Post/Author/DateTime	Post
#1 Yunru Aug 07, 2015 18:49:26	Just an attemped port from 4e to 5e, the "Essentials" classes being nice and compatible like that.   Knight: Hold the Line: Beginning when you choose this archetype at 3rd level, enemies within reach have a -2 penalty to attack rolls of attacks that do not target you. Combat Readiness: Starting at 7th level, you can add half your proficiency bonus (rounded up) to your initiative rolls. Additionally you gain the following stances. Stances end on a short rest, long rest or on assuming another stance. Assuming a stance takes a bonus action. Precision Blade: While in the Precision Blade stance, when you hit with a melee weapon attack, the target(s) of the attack's speed is halved until your next turn. Hammer Hands: While in the Hammer Hands stance, when you hit with a melee weapon attack you can push its target(s) up to 5 feet. Measured Cut: While in the Measured Cut stance, when you hit with a melee weapon attack, you can move up to 5 feet without provoking opportunity attacks. Weapon Specialisation: At 10th level, you pick one of the following weapon specialisations. Bladed Step: When you Action Surge, attacks made with swords have advantage until end of turn. Staggering Hammer: When you Action Surge, if you hit a creature with a melee weapon attack using a hammer, the creature is Stunned. Bludgeoning Staff: When you Action Surge, if you hit a creature with a melee weapon attack using a glaive, halberd or quarterstaff, you can push the creature up to 10 feet. Improved Hold the Line: Starting at 15th level, you have advantage on Opportunity Attacks. Iron Will: Starting at 18th level, at the start of your turn you can make a saving throw against an effect that a saving throw could end.
#2 Nozareem Aug 07, 2015 21:04:32	The knight will be a class coming out in D&D as the Cavalier at some point.
#3 cowleymen Aug 07, 2015 21:30:42	Nozareem wrote:
#4 shintashi Aug 07, 2015 22:23:14	it's a class of some sort, though it feels a bit more like a roman centurion or something. A lot of knock back hammering effects and holding the line team work stuff.   It feels like a Class, it just doesn't feel like a Knight. When i think of knights, i think of castles, squires, pages, chess, dragons, armor, lances, cruciform hilt swords, maidens, loyalty to a king, and weird bravery type powers. I think horseback, barding, platemail, big shields, and charging. I think of all sorts of things, but the taste of the class presented here, and the taste of "knight", they taste different.   I'm probably the only person who thinks a character class should be more than a string of abilities used in combat. To me, a character isn't abilities with flavor text. Even the notion of "flavor text" is belittling to how a class, concept, or spell should be designed.
#5 Ahrimon Aug 08, 2015 0:50:15	Nice remodeling of the knight.  I would change hold the line to be disadvantage rather than a -2 to keep with the theme of 5e a little more.  Plus it makes the key ability much more useful, especially for the theme of the fighter.  And especially since you no longer have the retaliatory attack against anyone who attacks someone else.
#6 shadowknave Aug 08, 2015 1:50:27	Very cool.
#7 LuisCarlos17f Aug 08, 2015 4:41:25	The knight can't be only a "subclass". It should be a "variant class", some main class feature to be changed with other, and with own talent trees.   Sugestions:   Order of chavalry like one from Pathfinder (special bonus).   Softer weapons of legacy. (magic item only can be attuned and used by members of certain orders of chavalry).  Some game mechanic like the prestige class anointed knight from "Book of Exalted Deeds".    Some class feature aboung challenging for a 1 vs 1 duel.    My opinion is the "variant classes" are better to "sell" the "types" like gladiator, knight or swashbuclker. Yes, swashbuckler ought to be a variant class for players who want fighters without heavy armour.
(Reply to #5) Yunru	Ahrimon wrote:
#9 Hebitsuikaza Aug 08, 2015 5:14:55	You are going to run into a problem with this.   Since a knight is basically any noble who fights with weapons, it is untennable to say that all things called Knights in your game are going to necessarily be part of this subclass.   And if you have knights who aren't "Knights", that is going to be very confusing.
#10 LuisCarlos17f Aug 08, 2015 6:06:43	Knight isn´t only a rich child with a expensive armour. Knight is the model of noble heart, the warrior with the ultimate code of honor. Red Viper and the Mountain from "Game of Thrones" are warriors with armour, but they aren´t true knights. Prince Valiant from comics, movies and cartoon is a real knight. A D&D knight is like a paladin without divine magic, something like Sturm from Dragonlance. In the Spanish languange "caballero", the word for "knight" is synonime of gentleman and polite person with great courtesy.
#11 Hebitsuikaza Aug 08, 2015 6:26:39	LuisCarlos17f wrote:
#12 LuisCarlos17f Aug 08, 2015 6:41:11	Even the evil knights have got some code of honor and behavior, that it the reason because they are great villains.   To be a true knight isn´t a nobility tittle (only?), the true essence of the archetype is to be loyal to some allegiance, like the lord or religion. Captain American from marvel comics is closer to the true soul of a knight that "Iron Patriot" (Norman Osborn with an exo-suit). Knights are characters with a different roleplay because the are forced to a special code of behavior.
(Reply to #9) Yunru	Hebitsuikaza wrote:
#14 shintashi Aug 08, 2015 8:39:45	LuisCarlos17f wrote:
#15 Nozareem Aug 08, 2015 9:44:47	cowleymen wrote:
#16 LordCorwin Aug 08, 2015 10:06:25	Knights are already in 5e. Right there in the PHB under backgrounds.
(Reply to #16) Yunru	LordCorwin wrote:
#18 LordCorwin Aug 08, 2015 10:23:40	Page 136, lower left corner.
