I've been talking about this aspect with our gaming group which played our last Conan session last weekend. First off, I have all but 2 Mongoose Conan products. This is the first game product I've purchased so extensively, and it's because I love the stories/GM the game. But personally, I hate supplements by nature, look at how WoTC has muddied up the field with all the crap they produce. It's necessary for the survival of the manufacturer, but basically everything you need for the game is found in the core book or The Road of Kings. Before I read Mr. Darlage's reply I was gonna suggest the same thing, multiclass the soldier & noble. And The Free Companies has a lot of possibilities in it for you as well.
Why isn't there a knight core class in Conan?
- Thread starter Azgulor
- Start date
Sutek
Mongoose
I'm not sure if anyone has mentioned this or not, but really, a "knight" is really just a warrior under the direct employ or alleigeance to someone in power who serves by adhering to a code of ethics. You can have a multi-classed whatever, but if you aply a Code of Honor...that's what would make a Knight out of him. Knight is really after all just a title (take Paul McCartney, for example - probably not a fantastic warrior - lol).
Bregales said:
While I certainly agree that the core rules + RoK provides all that is required to run a Conan campaign, I have found the Conan supplements to be among the best in the d20 industry. Also, as a reluctant adopter of d20 rules (Conan convinced me that a worthwhile d20 ruleset existed), the sample NPCs and multiclass paths are extremely helpful. Plus, unlike any other d20 product I've seen, Vincent's incorporation of Variant Rules for certain multi-class combos provide the necessary tweaks to realize the concept without resorting to additional classes (core or prestige). And that's essentially what I was hoping for, a multiclass progression with variant rules that provide the tweaks I was seeking.
I, am also, rabidly trying to complete my Conan collection as I have yet to be disappointed with any of my Conan line purchases.
So thanks, Vincent, for all of your work! And although this is just wishful thinking on my part, any chance of Hyboria's Finest being moved up on the release schedule?
Azgulor
Damien
Mongoose
Actually, the new "Knight" and an old "Knight" have nothing to do with one another. Sir Ian McKellen may have "Sir" in his title, but there's nothing knightly about him. It's just a title now.
But back then... a knight wasn't just a guy given a title. Due to the process of becoming a knight, one would expect wealth and an enormous amount of martial training. So I understand why people view the 'knight' archetype as different from a soldier or other combatant -- his training is outstanding, and will be very much concerned with mounted combat, but mixed with strong overall technique, enough wealth for the best equipment, and plenty of study into lineage, rank, government, etc.
When considering what deserves its own class (or multi-class option) - just consider "Is this concept unique enough, or can I think of enough unique abilities to give it?"
In this case, I'd say yes, most definitely.
Sutek
Mongoose
Actually, one had to manage to accomplish two things to become a knight "back then":
1) live long enough
2) be knighted
The code of ethics which a knight lived by would have differed from that of an individual serving King Richard as opposed to someone serving Saladin.
I think most of the ideas behind the concept of knighthood are already included in the Conan RPG: Soldier with a Code. The back story might be altered by the GM so that he's bound to a powerful noble (where knights got thier money - if they had money to begin with, they'd have been nobles and had people fight for them).
The real point is (in my opinion, of course) that (A) if you want to make a knight-like character in Conan then it's as easy as making a combat oriented character and having them ascribe to a Code of Honor, but (B) knights aren't a sort of character that really appear in the Conan books and so don't really fit in the Conan world. Perhaps in Aquilonia, but still, it's just a matter of creating an NPC that the knight character has to be subservient to and also have the character live by a Code.
1) live long enough
2) be knighted
The code of ethics which a knight lived by would have differed from that of an individual serving King Richard as opposed to someone serving Saladin.
I think most of the ideas behind the concept of knighthood are already included in the Conan RPG: Soldier with a Code. The back story might be altered by the GM so that he's bound to a powerful noble (where knights got thier money - if they had money to begin with, they'd have been nobles and had people fight for them).
The real point is (in my opinion, of course) that (A) if you want to make a knight-like character in Conan then it's as easy as making a combat oriented character and having them ascribe to a Code of Honor, but (B) knights aren't a sort of character that really appear in the Conan books and so don't really fit in the Conan world. Perhaps in Aquilonia, but still, it's just a matter of creating an NPC that the knight character has to be subservient to and also have the character live by a Code.
