The Knight is a powerful concept and one that has been well represented in D&D more or less since the 1970’s. The Paladin in older editions of D&D was perhaps the most prominent archtype along with things such as the Solamnic Knights in Dragonlance and D&D artwork throughout the decades. A Knight for example was on the fornt of the 1983 Greyhawk boxed set and one could arge that a Knight on foot is on the Basic Red boxed set as well. With classes and kits such as the cavalier in AD&D and an actual Knight class in 3.5’s PHB2 the I would argue that it is the archetypical D&D fighter/paladin archtype in the game. The heroic Paladin type archetype owes its ultimate origins to the medieval romances which glorified chivalry, the reality was a little different with a few exceptions. This thread will briefly look at the era and political situation that lead to the rise of the Knights.
The ultimate origin of the Knight lies in the late Roman Empire. The Romans were famous for their infantry and engineering skills in warfare. This is because of images depicted on things like Trajen column which depicts the stereotypical Roman armor that was worn in the 2nd century AD. Heavy armor such as chainmail had been around since around 400 BC perhaps earlier and the Romans also used this. As the Roman empire went into decline they also suffered several major defeats vs the Huns and Parthia. Parthia was located in the modern Iran and surrounding lands. Parthia was famous for their heavy cavalry and was a rival of the Romans.
The late Roman army added more cavalry to their own which evolved into the cataphract the Byzantines used. The western Roman empire collapsed but the eastern Empire survived. History does tend to be Eurocentric and orientated towadrs the west but the wealth in antiquity was located in the east- Anatolia (Turkey), Egypt and the Levant were richer than the west. This was because of trade routes, a larger population, and resources. Heavy cavalry was rare in the west due to this disparity in resources and the fact stirrups originated in the east as well likely on the steppes. Stirrups turned up in Western Europe likely introduced after the arrival of the Huns or other steppe people in the 5th or 6th century in the post Roman world.
The so called Dark Ages were due to the collapse of large scale states in Western Europe and the decline of literacy. In the east the Byzantines also had a second Greek dark age which seemed to be a period of population and literacy decline. This was likely a due to a combination of climate change and the arrival of a new threat. The prophet Muhammed introduced a new religion of Islam to the tribes of Arabia in the 1st half of the 7th century. The Byzantine and Sassanid empires had been in a long drawn out war and were relatively weak. The skilled Arab cavalry quickly overran Egypt, the Levant, Persia and North Africa and by the 8th century had over run most of modern Spain (Al Andalus).
The Islamic caliphates were larger than any western nation and the Umayyid and Abbasid Caliphates were also some of the largest empires ever. The golden age of Islam was still in the future but in the 8th century towards the end of the “Dark Ages” the Islamic armies advanced into modern France and the Battle of Tours (or Poiters) in 732. Back then France did not exist but the Franks met the cavalry of the Umayyids with an infantry based army. Charles Martel the grandfather of Charlemagne defeated the Umayyids and checked Islamic expansion in Europe. At the time this was rare having infantry beat cavalry. This did lay the foundations of Charlmagnes empire though and the future French State and the Holy Roman Empire. It also laid the foundations of the Reconquista which was competed in 1492 by Spain.
In Western Europe nation states started to emerge under feudalism which ultimately had its origins in the late Roman Empire England for example appeared in the 10th century. Charlmagnes died and west Francia laioid the foundations of France which was officially claimed in 1190. Feudalism was a decentralised system of vassalage where you could in theory (and practice) have a Duke being more powerful than the actual King. William the Conquer for example was Duke of Normandy, King of England and in theory a vassal of the King of France. One can see the origins of the Hundred Years War of the 14th and 15th century in 1066. Standing armies were rare in this time period in Western Europe although the Byzantines had one in the east.
The medieval Knight developed in this system of vassalage. Later romances depicted them in a noble light with armor but the reality was more chainmail and a tabard. Knights were usually members of the aristocracy supported by the economic system of the time. This could create massive problems when it came to actually wanting to fight a war as your vassals may not always be loyal or they would fight among themselves. The authority of the King was limited but early Knights were a fighting aristocracy. An event in the east however would lead to the crusading era and the establishment of official Knightly Orders. In 1071 the Muslim Seljuk Turks inflicted a massive defeat on the Byzantine Empire (Eastern Roman Empire) at the Battle of Manzikert. The Turks were horsemen from central Asia and they breached the Anatolian defences that had stood for around 4 centuries checking Islamic advances into Eastern Anatolia. In modern terms it would perhaps be the equivalent of an invader over running the western half of the USA.
