We can agree to disagree on how stated information should be treated then; balmy weather, medieval (especially french) diet, and a layer of musty padding under 45 lbs of armour might all impede a man's ability to go to the bathroom
Not really, since the only thing covering his little tushy would be a pair of breeches and maybe a fauld.
http://www.beautifuliron.com/images/DiagramArmour4.jpg
Like so.
. It seems a reasonable opinion, and in my mind "read a book!" isn't anything except voicing that you have a different opinion stated in a rather arrogant, and generally impolite, manner.
I didn't say "read a book" I said "study." There's a difference. And as I've said many times over - any tone you put to words on a website are generally put there by you. We should be careful not to assign tone to someone else's words unless we can be reasonably sure we're correct.
Another thing to keep in mind, is that the knights of Hyboria are based on Howard's concepts of what a knight was - not the most modern versions (even if you happen to believe because something is newer, it's somehow more accurate) which lends weight to the argument that knights should reflect texts written earlier every bit as much as your updated histories.
I would agree with you
where the contradiction is in something Howard actually wrote. His words are the most important factor. He has nothing to say on the subject, however, so we cannot know which belief he ascribed to during his life. So we use the most recent information to fill in the gaps.
And I never said newer information is always better. I said that the newer information reflects discoveries made and more period information found. That means that the new information
in this case is the better information.
Born to the Saddle: Not my cup of tea. Just because you can ride a horse doesn't mean your an expert about the beasts. Fine maybe for a regional knight, but doesn't make complete sense to me as a generic ability associated to all knights.
Couldn't that just as easily be said about any class? Aren't class abilities approximations of what the -majority- of people in a certain vocation would be like?
Most knights would have a very keen understanding of husbandry because they spend a large portion of their personal funds on maintaining proper horses. Horses were one of the most expensive things a knight was -required- to own. You didn't simply buy based on a guess. You learned how to tell what the best horses were.
Would -ALL- knights bother to learn this? Probably not. Do
all thieves jam daggers in people's spines? Are
all sea-dogs highly mobile expert navigators? Are
all nomads (an entire sect of human beings) expert horsemen? Do
all nobles have a keen ability to command respect and loyalty?
Approximations. I don't think anyone is silly enough to assume that a class represents 100% of the population of people in that vocation. Not even every character in Howard's stories fits perfectly within the given classes.
We have to approximate the majority. And the majority of knights would be well-versed in judging the quality of a horse. At least as well as most nomads could. In the end, both nomads and knights spend a large portion of their lives around horses, and learn about them as a means of survival.
Nomads, I'll point out again, actually get a better version of the Born to the Saddle ability.
Horsemanship: Eh. Better horsemen than nomads? I find that hard to swallow. This is one of those traits forced in that hardly applies to all knights - some knights might be good on horseback, but popular culture tells us that -all- nomads were. If anything, this perk belongs to nomads (assuming the base nomad class is intended to reflect eurasian nomads - which seems a fair conclusion considered their two favoured terrain options)
The Nomads don't really seem to be designed specifically around being mounted. They only have a few abilities tied directly to mounts. That says to me that the Core assumption
isn't that nomads are the best horsemen around, by default.
Although with the right feats, and a bow, you could still make the Nomad into a Mongol-esque horse-archer capable of taking on a Knight, regardless of his 'Horsemanship' ability.
Armour Tolerance: Not one reason a soldier on campaign couldn't grab this as a feat. It's hardly reasonable to assume that knights would be the only class/variant that trained extensively in heavy armour.
But it's not a feat. It's an ability that gets better as you go. And there is a reason why it should be unique to knights: A knight starts wearing armour as a child. He conditions himself from an extremely young age to get used to it. It absolutely makes sense that he'd find it much easier to wear than anyone else.
Is a lance even the prime weapon of a knight? Honestly, you charge with it, you hit something, and then you have a weighty spear thats ineffectual in melee, or it breaks
Yes it is. And actually, the 'Frankish Charge' (what you're referring to) was not simply done once. Knights would charge, retreat back to the lines to get fresh lances (if they needed new ones) and charge again. So this ability does make perfect sense.
And it's limiting; Why can't my knight be better with a sword?