Damien
Mongoose
Your "list of two" is a painfully outdated belief, you know. At one time, it was "common knowledge" that knights were no more than bullies with titles that managed to survive a few battles. Fortunately, that's pretty far from the truth. A knight was more than just a man with a sword.
Actually.. their codes were quite similar all around. Of course, we're not talking about codes -anyway-, are we? After all, two English knights could have different particular codes of honour.
But it is worth noting that many Europeans considered Saladin, even though he was the enemy, to be the quintessential embodiment of chivalry.
Of course, that's neither here nor there, since a knightly class in an RPG would invariably focus more on social and military aspects, rather than moralistic values.
Absolutely.
Of course, why stop there? We could, if we so wanted, relegate all classes back to a few "core" concepts with just the correct assortment of feats, skill point alottments, etc.
What we should consider is not "can I strain the classes to make this idea work" - but "can I think of enough variant and new abilities to warrant a new class." Clearly, many people can. Mr. Darlage has already stated that the Knight will be included as a multi-class variant in Hyboria's Finest, and the d20 system itself is brimming with "Non-Paladin Knight" classes.
What makes a knight different from a highborn soldier? I would say it might have something to do with, firstly, being a mix of nobility and military aspects. Further, I'd say the Knight could do with having more direct abilities associated with mounted combat, as that was their primary role. Rather than just "picking the right feats" - actually having pre-set abilities in this area is a nice touch.
If you prefer to simply say "just choose the right feats" - that's fine. Of course, by that logic, like I said before, we could push all the classes into two or three archetypes and just make all classes variations on those few themes - as that's all they really are.
Poitain seems to be a pretty popular spot for Knights.
And is not Zingara the "Flower of Chivalry?"
I believe reading MANY, MANY times, also, that most of the Hyborean world considered cavalry to be the only worthy position in the military. That bespeaks of many cultures with some form of 'knightly' tradition, if in the basest sense.
If you really want knights, get a copy of King Arthur Pendragon from Green Knight Publishing. The best game ever written to cover Arthurian, pre-Arthurian knights in (England) but can cover Europe. It can be built around a particular influence (my games are usually based on Mallory and the Anglo-Saxon poet, with Geoffry of Monmouth's History of the Kings of Britain) or played based on the cumulative and generic feel of the old days. It's system of personality traits and passions are unparralelled, in my opinion. Combat and skills are a different matter, but even as a sourcebook for a Conan-based game, it'll give you more than you need to make up knights.
Since I'm writing this at work, I can't open my Aguilonia book from Mongoose, maybe that has info as well?
Since I'm writing this at work, I can't open my Aguilonia book from Mongoose, maybe that has info as well?
About knights: knights evolved from the apogee of Rome's heavy armored units & cavalry. The early European and British knights were brutes for the most part. The earliest tournaments in England, for example, were guys wearing chain killing each other across the countryside playing a game like 'Catch the Flag' while raping peasants, killing peasants, setting fire to towns owned by knights they didnt' like, etc. The early church condemned the antics of knights repeatedly, and began to wish for better behavior from them.
The notions we have of Chivalry began more around the 12th century; Cretien de Troyes was considered an early influence, the Ango-Saxon poet, and Geoffry of Monmouth were poets/historians who wrote about ideals of knighthood. Chevalerie, fraternitie et egalite began to be more accepted around the 13th century. And note that Sir Thomas Mallory, the acclaimed author of Le Morte Darthur, wrote the book while imprisoned for 12 years for rape, and stealing (and maybe murder as well, but I don't think so) and he was too poor to afford a ransom, so he wrote about the idealized knights of the Round Table and all that.
Knights could fight each other, lead commoners or sergeants in battle, were required to spend at least 60 days a year serving their lord's garrison, patrolling his lands. The magna carta helped in a way (in England) establish high & low justice. Knights could carry out any sentence in the name of their lord unto those of lesser status. Trial by combat emerged as a way to keep the knights training in combat in practice, challenge a peer when a superior wasn't on hand. Knights could carry out any sentence they deemed fit to declare, although in later years even announcing death to a lower social class person wasn't allowed. They could NOT serve as judges to those of higher rank.
A man could be both a knight (the lowest of the upper social classes) and a landowner, or a lord over any size holding his social status allowed. There were many kngihts, however, who were poor and could afford no more than their lord gave them to live on, they may have lived in the great hall of their lord's castle if they had no holdings of their own.