This caused a shock in the Christian world and the Byzantine Emperor Alexios I Komnenos requested help from the west. Pope Urban II responded by calling for a crusade againt the Muslims. The Crusade lasted from 1096 through to 1099 and recaptured Jerusalem from the Turks. The cause of the Crusades remain controversial to this day with things such as economics being a factor (loot and land) but the primary cause does seem to be a genuine attempt to repel what was seen as Muslim aggression in the east and to recapture the Holy Lands lost in 632-661. The Crusades were expensive and the Crusaders lost money so economics would not have been a primary objective.
In a secular modern democracy a holy war may seem like an odd concept but at the time there was no religious freedom as such in Western Europe. The Muslims were more tolerant relative to the time but they did have Sharia law so you paid more in tax if you were a Christian or Jew. In the west Jews were barely tolerated and suffered pogroms, the Muslims were expelled from Spain after the Reconquista. Technically the first knightly order the Knights Hospitaller predate the Crusades (founded 1023) but after the conquest of Jerusalem they became a military order. The Hospitalller exist today under the name Sovereign Military Order of Malta. The other famous Knightly Order the Templars lasted from 1118-1312.
There was another Knightly order though that would ultimately have major repercussions in the 19th and 20th Century. The Teutonic Knights were another Crusading Order founded to fight the Muslims in the Holy Land. They ended up in eastern Europe after being expelled from Hungary. Ultimately they were used to convert the “heathens” of the Baltics to Christianity. The modern nations of Estonia, Latvia and Poland were still pagan in the 13th century. The Order converted these areas by conquest and ultimately formed the Duchy of Prussia. Prussia merged with the House of Brandenburg in the 17th century forming a larger Prussia that lead to Frederick the Great and later the defeat of the French in 1871 and the establishment of modern Germany.
Teutonic Knight
The Muslims won the crusades and drove the crusaders from the holy lands. This did not end the crusading movement however. In the West England and France got involved in the Hundred Years War in the 14th and 15th century. The last crusade worthy of the name was in 1444 where France and Hungary battled the Ottomans at the Battle of Varna. The Ottomans won. In 1453 the Ottomans captured Constantinople which sent another shock through the Christian world and eventually over ran most of Hungary and laid siege to Vienna twice. The Ottomans hired a Hungarian to make the cannons that breached the walls of Constantinople because the Byzantines could no longer afford to hire him.
The Ottomans would go on to kick the Knights Hospitaller out of Rhodes where they relocated to Malta. The Ottomans suffered a rare defeat there at the height of their power at the Great Siege of Malta in 1551. Another defeat was inflicted on the Ottomans by a coalition of Christian nations in 1571 at the naval Battle of Lepanto where the Knights were a minor participant. The Knights of Malta were eventually kicked out of Malta well into the modern era by Napoleon in 1798. The last Crusader outpost came to an end.
In the west Knight armour came to its ultimate conclusion in the years following the Hundred Years War. Elaborate suits became very expensive but basic version of the armor were available for mercenaries.
Late full plate.
Landless knights and mercenary companies were basically bandits at certain times and areas in Europe. The two main styles of classic Knights armor were Gothic and Milanese custom crafted to the wearer. The age of the Knights however were coming to a close due to increased power of ranged weapons. This was made apparent at the battles of Crecy and Agincourt where English Longbows decimated numerically superior French Knights. The ultimate deathblow was guns. Guns did not render Knights or bows obsolete overnight as they existed side by side with primitive guns and cannons well into the 16th century. The wreck of the 16th century Mary Rose revealed large amounts of longbows still being used and the Turks were still using bows at the Battle of Lepanto in 1571.
A combination of economics, weapons and an evolution of tactics such as Swiss Pikemen, Landsknect and Tercio Infantry, polearms and guns rendered the medieval Knight obsolete. Plate armor breastplates ended up being 2-3 millimetres thick and were bullet and arrow proof/resistant but horses were still limited to what you could put on one and it became a question of economics. Bow use died out as the English longbow was more accurate with better accuracy than guns well into the 19th century but it took a long time to train an archer. More importantly the English ran low on quality yew and had to start importing wood from Scandinavia making archers more expensive. The 14th century Black Death also started the end of feudalism.
Ultimately the Islamic world also received a double blow. The Mongols sacked Baghdad and the Turks ended up becoming the most powerful Islamic state left. In 1492 the New World was discovered. In future decades the Europeans could bypass the stranglehold the Ottomans had on Asian trade via deep water sailing ships. The Battle of Lepanto in 1571 was the last hurrah of a traditional naval conflict by 1588 and the Spanish Armada cannon and naval tactics rendered traditional naval warfare since the time of Rome and beyond obsolete. The Ottomans last gasp in central Europe happened in 1683 and the siege of Vienna. The knight had been dead for around 100 years but cavalry was still important. Polish Winged Hussars wearing breastplates relieved the Siege and threw back the Turks. Napoleaon made good use of cavalry but the intervening 100 years of relative peace in Europe (1815-1914) made them obsolete as they combatants in WW1 found out the hard way
Winged Hussar Armor 1683
So that is more or less it the rise and fall of the Knight. D&D has never really represented the Knight that well as a lot of D&D weapons actually existed at the same time as guns so you have things like platemail, greatswords, polearms, full plate, and rapiers existing but no guns at least in the PHB. They were a product of their times, evolving out of the economic and political situation in the early medieval era. Their plate armor was the pinnacle of armor design and in game terms AD&D got it right over WoTC version of the game, that is to say plate armor is strictly better than anything else. It was mostly a European invention for the battle fields of Europe to cope with the expected threats they would face on the battlefield. Shields became obsolete (you were wearing it) so two handed weapons such as poleaxes were invented to penetrate the armor. There is some debate over how two handed swords were used but odds are they were not used Conan the Barbarian style.
TL;DR If you want a more historically accurate (if still fictional) depiction of what a medieval European knight was like, refer to Game of Thrones rather than the Arthurian legends. 
You mention AD&D doing plate better, but in the current rules plate is the best armor available too... what were you basing your comment on?
jaelis wrote:
Ah the good old days of massive tables of modifiers for every weapon vs. every armor type.
jaelis wrote:
Zardnaar wrote:
ankiyavon wrote:
You can still have the AD&D Armor experience in 5e.
Simply allow max dex mod to be added regardless of armor worn. Take the old Weapon vs Armor Type hit modifier tables straight out of the AD&D PHB and use them in your game. Once done, you can enjoy the same whacky-skewed results and broken ACs of AD&D while reliving the thrill of waiting on your players figuring out their to hits as the they reference that table. Oh yeah, also, don't forget, you as the DM will have to decide what armor type a monster's hide is.
Full and Field plates are technically not from the original AD&D of the 70's. They come from the Unearthed Arcana (1985) AD&D splat. Though they provided superior AC, they had the annoying property of having their own hit points. When the armor lost hp's, it lost effectiveness and had to be repaired.
To keep things fair, make sure you retain Bracers of Speed AC 2 (AC 18 in 5e), stackable rings and cloaks of protection +5 as well as similarly enchanted shields so non armor wearers can get in on the Monty Haul fun. If one can't get the equivalent of an AC -10 with Long Swords having a -4 to hit the character, you are totally missing out on all that high end AD&D epic level fun. Of course, weapons need to go back to +5 and +6 (instead of +3 being very rare) for full authenticity.
For extra AD&D flavor: Convert 5e to ThaC0 and mix in more SoDs. Eliminate any saves after the first one has been failed-- no save per round nonsense. Lastly, makes sure the oldest and greatest of dragons only have 88 hp.
Bonus points for designing a dungeon sealed for thousands of years having rooms such as a locked up 10' x 20' room with only one exit, a trap or two activated by tripwire or pressure plate upon entering said room, and a gas trapped chest full of usefull treasure while the room has 20 fully healthy orcs and a ghost in it. 
Thanks for the post!
I've always considered the paladin to be D&D's knight, as it's divine connections fit in with the religious overtones of romantic style stories. In a less mystical setting, fighters as knights work great too. I loved the knight in 3E; i adapted it and blended it with the OA samurai to make my own knight with inspire courage, ancestral weapons, and bonus feats.
Kishri wrote:
Zardnaar wrote:
I figured whether or not you were a Knight has more to do with your background options and the theme for your character in this edition. While the term "Knight" is associated with medieval europe, analogues for the heroic and honorable fighter can be found in Irish and Chinese mythology/history.
Figures such as Diurmud and Zhao Yun.
Kishri wrote:
In the old real History the knights were nobles who could allow to buy a horse and an armour. In a fantasy D&D world, knight would be a elite warrior who could use a very expensive magic armour, or to pilot a arcane punk mecha.
LuisCarlos17f wrote:
God save us from simulationism.
How many of the people arguing for "real" plate armor have their characters wear it all day, every day? And put it on in the morning without help? (Or maybe they camp in it?)
How much RP time do you spend scrubbing the rust off it?
Once you amassed the necessary gold to buy it, how long did your DM make you wait before it was ready?
Or did you find it in a treasure trove and it just happened to fit you?
After taking big hits, how long (and how much money) did you spend repairing it?
...
If you want to use "gamist" to describe "rules that actually make playing the game fun" then I would hate to see (let alone play) the non-gamist alternative.
Elfcrusher wrote:
Aurthurian Legend > Game of Thrones
ROM: Spaceknight > Arthurian Legend
Knights In Satan's Service ~ not Knights at all!
Zardnaar wrote:
Gnarl wrote:
bawylie wrote:
I converted the 3rd Ed Knight to 5th Ed, not much work, 3rd Ed classes are quite intuitive to convert to 5th Ed. I agree the Knight, like Samurai, totally suits a Background, I was just looking at the class, mechanically (could of course call it something else).
The Dark Knight Returns > Aurthurian Legend
Trololol
Elfcrusher wrote:
ankiyavon wrote:
Elfcrusher wrote:
Weren't we talking about knights at some point in this thread? I'd much rather play in a campaign where we spend our time around the table dealing with Rom, Spaceknight vs a Roman Centurion than one where we put aside the the dice the argue about Gamists vs Simulationists. Mostly because the latter isn't something you acutally give a s**t about while you're enjoying an RPG experience with your friends! 
Elfcrusher wrote:
bawylie wrote:
Miladoon wrote:
Where the Wild Things Are > Arthurian Legend > Game of Thrones
ankiyavon wrote:
Elfcrusher wrote:
Elfcrusher wrote:
Gnarl wrote:
Enough with the bickering!
I think we can all agree that the PHB doesn't devote nearly enough space describing the different types of cod pieces available.
Vulf wrote:
Vulf wrote:
edwin_su wrote:
Bluenose wrote:
Great post, thanks!
Zardnaar wrote:
The archetype of knight isn´t a richt child with a expensive amour but the fighter with honorable behavior. One of the best examples would be the prince Valiant from comics, and Sturm, from Dragonlance. If we use marvel comics characters as example, Steve Rogers like Captain America would be closter to a D&D knight that Norman Osborn wearing the armour "Iron Patriot". The Mountaint and Red Viper from "Game of Thrones" are warriors with noble origin and armour, but they aren´t true knights because they are too "sinner", even John Snow is closer to be a knight.
* About simulationism... do you remember any first-person-shooter videogame without "fast healing"? Only Arma where only a shot is enough to die.
Zardnaar wrote:
5e is attack dominant and Defense light. The number of immunities for PCs is about 1/4th and attack bonuses are about 2-3 points higher at the start, while armor classes are about 4-6 points worse. When you average that up, it means Player Characters are hit 30-45% more frequently. AD&D armor was better. The toughest stuff even had minor damage reduction, which could lower a bad die roll to 0 damage, even if you hit. Of course, AD&D damage was higher, and hit points were lower. A 20th level AD&D character might have 93 hit points. The same character in 5e might have 240. 2e spells were weaker than 1st ed spells, and 2e armor was weaker than 1st ed armor.
2e Paladins were a laughingstock joke compared to 1st edition paladins with the ua modifiers, even without them. 3rd edition and 5th edition both made something closer to the 1st edition paladin. Our current 5th edition paladin is sort of like the first edition paladin +20%, then their deck of many powers divided somewhat evenly among their subclasses, making options that are weaker than 1st edition, but still better than 2e.
My new DM was running a paladin NPC and trying to use a Bastard sword. He thought bastard swords in 5e did 2d8 damage, like they did in AD&D. I informed him that the 3d6 two hander was now 2d6, and the one-two handed sword was now "long sword" and did d10.