#19 Xeviat-DM Aug 08, 2015 10:33:57	There is the real world knight, modeled well by the noble background variant. There is the fantasy knight, modeled well by the paladin. There is also something in between, an idealized version of the real world knight from a world without magic.   This subclass recreates the Essentials Knight very well. Personally, I liked the Knight from the PHB2 in 3E. I also liked my Knight, which was sort of the OA Samurai with the Bard's Inspire Courage and some fear immunity/courage aura things going on. We're all going to have different opinions on what a knight is. Does that mean it's a name that should be avoided, or does that mean we can have several versions?
#20 LuisCarlos17f Aug 08, 2015 11:29:43	The true essence of the knight archetype isn´t an armour and weapons, but the code of chivalry and the ideals of knighthood. Even the evil knighs have got some ethic principles and code of behavior. Without the knighty virtues, the knight is only a character with heavy armour and noble family.    It needs special and exclusive class features, for example only noble families can use special magic item of legacy (softer or nerfed version).
#21 LordCorwin Aug 08, 2015 11:39:57	It should be noted that your opinions you just expressed and that of others in these threads are just that. Opinions. You shouldn't be speaking as if you are the definer or authority of what a knight is. It is only your personal interpretation. Because if we want to get historical, knights were largely ruthless thugs who abused their power over the commoner. Virtually to the one. They were far from noble or virtuous.
#22 shintashi Aug 08, 2015 12:54:44	knights draw on their sense of honor, and the wealth and influence of their status.   in regard to the latter, they should be able to requisition equipment like in Dragonlance AD&D Adventures, with higher level knights being able to draw more stuff.   They should have servants and minions capable of actually doing something on the battlefield, sort of like that 4th edition class, the Warlord that people wanted separate from the Fighter.   A Knight should have a castle or fortress, and taxes they draw, probably with a cut of those taxes going up to the nearest Prince, Duke, or King.     A knight is generally a landed noble, although there are knights who do not have lands, or lost their lands, or people who follow the skill set and edicts of the knight, with the goal of gaining their status, story, and honor.  When the knight begins without land (i.e., the knight variant class takes a background other than Noble:Knight) you get this:
(Reply to #14) shadowknave	shintashi wrote:
#24 arnwolf666 Aug 08, 2015 15:59:40	Set in the right time period and geographical regions all nobles were warriors judged by their skills with the sword.  I have no problem with a Knight class.  In my opinion they would be born a Knight or earned their Knighthood and thus join the ranks of nobility.
#25 shintashi Aug 08, 2015 17:00:36	shadowknave wrote:
#26 cowleymen Aug 08, 2015 19:18:03	Hebitsuikaza wrote:
#27 cbwjm Aug 08, 2015 19:45:13	I like the sub class. Have you done any other conversions of essentials to 5e subclasses?
#28 LuisCarlos17f Aug 08, 2015 23:32:45	The knight and the samurai are the essence of warrior with a code. Without thas warrior code, they are only fighters from noble birth. Games of Thrones is full of warriors like those.    I say the most famous archetypes ought to be "variant class" (a main class feature has to be exchanged with other) to emphasize they are different, with their own mark of individuality.
#29 Ahrimon Aug 09, 2015 8:21:03	The conversation is getting side-tracked by what people think a knight is.  This thread is about the 5e translation of the 4e Knight class.
#30 LuisCarlos17f Aug 09, 2015 12:42:07	My suggestions for 5th knight is   * Cavalier order, from pathfinder rpg.   * Knight's challenge. from 3.5 knight.    * Some class feature like the ancestral daisho by the samurai class from 3rd Oriental Adventures.    My opinion is the class features shouldn´t be about how to cause more damage, but roleplaying the concept of fighter with certain warrior code.
#31 cowleymen Aug 09, 2015 14:33:09	Nozareem wrote:
#32 cowleymen Aug 09, 2015 14:35:49	shintashi wrote:
#33 LuisCarlos17f Aug 10, 2015 9:13:56	Don't forget the concept of variant class, from 3.5 "Unearthed Arcana", when some class features are replaced with anothers. That would be the best answer for the matter about to be a class or only a subclass.    What are the main traits of the type? Fighter with a warrior code, and member from a group, like an order of chilvary(or martial brotherhood). The warrior code is the key, the essence of knight. That has to be showed in the gameplay.
#34 Ahrimon Aug 10, 2015 11:33:06	You've inspired me to try a Slayer conversion once I have the time.  Hopefully this weekend.
#35 rampant Aug 10, 2015 14:54:08	It fits 5e, and it's pretty faithful to the source material. Good work.
(Reply to #34) Yunru	Ahrimon wrote:
#37 ORC_Ragnar Aug 12, 2015 0:03:58	I have removed content from this thread because trolling/baiting is a violation of the Code of Conduct.   You can review the Code here: http://www.wizards.com/Company/About.aspx?x=wz_company_about_codeofconduct   Please keep your posts polite, on-topic, and refrain from making personal attacks.You are welcome to disagree with one another but please do so respectfully and constructively.   If you wish to report a post for Code of Conduct violation, click on the Report Comment button below the post and this will submit your report to the moderators on duty.
#38 dave2008 Aug 12, 2015 6:40:23	I think many on this thread are getting bog down with the name "Knight," when the OP is specifically translating the 4e "Knight" class to 5e.  He is not saying this is anyone elses definition of a historical or even fantasy knight, just that it is 5e version of the 4e "Knight."
#39 LuisCarlos17f Aug 12, 2015 10:11:56	Somebody would like the return of the 3.5 knight, and maybe some ideas from some prestige class, or a 5 Ed version of the cavalier from pathfinder.   * What has WotC said about class options? I don't mean subclasses but options to replace main class features.
#40 cowleymen Aug 12, 2015 23:30:44	LuisCarlos17f wrote:
#41 Ahrimon Aug 15, 2015 11:45:40	Yunru wrote: