Why isn't there a knight core class in Conan?

dunderm said:
To comment on Raven's post, Squires frequently fought right beside the Knight, they got a lot of OJT.

That's where the get the first level of Soldier. First level Noble sort of represents a Squire just having been accepted by a knight. He's been taught how to wear his gear and use it but no real combat experience- hence the lower To Hit Bonus and hit points of a Noble.
 
I'm just saying - don't espouse a bunch of stuff unless you're sure about it. It's a matter of respect. I think most people with an interest in the field (myself included) would take affront to the suggestion that knights walked around crapping in their armour just for the hell of it. Ya know?

My earlier post:
Knights did not, as a rule, go in their armor on purpose.

Pre-Dark Ages, with all the Roman bathhouses, when they could take adventage of it, they bathed. But they got filthy again, mostly in the winter time. During the Crusades, when the Knights got a good look at all the Muslem bathhouses, they knew a good thing when they saw one. But there were those who thought men and women bathing together was a sin, and so nixt all those public hottubs. People got filthy again.

In the cities, a lot of the water got polluted by the sewage dumped in the streets. Took the Black Plague and a lot of money to fix the sewage problem, which according to many people, has not yet been fixed.

A lot of people took sponge baths, soap was a major product during this time. So until, plumbing really took hold, lots of people were filthy, compared to modern times. We are not talking generally about the Nobles, those guys got filthy by choice, not happenstance.


And it looks like the Knight is really shaping up.
 
Dunderm, I mean no offense by this, but: Study. Study, study, study. A lot of what you're saying is myth - false beliefs that have been shooting around here and there for a long time. They weren't true back when people believed them, and they're not true now that we know they're false.

I would suggest looking into more modern books on the subject (older books tend to have a lot of the errors that have been corrected by more recent discoveries and historians). That will help correct your views.

Even the term 'Dark Ages' is a misnomer. It stems from the post-Victorian belief that medieval people were uncouth and unlearned compared to those people of the Roman Empire. Today we know that's not actually true.

Post-Victorian historians also believed that Western Europeans did not regularly bathe, preferring to think that cleanliness was a 'new idea.' They did, and it wasn't.


It seems like you've gotten most of your information from one really old, really bad source. I suggest looking into something newer, if you have an interest in the field ('course, if you don't have an interest I don't see why you'd even be talking about it - so I assume you have an interest in it).
 
Well Raven´s way to deal with the knight is quite good...
And the way to insert the squire at 1st level also seems nice...

About that "thing" done while wearing armour, it did happen, heavy armours took really much time to take of and in most situations it would be better just to "do it" in the armour.
And i have no knowledge of any armour that permited an openning for well "you know".
Most mediavel plated armours were screwed so getting out of that was not an option...

But remember, knights did not live in their armours, and in only in martial times they would use heavy armour...

Well our ancestors were definitly not sub-human, be them slavers or slaves (well i´m talking of recent ancestors, homo sapien sapiens)

Slavery still exists today, so do you consider our societys sub-humain?

The slave is the second oldest profession in the world, and is part of the worlds history, part of what we are today and were before...

If you´re stronger than the other may you enslave him?
By nature Law, yes you can, but by moral law, no you can´t...
It all come to "what you belive in"

At last, the knight should be like HFinnest Cavalier...

By my defenition, the typical maxed-out knight would be a mounted 8noble/12soldier with the right feats, who would easilly kill any common 20th level soldier...
And even on foot, the common soldier as only a +1/+2 Dodge/Parry than the so called "Knight", wich would be compensated by the unique variant rules that the "knight would be able to choose from.
 
About that "thing" done while wearing armour, it did happen, heavy armours took really much time to take of and in most situations it would be better just to "do it" in the armour.

This isn't true, as I have gone over in extreme detail already.

And i have no knowledge of any armour that permited an openning for well "you know".
Most mediavel plated armours were screwed so getting out of that was not an option...

Most armour was -not- screwed together. It was strapped together. I don't know a whole lot of people that can't undo a few buckles. Do try to note that all plate armour comes in separate pieces.

On most plate armour, actually, uncovering your 'parts' was simply a matter of unbuckling/unlacing the fauld from the breastplate. Simple. Takes about as long as unlacing your shoes.



At last, the knight should be like HFinnest Cavalier...

What's the Hyboria's Finest Cavalier like? I'm still watching the mailbox for my copy of HF.
 
I always liked reading revisionist history, it's always a refreshing trip from reality. The victors, rich and nobles, and those with "manifest destiny" always had a way of making one group or another look bad compared to them.

I grew up in "the bush" on my father's homestead in Alaska. We had no running water, no electricity, and we had to heat our cabin (I did not say house) with wood blazing away in a barrel stove. No one delivered our wood, we had to go out into the woods and cut it down ourselves, usually with a Swede saw. Then we had to haul it back on a sled or sometimes on our shoulders. I am still amazed to this day, the huge logs my father effortlessly, or so it seemed to me, hoisted upon his broad shoulders and would walk back nearly half a mile like this. We had to carry water up a hill a quarter of a mile from the spring that would stay running even when it got down to 50 below. You still had to chop down to the water, occasionally. We would heat water on the stove in small buckets and fill our little round tub to take a bath in. I was forced to do this at least once a week during the winter. The water was never very deep, but I could sit in it as a kid, and do a decent wash. I would then stand very close to the red hot (it glowed!) stove, and occasionally I was careless and burnt my fanny. It was better in the summer, we could swim in our creek, but after about 15 minutes or less of that, and you could hardly stop shivering. So from first hand hard experience, which I doubt very much you have experienced, I know that without all the niceties I enjoy today, you do not go about and bathe everyday. I'm sure that life in the middle ages wasn't much better than what I experience growing up. So regardless of all your vaunted learning, you don't know squat about what living that kind of life would be like.

And that's all I have to say about that.
 
I know that without all the niceties I enjoy today, you do not go about and bathe everyday.


Post-Victorian historians also believed that Western Europeans did not regularly bathe, preferring to think that cleanliness was a 'new idea.' They did, and it wasn't.

Show me where I said that medieval Europeans bathed everyday.
 
I think Knights would need to wear their armor as much as possible. This would naturally make them stronger. Not only that, they would learn just how to move in that cumbersome armor in order to make the attacks they are so famous for. Somehow, I think you can reflect this in the Knight. Soldiers and other lesser types, might be able to put on the armor, but a real Knight could make short work of them. So some sort of Feat, I would guess (I don't really know much about this), that allows the Knight to move more freely in armor, might be in order. Maybe "Move Freely in Armor" or something along that line. But I'm way in over my head, since I don't know the system.
 
dunderm said:
I think Knights would need to wear their armor as much as possible. This would naturally make them stronger. Not only that, they would learn just how to move in that cumbersome armor in order to make the attacks they are so famous for. Somehow, I think you can reflect this in the Knight. Soldiers and other lesser types, might be able to put on the armor, but a real Knight could make short work of them. So some sort of Feat, I would guess (I don't really know much about this), that allows the Knight to move more freely in armor, might be in order. Maybe "Move Freely in Armor" or something along that line. But I'm way in over my head, since I don't know the system.

Actually, that kind of feat founds in Aquilonia -Flower of the West sourcebook, with knight prestige class. Cant remember the name but if lowers Armour check penalties you get from your armour.
 
dunderm said:
Knights did not relieve themselves in their armour. That's ridiculous. Some people like to believe that people who lived 400 years ago were somehow less than us -- subhuman. They weren't. A knight in 1456 would have considered it just as uncomfortable to walk around with crap in his pants as a high schooler in 2005 would. No one wants to walk around in their own excriment.

Some of the Knights had armor that you had to get screwed into and it was nearly impossible to get out of without help. Knights did not, as a rule, go in their armor on purpose. It did happen, and it was the squire's job to clean it out. You can believe it or not.

nope, that is a myth.
Armours used in battle did not made knights wearing them virtually unable to move, you did not need screwdriver and monkey wrench to put them on and it was not so heavy that you weren't able to mount your horse withouth help or stand up afler falling on a battle.
No sane person would wear anything like that on a battlefield where you must be able to move and keep fighting (even after losing your horse)

Full plate armour in 1400's was about 30-40kg, which is about as much as modern time soldiers (at least here in finland) are execpted to be able to carry with them while moving (not in battlefield). Most of the medieval armour's weight was divided quite equally around your body which makes it less cumbersome than carrying same amount of weight on a backbag. (As a student of medieval swordmanship i have noticed that it is lots of nicer to wear my own (partial) armour, of about 25kg weight, than carrying all those parts in a icehockey bag.

Most of the myths about the extremely heavy armours that made their wearers almost helpless withouth his horse were based on armours used in tournaments at later periods (which were kind of a sports equipment, not used in a real battle). When jousting in tournament mobility was not a big deal, you was suppposed to ride straight line against your opponent and strike him down with your lance... No hours of battle, no anyone striking dagger at joints of your armour to finish you after you fall down from your horse etc. And because of that greater weight was an advantage because it added weight (and therefore force) behind your charge, and heavier armour offered also better protection when you knew that event was played (at least mostly) by the rules. Because of that knights sharted to use heavier and heavier armours at tournament, and also special breeds of horses that were as big and strong as possible (although also not actually usable in a combat situation).
 
Korppis said:
Armours used in battle did not made knights wearing them virtually unable to move, you did not need screwdriver and monkey wrench to put them on and it was not so heavy that you weren't able to mount your horse withouth help or stand up afler falling on a battle.

Snip.....

Full plate armour in 1400's was about 30-40kg, which is about as much as modern time soldiers (at least here in finland) are execpted to be able to carry with them while moving (not in battlefield). Most of the medieval armour's weight was divided quite equally around your body which makes it less cumbersome than carrying same amount of weight on a backbag.

I remember seeing a program on TV once with two historians trying on armour and fighting in it. They were surprisingly mobile in it and the weight distribution issue came up, even knowing the theory they said they were taken aback by how easy it was to actually move.

However once one of them fell he was unable to get up while he was fighting. The expert who was with them said that a knight would have a tricky (not impossible) time getting up so it would be relatively common to try and knock them down before punching through the armour using a spikey warhammer type weapon.

Remember though that these were complete amateurs, never worn armour before. Someone who was used to it would be able to get up with a lot more ease and would certainly be more generally mobile.

IIRC correctly the Pendragon RPG had the squire hanging around and doing things like helping the knight get up or fetching his weapon if it was knocked away. The other knights would pretty much ignore all these squires hanging around. The games a deliberately romantic vision of the times of armoured knights though but it is a fun way of thinking of them.
 
dunderm said:
In the cities, a lot of the water got polluted by the sewage dumped in the streets. Took the Black Plague and a lot of money to fix the sewage problem, which according to many people, has not yet been fixed.

No.

London didn't even really attempt to fix the sewer problem until the Victorian age. It had nothing at all to do with the black death and a lot more to do with the cholera, typhoid, the "great stink" of 1858 and the flushing toilet.

The great fire of London probably did play a part in helping stop the outbreaks, Bazalgette's sewer system some 200 years later didn't.
 
Could I politely request the debate over 'does a knight s**t in the woods' stop? Considerig most GMs don't even require characters to use the bathroom it seems like one of those small details that aren't going to come up in game.
 
Oly said:
I remember seeing a program on TV once with two historians trying on armour and fighting in it. They were surprisingly mobile in it and the weight distribution issue came up, even knowing the theory they said they were taken aback by how easy it was to actually move.

However once one of them fell he was unable to get up while he was fighting. The expert who was with them said that a knight would have a tricky (not impossible) time getting up so it would be relatively common to try and knock them down before punching through the armour using a spikey warhammer type weapon.

Remember though that these were complete amateurs, never worn armour before. Someone who was used to it would be able to get up with a lot more ease and would certainly be more generally mobile.

Of course getting up is harder and slower, and when fighting 1:1 it can be almost impossible because your opponent has no one else to worry about so he can focus finishing you off.
As you mentioned those historians were amateurs and most likely wearing those equipment first time. If you have worn armour since you were in your teens it would be lots of easier.
 
Well actually i think that the actual problem with Heavy armour, was that you had to spend some time trying to get up once you had fallen...
And that small time in the ground could get you killed...
On "one on one" actually it would be easier escape than in masscombat were you would get attacked several times in the ground...

Well about the myth of "ya know", it makes sense to me that it would happen in battle situations, but not in normal life...

One question, was not the basic "dark ages" full plated armour screwed, and the rest of the parts straped? allways had that idea... probably also a myth...

Back to the knight, well i think that we just have to wait for "Titos trading post" to see if any new tipe of Plated armour is available...
Since it seems that Noble/soldier cut´s it and only needs a couple more specific feats and variant rules...

Dunderm about your life experiance in alaska, well that´s how most commoners lived in ancient times, while the nobles lived "as kings"...
I dindn´t experiance something like that, but my father did...

And i think that in mediavel times bath was not considered to be needed more than once per month... but i can be wrong...

If anyone as more sugestions about the knight please post them...
 
And i think that in mediavel times bath was not considered to be needed more than once per month... but i can be wrong...

You are, in fact, wrong.

I would suggest studying a topic before trying to talk about it, to both yourself and Dunderm.


Now.. someone mentioned knights getting better at wearing armour. If someone were to actually bother getting back on topic, they might see that I mentioned that exact ability (from the Poitainian Knight PrC) on page five or six - during an effort to get the discussion back on topic.
 
Damien said:
You are, in fact, wrong.

I would suggest studying a topic before trying to talk about it, to both yourself and Dunderm.

Huh.. sort of like the topic of nation-states, I suppose :).

But on this topic, it seems to me that some of the confusion is about just what class of people in the medieval world we are talking about. Although, I believe Damien is right about more recent research on life in the middle ages, most of the data we have about such times comes from the small slice of people at the top for which documentation was kept - i.e. the nobility. Reconstructing the lives of the common people is much more difficult. It seems reasonable to think that it would be easier to practice good hygiene when you have more resources. So, I would guess there was a strong correlation between people's class and their cleanliness.
 
Huh.. sort of like the topic of nation-states, I suppose

Actually, in that thread I only said that the concept of nationality and 'nations' (be they full nations or states) was established very early in history. I openly stated I had never heard the term 'nation-state' and then pointed out its complete lack of relevance to the topic when it was defined for me. ;)


But on this topic, it seems to me that some of the confusion is about just what class of people in the medieval world we are talking about. Although, I believe Damien is right about more recent research on life in the middle ages, most of the data we have about such times comes from the small slice of people at the top for which documentation was kept - i.e. the nobility.

Actually, most of the documentation we have comes from the monks, poets, and storytellers of the time. All of whom would have been lower-to-middle class. There's also some documentation on the part of retired knights, who, while nobility, were not 'high' nobility.

But that's also new information that one would have to keep up with things to know. Even 20 years ago we didn't have as much information from the lower-class standpoint as we do today.
 
Damien said:
I don't recall where the Poitainian Knight PrC occurs, but I'm sure a decent BAB is required too.

Quite. +5, to be exact. I was using it as my example when I said "why should I have to wait until fifth level to be a knight" - which is how long it would take a straight soldier to get there.

That quote's to show you where I'm at in reading as I chime in here with some thoughts.

First, has as been said, PrC's are supposed to be special, you have to EARN the right to become what that represents, 'be accepted into the fold' so to speak. The qualifications to be considered are rendered in terms of the game mechanic. BAB X+, Y many ranks in these skills, take the feat "needed feat" etc.

Then comes the hard part (especially since it requires a little bit of actual ROLE-playing), find the group and get them to accept you for membership.

IMO (as unhumble as it is), any GM truly worth their salt would NEVER allow PCs to be taking levels in any PrC without them actually 'qualifying' for it within the campaign.

I would ask "why a Knight?" as in what do you hope for your character to gain from the class? Some special class-based ability that you can't get with the current multiclassing options? For the char to have a title that it can bandy about in some vain attempt to seem important? To get some stuff (equipment, property, wealth) that it probably wouldn't get any other way?

From what I've read so far, it seems like having a knight class doesn't serve the campaign as much as much as it is one of the questions I asked above. The same questions can really be asked of any class.

As far as Knight being a base class, bad idea. It is MUCH harder for a GM to prevent players from taking a level in a base class (especially a creation) than it is to say NO to them taking a PrC.

anyway, as I said, my 2 coppers.
 
Hey i´m not a scholar studying Mediavel history...

And my knowledge isn´t that great, i´m from the cience area, not the historic one...

In NATION-STATE i think that i agreed with you damien, saying that there was an old nationalistic feeling in old kingdoms...

And i don´t know much about armours but i said that "it could happen" but only in martial situations, not when you have to "go to the bathroom" and prefer to stay in your fullplated armour...

As far as i know "commoner life styles" existed and exists still today in really remote places of every countrie...
We don´t really have written evidences of commoner life styles...
But in my countrie, villages from last centurie and mediavel times were really not that diferent...

And it is my belife that common people in early middle ages did not worry much about bathing... it simply wasn´t considered to be such an important thing.. and it explains the loss of the "Roman termal tradition", and the church helped in that...

And we here dicuss points of views and opinions...
 
Back
Top