Okay, I'm at work after all, and this email has gone on long enough. So ask yourself if you want a historical game, a fantasy game, a sword-&-sorcery game or you wanna tape cardboard boxes on your body and swing brooms at each other. Unless you're going for historical/larp, who cares how knights really were! Just do what makes for a fun time.
The notions we have of Chivalry began more around the 12th century; Cretien de Troyes was considered an early influence, the Ango-Saxon poet, and Geoffry of Monmouth were poets/historians who wrote about ideals of knighthood. Chevalerie, fraternitie et egalite began to be more accepted around the 13th century. And note that Sir Thomas Mallory, the acclaimed author of Le Morte Darthur, wrote the book while imprisoned for 12 years for rape, and stealing (and maybe murder as well, but I don't think so) and he was too poor to afford a ransom, so he wrote about the idealized knights of the Round Table and all that.
Knights could fight each other, lead commoners or sergeants in battle, were required to spend at least 60 days a year serving their lord's garrison, patrolling his lands. The magna carta helped in a way (in England) establish high & low justice. Knights could carry out any sentence in the name of their lord unto those of lesser status. Trial by combat emerged as a way to keep the knights training in combat in practice, challenge a peer when a superior wasn't on hand. Knights could carry out any sentence they deemed fit to declare, although in later years even announcing death to a lower social class person wasn't allowed. They could NOT serve as judges to those of higher rank.
A man could be both a knight (the lowest of the upper social classes) and a landowner, or a lord over any size holding his social status allowed. There were many kngihts, however, who were poor and could afford no more than their lord gave them to live on, they may have lived in the great hall of their lord's castle if they had no holdings of their own.
Okay, I'm at work after all, and this email has gone on long enough. So ask yourself if you want a historical game, a fantasy game, a sword-&-sorcery game or you wanna tape cardboard boxes on your body and swing brooms at each other. Unless you're going for historical/larp, who cares how knights really were! Just do what makes for a fun time.
Damien
Mongoose
Bregales, I certainly agree with you. And in the game it really -doesn't- matter how knights really were. But sometimes it's fun to talk about it anyway.
Oh and one thing:
The notion we have of Chivalry were being -recorded- around the 12th century, but probably started at least a century prior (as we know that 12th century writers were recording the deeds of people that had lived earlier than them, but not so much earlier as to be fit for huge amounts of exaggeration). The First Crusade, for example, has many notable acts of chivalry - yet it was the 11th century, not the 12th. So we can presume that the ideas of Chivalry were kicking around in at least the 10th or 11th century.
Though it really doesn't matter and I have no idea why I felt like pointing it out.
Oh and one thing:
The notion we have of Chivalry were being -recorded- around the 12th century, but probably started at least a century prior (as we know that 12th century writers were recording the deeds of people that had lived earlier than them, but not so much earlier as to be fit for huge amounts of exaggeration). The First Crusade, for example, has many notable acts of chivalry - yet it was the 11th century, not the 12th. So we can presume that the ideas of Chivalry were kicking around in at least the 10th or 11th century.
Though it really doesn't matter and I have no idea why I felt like pointing it out.
Not to chime in late here, but if you want to play a knight in Conan, why not simply multiclass a soldier/noble and max your ride skill? You can easily adjust your concept towards the social or martial knight (are you Sir McCartney or Sir William Marshal?), and the 'civilised' code of honour sounds an awful lot like chivalry to me. In the end, your character will be 'knightly' if you choose to play him/her that way, not because of some new ability gained at level x.
I admit that one thing we love about Conan is the ancient world/realistic vibe the game encourages. (and to Dr. Darlage and co. I have to give serious props-I love the entire line, and own every book that Mongoose has published, so don't misunderstand me here) I loved the fact that the "PCs" outlined in Hyboria's Fiercest (and Free Companies for that matter) were combos of existing classes. The few PCs that have been introduced (notably in Aquilonia and Thunder River) have been culturally relevant. Lets keep it that way!
I admit that one thing we love about Conan is the ancient world/realistic vibe the game encourages. (and to Dr. Darlage and co. I have to give serious props-I love the entire line, and own every book that Mongoose has published, so don't misunderstand me here) I loved the fact that the "PCs" outlined in Hyboria's Fiercest (and Free Companies for that matter) were combos of existing classes. The few PCs that have been introduced (notably in Aquilonia and Thunder River) have been culturally relevant. Lets keep it that way!
Damien
Mongoose
I agree. But the problem with this line of logic is that it can apply to really any class.
I can play a Soldier/Borderer that I -describe- as being prone to fits of frenzied destruction and call him a 'Barbarian Warrior.' I can max out my woodsmany skills and call a Soldier a Borderer - so do we really need a Borderer class?
Whenever you talk about things like things, you immediately are stepping on very thin ice by saying "this and this class together can already do what you want" - because that's true of MOST ideas, including those ideas that ended up GETTING a class.
Let's not forget - the Poitainian Knight got its own PrC. Personally, I'd much rather see a Knight base class than a Knight PrC for Poitain, Zingara, Ophir, and Aquilonia. Ya know?
Agreed! It was a great idea indeed. I'm very happy that Mr. Darlage (is he really a Dr.?) has pointed out that there will be a Knight multi-class variant in Hyboria's Finest. I'm fairly certain this will silence anyone that wants a Knight base class.
I'm pretty sure that Vincent mentioned in another thread that he taught business/economics/something on the college level. Perhaps Im assuming he holds a PhD when I shouldn't. 
Damien, perhaps a better question to ask is why (and Im not trying to be snarky here!) you feel the need for a Knight base class. It just feels...redundant, to lack a better term. Functionally, what is a knight? a mounted combatant? (soldier with Ride skill, including Heavy Cavalry formation) a courtier? (noble, take as many levels as you want, and if its a Hyborian noble, your knight is going to get additional emphasis on his combat skills from the regional special ability class feature, which would reflect the military training given to nobles from an early age.) Is your knight chivalrous? code of honor. A right bastard? The No Honor feat has your name written all over it.
In regards to the Poitainian Knight PRC, that simply builds on the existing model I just outlined, and does so in a way that makes cultural sense, in much the same way we don't need a Black Ring Scholar Class, a Scarlet Circle Scholar Class, etc. The differences are able to be simulated using the existing scholar class (in this case using spell/sorcery style selection) and in cases where a PrC does exist for scholars, much like the PK PrC,
it builds on the existing base class in way that makes cultural and narrative sense. (in other words, Poitainian Knights and Scarlet Circle sorcerers make sense in the Hyborian context, but Dragon Disciples and Arcane Archers running around Shadizar would ruin the narrative consistency of the game.)
I know this sounds like Im picking on you, and I don't mean it in such a way; I just don't understand your desire for something that already exists, and I'm fearful that the Conan line will see the same proliferation of classes that have clogged other game lines.
perhaps a more productive question would be why, specifically, do you feel the need for a Knight base class? (when it already exists in all but name?)
Damien, perhaps a better question to ask is why (and Im not trying to be snarky here!) you feel the need for a Knight base class. It just feels...redundant, to lack a better term. Functionally, what is a knight? a mounted combatant? (soldier with Ride skill, including Heavy Cavalry formation) a courtier? (noble, take as many levels as you want, and if its a Hyborian noble, your knight is going to get additional emphasis on his combat skills from the regional special ability class feature, which would reflect the military training given to nobles from an early age.) Is your knight chivalrous? code of honor. A right bastard? The No Honor feat has your name written all over it.
In regards to the Poitainian Knight PRC, that simply builds on the existing model I just outlined, and does so in a way that makes cultural sense, in much the same way we don't need a Black Ring Scholar Class, a Scarlet Circle Scholar Class, etc. The differences are able to be simulated using the existing scholar class (in this case using spell/sorcery style selection) and in cases where a PrC does exist for scholars, much like the PK PrC,
it builds on the existing base class in way that makes cultural and narrative sense. (in other words, Poitainian Knights and Scarlet Circle sorcerers make sense in the Hyborian context, but Dragon Disciples and Arcane Archers running around Shadizar would ruin the narrative consistency of the game.)
I know this sounds like Im picking on you, and I don't mean it in such a way; I just don't understand your desire for something that already exists, and I'm fearful that the Conan line will see the same proliferation of classes that have clogged other game lines.
perhaps a more productive question would be why, specifically, do you feel the need for a Knight base class? (when it already exists in all but name?)
Damien
Mongoose
Maybe he does. But if he's got a PhD - I feel about all those 'Mr. Darlage' comments. I shortchanged him. Haha.
Oh, and do keep in mind in this conversation that the Knight core class wasn't my idea. I just seconded it, saying it would be a fun, useful addition.
All of these are, of course, true!
However, we must also consider the question of there being ample desire, precedence, and abilities for the inclusion of the class.
Desire? I would imagine many Conan fans might desire to play a real Knight from one of the many countries with such traditions, at least at some point in their gaming career.
Precedence? Ophir. Zingara. Aquilonia. Ad Nauseum. There's obviously plenty of precedence for the Knight, or something -like- the knight being extremely present in Hyboria.
Abilities? Look around the net and you'll find tons of books and homebrew material with the Knight. I, myself, own at least two books with Knight base classes in them - Relics & Rituals: Excalibur, and The Cavalier's Handbook. Of course, there's also things like A Question of Honour: Guidebook to Knights, and a myriad other d20 supplements focused on knightly PrCs, classes, abilities, and concepts.
So clearly there are plenty of potential abilities and features to separate a knight from a fighter (or soldier, in a Conan game).
I beg only this consideration: If you ask yourself "Why do we need a Knight class" - also ask yourself "Why do we need Borderers, Nomads, and Barbarians? Or Thieves?" I don't ask that you eventually agree that there needs to be a Knight class. Certainly, that's a matter of pure opinion.
But consider why we have the other classes - mostly because they're archetypes of Hyboria. Is not the mounted noble warrior an archetype of Hyboria? I think it is.
How different is a Knight from a Soldier/Noble? I don't know. How different is a Nomad from a Soldier/Borderer? Couldn't we replace the Psychotic Kill-mode abilities of Barbarian classes with a feat and just have Soldier barbarians, Borderer barbarians, etc?
In my opinion, the Knight fits all the criteria for 'reasons to input class into a Hyborian game.' The desire, the precedence, and the possible class features.
But just because there's precedence and we CAN, does that mean we should? Well I don't know. Obviously that is a matter of personal opinion. But clearly the matter needs to be handled with discretion or you end up with 100 different base classes.
I'm also not sure I agree with you on your Poitainian Knight PrC position.
Well, to rephrase, I agree with you in principle, but probably not in how it was handled. I agree that the Poitainian Knight -could- be used to simulate any Knight. But first of all, I dislike PrCs, especially such mundane ones! Why, exactly, do I need to go through five levels of something else to prove I can be a 'Knight' - when my backstory says I'm a Knight? But that is neither here nor there.
My true problem with it - is that it's called the Poitainian Knight, outright. If it were meant to be a generic Knight PrC for all-comers, it would have been called the 'Knight," "Cavalryman" or "Hyborian Knight" -- or something similar. So while it's certainly possible to use the PrC however you see fit - it would seem to contradict the intention of the class as a cultural tool (one that I feel is unnecessary, but that's just me).
I happen to think the Knight is a prime archetype of most fantasy, and so most fantasy games that leave the concept entirely up to your imagination are remiss for doing so. Hyboria is no different - it has plenty of Knights to justify the inclusion of a class for them, the same way the Barbarian class is justified by its prominence in Hyboria.
In any event, I'm extremely pleased that Hyboria's Finest will have a variant "Knight" option for Soldier/Noble multiclassing. I think that well enough covers the concept. I feel that the multiclassing options introduced (to my knowledge) by Mongoose is an amazing idea that I'm surprised hasn't shown up before (or at least hasn't shown up prominently) which avoids the messy circumstance of having 50 base classes and 20 PrCs in every game.
If left to my own devices (and had this thread not ever been posted), I probably would have simply mocked up a variant on the Soldier class with some Noble class stuff and called it a Knight. Maybe along the line I'd add one or two more base classes if I really needed to. But I never considered all this a huge deal. If you really like Knights and want to differentiate them - make a class, or use Hyboria's Finest (which I'm extremely excited about).
But with Gunderman Pikemen PrCs, and 'Bandit' base classes... I think a Knight class would be the most worthwhile class to be created for Conan outside of those in the core book.
Oh, and do keep in mind in this conversation that the Knight core class wasn't my idea. I just seconded it, saying it would be a fun, useful addition.
All of these are, of course, true!
However, we must also consider the question of there being ample desire, precedence, and abilities for the inclusion of the class.
Desire? I would imagine many Conan fans might desire to play a real Knight from one of the many countries with such traditions, at least at some point in their gaming career.
Precedence? Ophir. Zingara. Aquilonia. Ad Nauseum. There's obviously plenty of precedence for the Knight, or something -like- the knight being extremely present in Hyboria.
Abilities? Look around the net and you'll find tons of books and homebrew material with the Knight. I, myself, own at least two books with Knight base classes in them - Relics & Rituals: Excalibur, and The Cavalier's Handbook. Of course, there's also things like A Question of Honour: Guidebook to Knights, and a myriad other d20 supplements focused on knightly PrCs, classes, abilities, and concepts.
So clearly there are plenty of potential abilities and features to separate a knight from a fighter (or soldier, in a Conan game).
I beg only this consideration: If you ask yourself "Why do we need a Knight class" - also ask yourself "Why do we need Borderers, Nomads, and Barbarians? Or Thieves?" I don't ask that you eventually agree that there needs to be a Knight class. Certainly, that's a matter of pure opinion.
But consider why we have the other classes - mostly because they're archetypes of Hyboria. Is not the mounted noble warrior an archetype of Hyboria? I think it is.
How different is a Knight from a Soldier/Noble? I don't know. How different is a Nomad from a Soldier/Borderer? Couldn't we replace the Psychotic Kill-mode abilities of Barbarian classes with a feat and just have Soldier barbarians, Borderer barbarians, etc?
In my opinion, the Knight fits all the criteria for 'reasons to input class into a Hyborian game.' The desire, the precedence, and the possible class features.
But just because there's precedence and we CAN, does that mean we should? Well I don't know. Obviously that is a matter of personal opinion. But clearly the matter needs to be handled with discretion or you end up with 100 different base classes.
I'm also not sure I agree with you on your Poitainian Knight PrC position.
Well, to rephrase, I agree with you in principle, but probably not in how it was handled. I agree that the Poitainian Knight -could- be used to simulate any Knight. But first of all, I dislike PrCs, especially such mundane ones! Why, exactly, do I need to go through five levels of something else to prove I can be a 'Knight' - when my backstory says I'm a Knight? But that is neither here nor there.
My true problem with it - is that it's called the Poitainian Knight, outright. If it were meant to be a generic Knight PrC for all-comers, it would have been called the 'Knight," "Cavalryman" or "Hyborian Knight" -- or something similar. So while it's certainly possible to use the PrC however you see fit - it would seem to contradict the intention of the class as a cultural tool (one that I feel is unnecessary, but that's just me).
I happen to think the Knight is a prime archetype of most fantasy, and so most fantasy games that leave the concept entirely up to your imagination are remiss for doing so. Hyboria is no different - it has plenty of Knights to justify the inclusion of a class for them, the same way the Barbarian class is justified by its prominence in Hyboria.
In any event, I'm extremely pleased that Hyboria's Finest will have a variant "Knight" option for Soldier/Noble multiclassing. I think that well enough covers the concept. I feel that the multiclassing options introduced (to my knowledge) by Mongoose is an amazing idea that I'm surprised hasn't shown up before (or at least hasn't shown up prominently) which avoids the messy circumstance of having 50 base classes and 20 PrCs in every game.
If left to my own devices (and had this thread not ever been posted), I probably would have simply mocked up a variant on the Soldier class with some Noble class stuff and called it a Knight. Maybe along the line I'd add one or two more base classes if I really needed to. But I never considered all this a huge deal. If you really like Knights and want to differentiate them - make a class, or use Hyboria's Finest (which I'm extremely excited about).
But with Gunderman Pikemen PrCs, and 'Bandit' base classes... I think a Knight class would be the most worthwhile class to be created for Conan outside of those in the core book.
Decurio said:I'm pretty sure that Vincent mentioned in another thread that he taught business/economics/something on the college level. Perhaps Im assuming he holds a PhD when I shouldn't.
Damien, perhaps a better question to ask is why (and Im not trying to be snarky here!) you feel the need for a Knight base class. It just feels...redundant, to lack a better term. Functionally, what is a knight? a mounted combatant? (soldier with Ride skill, including Heavy Cavalry formation) a courtier? (noble, take as many levels as you want, and if its a Hyborian noble, your knight is going to get additional emphasis on his combat skills from the regional special ability class feature, which would reflect the military training given to nobles from an early age.) Is your knight chivalrous? code of honor. A right bastard? The No Honor feat has your name written all over it.
In regards to the Poitainian Knight PRC, that simply builds on the existing model I just outlined, and does so in a way that makes cultural sense, in much the same way we don't need a Black Ring Scholar Class, a Scarlet Circle Scholar Class, etc. The differences are able to be simulated using the existing scholar class (in this case using spell/sorcery style selection) and in cases where a PrC does exist for scholars, much like the PK PrC,
it builds on the existing base class in way that makes cultural and narrative sense. (in other words, Poitainian Knights and Scarlet Circle sorcerers make sense in the Hyborian context, but Dragon Disciples and Arcane Archers running around Shadizar would ruin the narrative consistency of the game.)
I know this sounds like Im picking on you, and I don't mean it in such a way; I just don't understand your desire for something that already exists, and I'm fearful that the Conan line will see the same proliferation of classes that have clogged other game lines.
perhaps a more productive question would be why, specifically, do you feel the need for a Knight base class? (when it already exists in all but name?)
If you're going to take this approach, you should apply it to all of the "warrior" classes in the rulebook. Arguably, you could build any of the classes through the proper selection of feats if the game were to be structured like Grim Tales for example. Since it's not, Knight is just as valid an archetype as Nomad, Barbarian, or Borderer. The writers of the Conan RPG obviously decided to separate the D&D Fighter into distinct classes for a reason.
For those that don't think a core class is justified, that's fine. But the Pointainian Knight prestige class provides a clear example of how the knight concept could be reinforced through specific class abilities. The knight arguably exists somewhere between the Soldier and Noble. After all, if an uneducated mercenary can be a Soldier and a Hyborian Queen is simply a Noble, the Knight would have a background and skill set (i.e. a different selection of Class Skills) than either of the two. Thus the desire for a Knight Core Class.
Azgulor
Sutek
Mongoose
A prestige class where one of the pre-reqs is "Get knighted by Monarch X" is appropriate is every aspect too. If you're talking a base class, then there should definitely not be a knight base class because no one ever started off (historically) as a knight. I don't recall where the Poitainian Knight PrC occurs, but I'm sure a decent BAB is required too.
True, but there are also no first hand accounts of chivalry. There are poetic stories that deal with the chivalric code, but even the Arthurian tale is nearly entirely poetic liscence, writen centuries after the supposed events took place.
Well...yeah. It's called role playing. Roll up a Cimmerian Barbarian and take a lot of thieving skills and you're on your way to Conan without multiclassing. Granted, that's min-maxing, but if one class offers class features that a player likes, but they want to take that some disparate direction, that's what RPGs are all about. That's why Scholars can be the spell casters in the Conan RPG or they can be merchants or diplomats or spies or crime bosses.
Now it's starting to sound like I'm picking on you, but that's not my intent - just so you know. Sorry if it sounds that way. Don't want to start up any animosity here. :wink:
Damien said:
True, but there are also no first hand accounts of chivalry. There are poetic stories that deal with the chivalric code, but even the Arthurian tale is nearly entirely poetic liscence, writen centuries after the supposed events took place.
Damien said:
Well...yeah. It's called role playing. Roll up a Cimmerian Barbarian and take a lot of thieving skills and you're on your way to Conan without multiclassing. Granted, that's min-maxing, but if one class offers class features that a player likes, but they want to take that some disparate direction, that's what RPGs are all about. That's why Scholars can be the spell casters in the Conan RPG or they can be merchants or diplomats or spies or crime bosses.
Now it's starting to sound like I'm picking on you, but that's not my intent - just so you know. Sorry if it sounds that way. Don't want to start up any animosity here. :wink:
Damien
Mongoose
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.
Not really (if by that you mean the pre-req justifies its place as a prestige class).
I could do the same thing for all of the base classes:
Borderer: Survive a full month alone and with only the barest of necessities, along the Pictish frontier.
Scholar (if non-caster): Aquire access to a library or other large store of knowledge.
Scholar (if caster): Aquire a tome of forbidden lore.
Soldier: Join a military body, Free Company, or recieve some form of military training.
Barbarian: Prove yourself to your tribe through a trial of combat.
Thief: Successfully steal something.
Etc.
The fact is that (of course) none of the Player Character Classes are presumed to be for children. No one is without training and ability when they start. It's just as reasonable to assume you were Knighted "off-camera" somewhere in your past as it is reasonable to assume you did anything else in your past.
"I was a squire as a child to a famous Ophirean knight. He died and I was briefly looked after by a knight of Zingaran blood before being Knighted myself."
There, at level 1 I have every reason to feel I have right to the Knightly title.
The point being that you can set up flavourful 'goals' before allowing any class, and just say that everyone has to start out as a 1st level Commoner. Or, you can accept that all the PCs are (usually) grown-ups and had lives.
However you handle it in your game is certainly your business, don't get me wrong. I'm just pointing out that, in and of itself, a flavour reason is not a good reason for a prestige class being 'prestige.'
