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

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.

Agreed. But I think there's something to be said for allowing that sort of thing to remain in the character background, rather than forcing it to be played out.

Just different play styles, I suppose.


Well...erm...technically you don't start the game with a sword, you buy it pre-game, but I'm jsut being difficult now...

Oh.. bite your tongue! Haha.
 
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.

It seems to me that the quote above is roleplaying not a class. Does the warrior change who he is or what he does. No he is just reconized, promoted and given more money.

Personaly I think the 3.5 list of presitage class is absurd, I play the game weekly and enjoy it, but it seems to be a power gamers dream. I find people arguing over rule interpitation so the class wil fit for them. I like the ablility freely multiclass I think given a little imagination you can come up with greater varity of classes and player experiences.

I hope Conan does not go down that path, simplicity anf flexibility is its greatest assets in character expression.

P.S. -- sory fir aull teh speling mystakes
 
I'm in agreement with you, csteinhoff. My point all along was that a Knight is an evolution of a base class and therefor more appropriately a Prestige augmentation where the prerequisites are role playing oriented rather than stat based (ie. the character has to do something heroic that get's him recognized by the local royalty such that he's given the title of Knight).

However, I also don't think Knights are appropriate to the Hyborian idiom, although GMs are always free to change the world to suit thier ideas for gaming. Knights didnt'arrive in the real world until the 14th century and that's a period of our history very different to that depicted in REHs Hyboria.

Damien's point is that he feels that a Knight is a wholey different sort of fighter-type to any other already existing Class and that that radical difference supports the inclusion of a Knight base Class. I don't think that's necessary and that a Prestige Class, a few extra benefits (like Reputation bonuses or some other manifestation of the Knight's newfound clout) based on role playing pre-reqs is more in order. I could also see someone choosing to simply make being a Knight come down to attaining a single Feat that boosts other Feat pre-reqs (like mouted combat Feats getting better or gaining the ability to use a long, riding spear as a lance or something). There's lots of ways to do it, and even merely role playing it out (the player starts playing his character differently after being knighted in the game) is viable.
 
Damien's point is that he feels that a Knight is a wholey different sort of fighter-type to any other already existing Class and that that radical difference supports the inclusion of a Knight base Class. I don't think that's necessary and that a Prestige Class, a few extra benefits (like Reputation bonuses or some other

It's all play style, and personal preference.

For some people, one 'warrior' class is enough. For some it isn't. Take Malhavoc Press' new Iron Heroes variant player's handbook. One spellcasting class, one 'thief' class, and the rest are basically variations on the theme of 'fighting man.' You've got the quick in-and-out fighter, the heavy armour fighter, the tactician, the guy that concentrates on just one type of weapon, the guy that likes to jam daggers in people's knees...

Then switch to Ars Magica - you've got 'grunt soldier' and that's about it.


Bottom line is that you can make a case for anything if you really try. I can just as easily make a case for us only needing three base classes (soldier, thief, scholar) as I can for adding base classes (knight). It's all in how you prefer to do it.


However, I also don't think Knights are appropriate to the Hyborian idiom, although GMs are always free to change the world to suit thier ideas for gaming. Knights didnt'arrive in the real world until the 14th century and that's a period of our history very different to that depicted in REHs Hyboria.

I think you and Howard disagree, then. Because Howard has plenty of knights in his setting. Ophir, Poitain, Aquilonia, Zingara.. The archetype is already present. The only question is whether or not you want it to have its own character option or not - which, as mentioned, is entirely a personal choice.
 
Since this old discussion is on knights...

Is there an instance/quote from REH on the accolade, that is, the actual act of investing an individual with knighthood, similar to "In the name of St. Michael and St. George" &c.

I would propose "In the name of Mitra, and His/Her Majesty N.N., I grant you the right to bear arms and mete out justice." 8)
 
Not that I know of. I haven't read some of the stories in awhile, but I did just finish re-reading The Coming of Conan, and there are no accolade scenes therein.

However, Howard's stories were all about Conan, so it's not surprising that we don't get an in-depth look at the goings-on of the knightly types, as they, while present in the setting, do not figure prominently in the narrative.



Also, looking back at this discussion there is one thing I forgot to comment on, so I'll do that now:

Sutek erroneously stated that knights didn't come to be in the real world until the 14th century. The fact of the matter is that knights existed as early as the 10th century (or earlier if you view Huskcarls as a type of knight - and they were), and the concept of the 'Knight' was fully realized by the end of the 11th century.
 
Damien said:
Not that I know of. I haven't read some of the stories in awhile, but I did just finish re-reading The Coming of Conan, and there are no accolade scenes therein.

However, Howard's stories were all about Conan, so it's not surprising that we don't get an in-depth look at the goings-on of the knightly types, as they, while present in the setting, do not figure prominently in the narrative.



Also, looking back at this discussion there is one thing I forgot to comment on, so I'll do that now:

Sutek erroneously stated that knights didn't come to be in the real world until the 14th century. The fact of the matter is that knights existed as early as the 10th century (or earlier if you view Huskcarls as a type of knight - and they were), and the concept of the 'Knight' was fully realized by the end of the 11th century.

Knights existed in old Rome (equites), and some form probably in Carolingian Europe.
 
Knights existed in old Rome (equites), and some form probably in Carolingian Europe.

The equites in old Rome were not knights. In this instance it's important to distinguish between -Knights- and -Cavalry-. They are not the same thing. The term 'knight' has rather distinct meaning and baggage associated with it which limits its applications.

Whether the cavalrymen during the Carolingian Dynasty were knights or simply heavy horsemen is debatable. Some say they were knights, some say they don't have enough in common with a Feudal Knight to qualify. I'll leave that one to the paid historians to debate.

But armoured horsemen have existed all over the place and in many time periods, so we have to be careful not to simply assign the term 'knight' to anyone that rode a horse and wore armour.

My comment was meant only to provide the fact that the commonly-known-about "Feudal Knight" which existed in the 14th century also definitely existed for at least 4 centuries before that - a fact which is wholly beyond debate.
 
Damien said:
Knights existed in old Rome (equites), and some form probably in Carolingian Europe.

The equites in old Rome were not knights. In this instance it's important to distinguish between -Knights- and -Cavalry-. They are not the same thing. The term 'knight' has rather distinct meaning and baggage associated with it which limits its applications.

Whether the cavalrymen during the Carolingian Dynasty were knights or simply heavy horsemen is debatable. Some say they were knights, some say they don't have enough in common with a Feudal Knight to qualify. I'll leave that one to the paid historians to debate.

But armoured horsemen have existed all over the place and in many time periods, so we have to be careful not to simply assign the term 'knight' to anyone that rode a horse and wore armour.

My comment was meant only to provide the fact that the commonly-known-about "Feudal Knight" which existed in the 14th century also definitely existed for at least 4 centuries before that - a fact which is wholly beyond debate.

The term knight has been used often in 19th c. classical history resources, namely Smith's Dictionary of Greek and Roman Antiquities, (1870), 471ff.: "From the year B. C. 403, there were therefore two classes of Roman knights..." etc. However at the beginning of his article, Smith refers to the equites as 'horse-soldiers.' I have assumed that the two were interchangeable.
Oscar Seyffert might have also used the term knight in his own, smaller dictionary, although I will have to dig it up to find the article.
 
Yogah of Yag said:
The term knight has been used often in 19th c. classical history resources, namely Smith's Dictionary of Greek and Roman Antiquities, (1870), 471ff.: "From the year B. C. 403, there were therefore two classes of Roman knights..." etc. However at the beginning of his article, Smith refers to the equites as 'horse-soldiers.' I have assumed that the two were interchangeable.
Oscar Seyffert might have also used the term knight in his own, smaller dictionary, although I will have to dig it up to find the article.

Without going too deep into academic lectures: the last mention of the so-called knights (equites) as a fighting formation is for the year 133 BC (Val.Max. 2, 7, 9). Later the term equites marked a social class (which qualified for officer ranks), not a military unit.
Additionally the original equites saw action more as skirmishers, not in frontal attacks in Hyborian style (one of the few occasions: Liv. 22, 47, 1-3).

But that's enough from me...
 
Isn't part of the problem with identifying precisely what a knight was that the concept itself was evolving throughout the time period we are talking about here (late Roman empire to high medieval)?

On the game mechanics: What specifically about the soldier/noble multiclass does NOT capture the concept of a hyborian knight adequately? I am not seeing the issue, but I am open to enlightenment.
 
Actually i agree, you can start as a Knight, just chose a to be a soldier with Noble blood feat, or a noble and chose Knight as title, and you´re starting as a knight, or start as a 2nd level character, Soldier1/Noble 1... simple...

What is a knight other than a Noble soldier with specific trainning?

Yes a Knight Class could be added, but i don´t like the idea of creating infinite base classes, i like the actual 9 we´ve got... that with multiclass can cover allmost everything...

If you whant a more reallistic knight just give him variant rules, made by you or from the books.
Example, instead of ratial the ratial bonus from the noble class, gainning +1 to attack rolls and damage rolls when using a chosen specific weapon...

If you really whant to see a knight class, probably mongoose will show us something in S&P to see how we react...
Like the "martial disciple", from were i´m gonna adapt habilities as spells for Oriental magic, and other interesting ideas it has...

