everyone will want to cast spells. If you don't want spells, then why are you playing an Arcane Trickster? If you don't want an Animal Companion, why play Beastmaster? If you don't want a mount, then why are you playing a Knight Errant? You can offer something for those times that your character isn't mounted, but not as a substitute for having a mount at all and offering a free Squire feels like offering an alternative NPC to a mount.


It's unusual, I'll grant you, as most other subclasses that give Extra Attack typically do so at 6th level. But I just feel like Extra Attack is mandatory for a martial type of character. It makes you feel a bit more like a fighter or paladin in that regard, which is important in selling the concept of a knight.

I get what you mean with regard to martial characters and Extra Attack, but it still feels a bit forced. No doubt, a Rogue of this kind would love the feature; it gives them an additional opportunity to land that Sneak Attack without having to resort to a magic weapon or TWF and I agree that it does fit the archetype. I'm not sold on my opposition to this; it just feels...a bit wrong.


I was playing with the idea of some sort of social feature at one point, but was having trouble working out the details of it. This could be good replacement for, say, the 9th level feature if I decide to get rid of Ignoble Steed and/or Crude Squire.

It's important to note that not every feature need be significant or powerful. Sometimes it just has to be a nice add. Look at Mastermind's Insightful Manipulator feature. It's a nice add and flavourful, but it's not exactly the primary draw of the subclass from a power perspective.


Aside from the name, I don't really see how this relates to the Ancients paladin. Also, I think it's useful to have different classes that can offer similar flavor, as it gives you more options when deciding how to build a concept. Maybe you don't want spells, for example.

The importance of names aside (and they are important), it does resemble (though not exactly duplicate) Undying Sentinel of the Ancients Paladin. As I've mentioned above, I'm not against the notion of arriving at similar destinations via different paths, but the question I have is; how does it relate to being A) a Rogue and B) a Knight Errant? In that order. As I've said, Rogues are plenty tough to mix it up in melee if you build them right, especially given access to medium armour and putting them on a mount makes them more than usually mobile, so the inferred question is; how often do you see this being used? As the capstone of the subclass, it should be powerful; Thief Rogue gets a whole extra turn every combat, Assassin gets to murderise folk nice and efficiently and Arcane Tricksters get to steal spells. This is...very passive compared to those and given that the Knight Errant is already a beefy Rogue with better mobility, is it really going to get much use out of a "don't die" feature like this? I'm suggesting not.

I would suggest a more active feature would be more appropriate. I know it's a "back to the drawing board" suggestion, but I feel it's an important one. Playing a Rogue is all about manipulating the situation to your advantage and less about weathering the situation until you can win the Pyrrhic victory. Your Green Knight feature feels a little too much like the latter and not enough like the former. If you want something to make the subclass beefier, there's no harm in giving them a "don't drop 1/day" feature; after all, Half-Orcs get it at level 1, but I wouldn't make it the subclass capstone. You need something more...well, more. More Roguish.

[Greywander]

First, thanks for the detailed post. I do appreciate you taking the time to offer such an in depth critique. I see we may share a similar propensity for getting a little verbose with our posts (I'm really bad about this), so I'll try to cut back a bit and only reply to some specific portions of your post, but I think the whole thing was good and an insightful read.


it's a matter of style and breaking down what the feature/class/subclass is and is supposed to be representing.
I'm not completely convinced, but I see where you're coming from. I've changed it to work with any melee weapon without the two-handed or heavy property. You can still use your bonus action to force Sneak Attack damage, even if the weapon wouldn't normally qualify, so I think this is a nice happy medium. You can still use a greatsword or halberd, but it will mean having to burn your bonus action to get the Sneak Attack damage.

I was playing with the idea of changing the bonus action to instead let you make one attack with a dart, hand crossbow, or any light/finesse weapon on your person after you hit with a melee attack, with guarantied Sneak Attack damage on a hit. It was getting a bit fiddly, though, as I wanted to allow it even if you didn't have a hand free, and I wasn't sure if I liked the idea of letting you basically TWF without TWFing. It was an interesting idea, but the execution was getting too messy.


As for Cunning Action, yes, Dash is one of the things a mount can do on it's turn, but so is Disengage. Granting the use of either/both as a bonus action allows them to do both, or to Dodge and do one of them. That's pretty unique and fairly powerful. It also gels well with the notion of riding without a saddle and fits the Rogue mould of being extra mobile and slippery, as opposed to the "Knight in shining armour on his barded warhorse". Like I said; "crazy tricks".
Hmm, I think you've sold me on this idea, I like it. But maybe the BA should be used to Dodge or Disengage, so that you can't double Dash? In this case, it should probably only work with mounts that you're controlling, i.e. non-intelligent mounts. No riding on the barbarian to let them Dodge as a BA. Ah, but then we'd want some bonus for intelligent mounts...


You want everyone taking this class to want a mount; that's why you implemented a feature to enhance having one. If they don't want a mount, then they're literally missing out on a feature and need to consider whether they want to take this subclass.
I could say the same thing about the Cavalier, which literally comes from the French word for "horseman". And yet, the Cavalier only has one feature directly related to mounts, and has a lot of appealing features even for non-mounted characters.

I think both the mount bonus and the squire serve the concept of a knight, but the squire is the more interesting one to me, as it's a lot more flexible in how you use it. Having a lackey can serve a much broader variety of character concepts. Ultimately, they're both ribbon-ish, so I don't think a build will be severely gimped if they don't use either of them, but I would like to avoid a "dead" level in such cases, so I don't know.


I get what you mean with regard to martial characters and Extra Attack, but it still feels a bit forced. No doubt, a Rogue of this kind would love the feature; it gives them an additional opportunity to land that Sneak Attack without having to resort to a magic weapon or TWF and I agree that it does fit the archetype. I'm not sold on my opposition to this; it just feels...a bit wrong.
I decided to add an additional clause that lets them ignore loading on crossbows, like Crossbow Expert Lite. I think crossbows are more roguish weapons anyway, and certainly less "honorable" than a bow. I think the longbow is the more optimal weapon, due to its superior reach, but this allows you to stick to the flavor of a rogue while still benefiting from the Extra Attack. So maybe that will help it feel less "wrong" to you.


It's important to note that not every feature need be significant or powerful. Sometimes it just has to be a nice add. Look at Mastermind's Insightful Manipulator feature. It's a nice add and flavourful, but it's not exactly the primary draw of the subclass from a power perspective.
Right, but the ability still has to do something, and sometimes it's hard to hammer out a concept enough to put it in writing. A vague idea of knights going to court or lording it over bandits isn't a feature, it's the inspiration for a feature. Something has to actually materialize out of that inspiration. I'll give this some more thought and see if I can come up with something. Maybe a social feature actually isn't fitting, not for a knight in general, but rather for a knight errant, specifically. They're not spending time at court, but out in the field, wandering the lands. So maybe something more ranger-ish would be more appropriate.


I would suggest a more active feature would be more appropriate. I know it's a "back to the drawing board" suggestion, but I feel it's an important one. Playing a Rogue is all about manipulating the situation to your advantage [...] You need something more...well, more. More Roguish.
What about something like when you score a Sneak Attack, you can choose to forgo the extra damage and instead inflict, say, blindness or stun on the target for one round? No save (you did have to hit with an attack, though).

Or maybe you can get a free shove as part of every Sneak Attack?

Or maybe some way to get more opportunity attacks, like the Cavalier (either more than one OA per round, or more ways to trigger an OA)? More OAs means more Sneak Attacks. What about just straight up more reactions? Maybe one reaction per turn, including other creatures' turns? That might be too good, though, as that's a stronger version of something the Cavalier gets one level later.

If it's back to the drawing board, then any suggestions are appreciated. I'm a bit short on ideas at the moment. One of the things I liked about the Green Knight feature was that it did have that thematic tie-in to the idea of the knight errant, so I'll be a bit sad if I have to give that up. Maybe we can find something else that also has a thematic fit instead of just being a mechanical fit. This is, after all, the subclass capstone, so it should represent the pinnacle of what it means to be a knight errant.