That's true. No one starts out as a blood-raging psychopath warrior, or a professional soldier, either. But an adult PC can swing either way - depending on birth and backstory, they're just as likely to have been knighted after their squiring days were over, or have grown up as a farmer and joined the military and become a soldier.
Quite so. It's all conjecture and supposition before that. I'm just saying that it's not an unknown belief that it's highly likely that Chivalry was, in some form, around at least a century before it was really being written about (it needed time to spread, and gain acceptance, after all).
Hey, it's all been civil and fun. So long as we keep it light and don't get all worked up over things - no prob, Bob.
You won't be getting any animosity from me, and I hope the feeling is mutual.
Sutek
Mongoose
Damien said:
No...becoming a Knight is entirely based on someone knighting you. You can't just decide "Hey, I'm cool enough to be a knight by now." It's a title bestowed upon a warrior by some ruler. What I was saying was that "Get knighted by Monarch X" should be a prerequisite for a Knight prestige class, and, further, that making a Knight a prestige class is the best way to go. You have to be knighted, you have to choose a Code and you have to have a BAB of 5+ (or whatever seems appropriate - that seems fine to me).
Damien said:
I'm not sure what you mean by all that, but I presume it was based on misunderstanding my comment about the pre-reqs so I'll skip it.
Damien said:
True, but I think the Mongoose4 folks have included a knight prestige class of some kind, the one you mentiuoned, and that the intent of doing that is to have such a role included in the game only as something to attain "in game". There's also the fact that first level characters are intended to be heroes just a step or two above the everyday commoner. I see you general point, but still feel that a starting knight class would be to cobbled so as to not even really feel like a proper knight anymore, or it would far more powerful than the other existing base classes because of the expertise and training you describe.
As you point out however, there is a point where flavor is important, it's just my opinion that what you're suggesting is (A) encompassed with the Soldier class and Codes of Honor, and (B) better suited as a prestige class.
Damien
Mongoose
Exactly my point.
Just like becoming a scholar is dependant on having access to knowledge or demonic pacts, et al.
Just like becoming a thief is dependant on.. you know.. stealing stuff. Or becoming a borderer is dependant on having learned -something- about the wild.
It's all backstory. There's no more reason to say that a knight has to be knighted -in game- in order to gain the class than there is a reason to say a scholar has to do his studying -in game- before becoming a scholar.
It's like saying you can't start the game with a sword, because you need to buy the sword -in game- before you can have it.
The comment was based on the idea that there's anything intrinsically 'prestige' about the Knight. I'm contesting that idea by saying one could say the same thing about the 'prestigeousness' of every class.
I've seen plenty of Knight base classes that 'felt' right, and weren't overpowered. It's simply a matter of having particular abilities to contrast a normal soldier's bonus feats. And maybe an extra ability or two to compensate the loss of that ever-elusive 'flexibility' the Fighter/Soldier is always claimed to have.
I could make a more than adequate Borderer with just the Soldier class and the right feats and skills. But isn't it more fun to actually -have- the Borderer class?
I'm sure we could debate it endlessly. Mr. Darlage has pretty much nullified the debate though, by saying that there's a Knight multiclass variant in Hyboria's Finest - which is just as good as a knight base class, in my opinion.
So with that in mind, I maintain my position that a Knight is significantly -different- enough from a common soldier with a code of honour to deserve its own mention. It would -seem- that Mongoose agrees if they okayed a Knight multiclass variant for Hyboria's Fiercest.
Sutek
Mongoose
Well, I think the thing here is that you're appying a sense of elite status to the word "prestige", but if you're satisfied with the Mongoose resopose then that's cool.
I just want to say one final time that there is a fundamental different to being a Warrior and being a Knight. It's not the same as being simply a Thief because you steal or being a Sorcerer because you are scholarly. You are a Warrior because you are trained to fight, but you become a Knight because someone recognizes your abilities as a warrior above the rest of the barracks.
Well...erm...technically you don't start the game with a sword, you buy it pre-game, but I'm jsut being difficult now... 8)
I just want to say one final time that there is a fundamental different to being a Warrior and being a Knight. It's not the same as being simply a Thief because you steal or being a Sorcerer because you are scholarly. You are a Warrior because you are trained to fight, but you become a Knight because someone recognizes your abilities as a warrior above the rest of the barracks.
Damien said:
Well...erm...technically you don't start the game with a sword, you buy it pre-game, but I'm jsut being difficult now... 8)