About the Potian Knight, well it´s a PrClass... it´s a good description of what is the Hyborian Knight... i like more the multiclass option, it has more freedom, but the Potian Knigth did need the PrC.
 
Isn't part of the problem with identifying precisely what a knight was that the concept itself was evolving throughout the time period we are talking about here (late Roman empire to high medieval)?

Depends on which historians you listen to. Many of those that I read believe that there is a hefty separation between the pre-Medieval cavalryman and the Medieval Knight. Social and military baggage would be totally different.

A Roman equites, for example, is no more like a true Feudal Knight as a Japanese Samurai. They may be similar in concept, but they are still intrinsically different.

But let's remember that what was being referred to that started this side-conversation was not where the concept of a knight truly began. Sutek implied that knights (the Feudal European model that we are familiar with) didn't come about until the 14th century. I simply corrected that statement that that STYLE of knight - the medieval Feudal European knight, existed much earlier and therefore his assertion was incorrect.

I think we can all agree that, with the exception of more advanced equipment, the 14th century Italian Knight was essentially the same 'beast' as the 11th century Norman Knight.




Back to game rules:



Personally, I think that the best option (and I said this earlier in the thread) for a Knight class is simply something akin to the multiclass variants like those presented in the Hyboria's XYZ series. But I also believe that a new core class is a perfectly valid way to handle it.

Some would say that a knight is not that different from a Soldier. I would say that a true knight, in this sense, is as different from a Soldier as, say, a Barbarian. In theory, a Barbarian is really just a Soldier with a variant special ability (Crimson Mist) and a background of coming from uncivilized parts of the world.

One could also say a Barbarian is extremely similar to a Borderer. Or maybe a Borderer is too like a Soldier.

And what is a Noble but a Scholar with a lean toward military and statecraft pursuits instead of sorcerous or studious ones?


As I said earlier in this thread, one can easily make a case that the EXISTING classes can be made with fewer base classes. One could also, just as easily, make a case that the existing classes are specific enough that a variant idea that strays just enough is worthy of its own base class.

So the questions we should ask are:

A.) Would a knight class enhance your game?
B.) Are there enough differences between a knight and soldier to be able to build an entirely new class without the one stepping on the other's toes.


I think the answer is Yes to both questions. But I also think a multiclass variant like those in Hyboria's Finest is a -better- idea. That, however, does not mean a new base class is a -bad- idea.

Either way, a knight should have more abilities centered around being mounted. Perhaps a scaling bonus to Charge damage when mounted.

But with a few minor adjustments and considerations, the right feats and skills, and a variant multiclass of Soldier/Noble would work excellently.

I'm waiting on my copy of Hyboria's Finest now - hoping there's a really nice knight concept in there.
 
Damien said:
A.) Would a knight class enhance your game?
B.) Are there enough differences between a knight and soldier to be able to build an entirely new class without the one stepping on the other's toes.

Well I'd answer both as a no. Borderers, Barbarians, Nomads are core class cause they reflect a lifestyle diffrent then Soldier. Of course I've always thought Noble modeled knight fine seeing as it even gives options to increase ride skill and what not.

And giving a bonus to a mounted charge is asking for trouble. Spirited Charge seem enough to give any horse mounted knight an advantge if they wantt o take the feat.
 
Well I'd answer both as a no. Borderers, Barbarians, Nomads are core class cause they reflect a lifestyle diffrent then Soldier. Of course I've always thought Noble modeled knight fine seeing as it even gives options to increase ride skill and what not.

I would have to say that's a bit silly.

So the noble is somehow different enough from the scholar, in design, that it warrants a new class, and the Borderer is different enough from the Soldier to warrant a new class, but the Knight is not different enough from the Soldier?

If that's what you think - cool beans. Play your game how you want. But I'd say there are enough people out there that think 'knight' is a different archetype from 'soldier.' In my opinion they're as different as a Paladin from a Cleric in Vanilla D&D - same basic concept but different enough to warrant different classes if the players and GM so wish it.

Granted, in a lot of Conan games you won't be seeing a large number of knights, so a class might be a wasted effort. But for other games, maybe not.

I think there's enough wiggle room to justify it, whether through variant multiclass options or a new class.
 
The soldier class is made for all types of warriors... which is why thier is no foot soldier class, no archer class, not pikeman class. Why is a Knight deserve a class over an archer?

What's wrong with Noble that it doens't model a knight? The one base attack bonus a hyborian noble loses over a standard soldier by 20th level (using a heavy lance or broadsword)?

It just seems that a knight class is more for powergaming them an acutal need. A knight is a type of noble or solider. A woodsman isn't a type of solider. A barbarian isn't a type of soldier. A noble isn't anything like a scholar. One is a warrior class the other is not.

And while it may be fine for your campaign it's not for mine. Which the way your A and B answer declared.
 
The soldier class is made for all types of warriors... which is why thier is no foot soldier class, no archer class, not pikeman class. Why is a Knight deserve a class over an archer?

I would say - because the Knight is an archetype in Hyboria and the Archer isn't?

I'll point out that at least two games DO have an archer class -- Iron Heroes and The Lord of the Rings Roleplaying Game.

But here.. you're proving my point for me. You claim that the knight is just a soldier. Then you go on to claim he's a noble. So which is it - Noble or Soldier?

The answer: Both. So how does that not warrant a variant multiclass rule like those in the Hyboria's XYZ series?


It just seems that a knight class is more for powergaming them an acutal need.

That's ludicrous! How could you even begin to make that judgement call when no stats have even been produced? Claiming something is a 'powergame' when no stats are even present is the ultimate way of saying "I don't like it so obviously it's a bad idea." ;)

For all we know - someone might propose a knight class that's actually underpowered. Nothing is inherently a 'powergame' unless we have some stats to judge by. Nothing about "I want to play a knight" screams powergame to me.


A woodsman isn't a type of solider.

The soldier is a fighting man who fights under a lord. The woodsman is a fighting man who fights in the woods. The barbarian is a fighting man who fights with bloodlust.

They're all variations on a theme, whether you like it or not. One more variation on a theme is not out of the realm of reason.


A noble isn't anything like a scholar.

But in class design they can be extremely similar.

Take a scholar and advance him with feats that have more combat or social uses. Use his skill points for things like Diplomacy and Bluff.

Ta-da. You have a noble. The same Noble as presented as its own base class? Nope. But if that base class had never existed, you would never have known the difference. And that's the point I was making.
 
I would also say "no" to both...

About the Knight... it depends of what kind o knight you whant, the knight isn´t just that armoured thank riding a horse... it´s more than that...
It´s the ultimate elite soldier (at least it was in medieval times)

If i can remember correctly after the fall of the roman empire, the nordish people settled, (Arabes took the other part of empire, but thats another story) these were days of... lets say... not so happy moments.

In these times the strong "houses" formed armies, and i think that those armies began using roman tactics like the "warrior on horse"
With the society evolved and so did these armies, being the brave given a noble title... by the new self proclaimed norsdish nobles...

And so the Knight was born (actually the concept of knight, the title appeard after)

So Knights were condecorated Soldiers, but the sons of the sons of these knights bare the title and maintained the martial tradition of the family, being the " high ranked soldiers".

Later in middle ages, the knight was a noble, normally not the 1st son of any noble, i think that an old tradition was to keep the primogenit (the one who got the money when Pops died), and give one son to be a priest (give to god so he may give you... or something like that), and send the rest to serve as Knights, serving some higher status noble or some kind of Order...

Now that i explained were i think the Knight comes from... i´ll return to the subject.
Knight is a title disregarding if you start as an "noble blood" soldier or as a noble, and it as to do with what feats you choose, spirited charge and a greatsword can make any noble a great knight, dealing 4d10 in each charge.

The question is, do we need more classes? Lest look at what we´ve got...

Barbarian - Barbaric fighter
Soldier - Civilized Fighter
Nomad - Nomadic fighter
Pirate - Sea master
Borderer- Land master
Noble - Social and political controler
Scholar - Knowledge and magic user
Theif - Sneak attacker and Skills master
Temptress - Rebel manipulator
Commoner - heavy worker

Does the hyborian world really need more classes?
With Variant rules i don´t think so...
 
I can define which class is a knight. I traditional Sir type knight is a noble. Nothing more nothing less.

I mentioned soldier to use the comparision for the need of an archer class. Cause thier are more archers in hyboria then knights. Look at the Bossonians. Should they have an Archer class?

And I challenge you to make a noble with the scholar. Good luck getting all the martial and armor feats with Scholar. They aren't anywhere near the same class.

And Soldier aren't people who fight for a lord, they are trained warriors. Mercenaary companies aren't always ran by a lord. Borderers aren't trained warriors they are woodsmen. A knight is a noble. Plain and simple. They have Prc for Knights, is there really a need for a core class?
 
Heh, I almost had a WoW moment "Lrn2Multiclass!" Kidding, Kidding.

Maybe I just played 2nd ed dnd a long time, but personally I think if anything there's too many base classes in default conan even as is. I mean, Pirate? That could be a fig...soldier/thief with skills and feats as well as a class, and track is a feat, so the same really applies to a soldier playing rang..borderer.

Don't get me wrong, I appreciate that they add flavour to the game with their unique abilities, but I def think theres a point where you take it too far and theres very few character concepts/roles you can't wrap around an existing class
 
Back
Top