He can - be devoting more feats to his sword than to his lance. But part of the knight's training is in the lance. That's even true of non-European knights in real history - the Mongols, the Persians, the Saracens, the Mamluks - all used lances to some degree. The Western European knights, those that Howard's are presumably based on, specifically trained to be part of a cohesive group of lancers. That was their primary function.
A sword is a classical knightly weapon.
Yes it is. And it was the most popular knightly side-arm. But it was never the principal weapon.
Again, a class ability better suited to knights of a specific region than all knights.
Not considering all knights share the training that required the use of the lance.
Improved Heavy Calvary: Eh. Questionable. An experienced footsoldier in a pike regiment has about as much right to a Heavy Infantry mastery at a lower level too, and i wouldn't think that merits a fresh class/variant either.
So give it to him.
Alone it doesn't merit its own class or variant. But when combined with a slew of other things that make the idea unique (or unique -enough- to consider its own niche) it makes a good additional ability.
I also couldn't help but notice your assumption that knights for some reason would begin training at an earlier age compared to other classes.
Because they would.
I personally find that to be questionable, since the son of a campaigning mercenary, a marine captains cabin boy, a pioneer's son thats learning of frontier skills like tracking and hunting, not to mention countless other possible backgrounds can assume the same starting age.
The marine captain's cabin boy is not a soldier, nor is a pioneer's son.
We're talking about the relation between knight and soldier. A -soldier's- training, that which makes him a soldier, would not start until he was virtually an adult. Not so the knight. Different training methods create entirely different people with different intrinsic abilities.
If the soldier boy started training really young (an extreme rarity), conditioned himself to wear heavy armour from a young age, and was taught to act as part of a cavalry formation - we'd be talking about a character that isn't a straight Soldier, but rather a variant Knight without the nobility baggage.
Not all soldiers done their armour for the first time at 16, fresh out of a corn field; and by trying to support that the knight is the equal at arms as a soldier, your forcing a background on another class just to better suit the knight.
Most soldiers DO don their armour for the first time at around 16. Most societies before that wouldn't even allow soldiers younger than that. In real life, that is. Of course, can you come up with a quote from Howard about trained soldiers under 16?
Can you name any soldiers from the real world who started training before 16? Besides the Mamluks - as they are basically knights.
It's not forcing a background, it's reinforcing it. Soldiers are not raised to be soldiers, they become soldiers. Knights are raised to be knights in the same way that nomads are raised as nomads (in most cases).
Really, I think it all ties an inability to represent knights well at level 1 with any class - theres simply too much to being a knight.
My issue isn't one of comparison. I'm not looking at what a Noble or Soldier can do against another Noble or Soldier. I'm looking at the Knight solely as its own concept. In my opinion it has nothing to do with how it measures up, as a multiclass option, with other classes, but rather how well any class or class combination approximates how I view a knight.
In my opinion a knight has enough about him that makes him unique that he'd be best served by a variant multiclass option. Obviously the likes of Vincent Darlage and Mongoose agree - hence the 'Cavalier' in Hyboria's Finest (which I'm still waiting for).
You assume they're less dedicated than knights in learning their trade
No, I assume their skillset and life experience would be vastly different from that of a knight. History seems to agree.
you assume they start training at an older age
Because, as a general rule, they do.
and largely you assume that character player soldiers are solely limited to the role of grimy footsoldiers.
Never said that. Never implied it. Never even considered it.
Really, from where I'm standing you assume too much based on the class name "soldier" and significantly less based on the abilities of the actual class itself.
From where I'm standing, you're doing most of the assuming.
And, yes, I did notice you stated that you thought a variant class was a fair substitution (previously you also stated it was deserving of a core class, then you changed your stance)
I changed my stance because, prior to this topic's creation, I didn't actually know about the variant multiclass rules. I only owned three books (and still do) - Core, Aquilonia, and Road of Kings - none of which have the variant multiclasses in them.
As far as I'm concerned we're debating for the sake of debating at this point, we both know how we're going to treat knights really. Basically, anyone still posting here is posting for the argument ;
I think that's an accurate assessment.
I assume you treat it the same.
Quite so. At least as long as we argue the subject matter and not each other's personal religious values or mothers' maiden names.
Ps: What hair colour do you have? I need to know for the voodoo doll ;p
Light brown with natural red and light brown/blonde highlights. Since I went into detail about my hair colour, I expect that voodoo doll to look exactly like me.
8)