10 > 16
12 > 18
Damage bonuses were also higher in AD&D. +2 from specialization, +3 from double specialization, +6 from 00 strength, +14 for titan strength.
so you were looking at doing 16 +2+6 = 24 in one hit from a non magical bastard sword.
an enchanted sword in AD&D could be +5 or 6, so in theory, 18+6+14+3 = 41 in one hit, 40 if you stop at +5 weapons.
this meant an AD&D character could kill a level 20 encounter, CR 20, in 3 hits. 2.5 edition reintroduced the BECMI specialization,
and 3d8+3+5+12 3-4 times per round was possible.Basically 49 damage in one hit. Criticals used to be a full double, so 98 in one hit happened.
But anyway, backstab could have gone horribly wrong in AD&D for a knight. A girdle of storm giant strength and a magic short sword dishing out 120 damage in one hit.
but they could have subtracted 2 points for wearing full plate XD, so 118.
But seriously, that backstab would probably never hit. Full plate and shield used to be AC 0. Dexterity could kick that to -4. Various shield proficiencies could present a -6 or better.
+5 armor would have put them at -9, and a cloak of protection at -14, which would be AC 34 in 5th edition.
Cavaliers and Paladins used to have a mounted charge that added their level to their damage. so +20 or higher, since levels went past 20. 3d6 for the lance, +6 from 00 strength,
so 3d6+26. However, lances did double damage when charging from a mount, so 6d6+52, i.e., 58-88 damage in the first hit, with approximately a +3 to hit from strength, and +3 to hit from class modifiers, and another +19 to hit from levels. Totalling a +25 to hit, before enchantments.
1st edition dragons had 8 hit points per hit die at ancient, the highest age category in 1st edition, meaning an ancient blue had 80 hit points, and an ancient red had 88 hit points. Tiamat had 128 hit points.
you guys can make of this material what you will, but it seems like while on average, the universal loss of armor class was rebalanced with more hit points (things hit more, but hit less hard), the Knight character is kind of getting the shaft because they used to totally dominate the field in things like jousting and heaviest armor, but not anymore. Knights, by the way, in 1st edition, have ALWAYS had the power to raise attributes, unlike all the other classes. Wizards had to wait until 18th level to use wishes, but Knights by 20th level had +d5 to Strength, Dexterity, and Constitution. Paladins also had this bonus to Charisma. Which works out to be about the same as the current 5e attribute bonus.
Now, there's some things you can take that sort of approximate the effectiveness of knights, unfortunately, they come at the cost of attribute bonuses the knights used to get for free.
Among them, are shield master with a +3 shield, giving +5 to dex saves vs spells/harm/dragon breath and save for 1/2 or 0.
Heavy Armor Master would reduce all your melee damage by 3 on each hit and still give you a +1 to str or con
great weapon master with a lance would give you +10 to your damage with a -5 penalty to hit
taking charger would allow you to Vlad people for +5 more damage, giving you a +15 total to damage, which is vaguely close to the Cavalier +level bonus.
with heavy armor +3 and a shield +3, you might be looking at AC 26, which is the same as AC negative 6 in AD&D.
Undying sentinel is the cavalier power to function at negative hit points, purity of spirit is the AD&D protection from evil, minus the radius, aura of courage is close to their fear immunity,
combining divine smite with improved divine smite and a 2d6 lance, gives you a charge attack, using a belt of storm giant strength,
2d6+6d8+5+10+9 = 32-84 damage, and 3 more if it is enchanted to +3. That's vaguely closer to the 1st edition lance effect, so the flavor of the Cavalier paladin can at least be partially preserved in some circumstances. to compensate for having to pay feats for things you ought to get for free, the DM could allow you to use Training (DMG 231) to gain the needed feats, plus few more to fill in some of the gaps. Training would be based on heavy weapons, armor, and things that improve Strength, Constitution, Dexterity, and if you are a Paladin, your Charisma.
Perhaps unearthed arcana could present a "Mounted Lancer" type feat that would integrate components of the Charge and Heavy Weapon Master feats into a neat package.
shintashi wrote:
Zardnaar wrote:
Bluenose wrote:
Shasarak wrote:
Elfcrusher wrote:
MechaPilot wrote:
Simulation-ism, for me, is whether or not people can do it in real life as it relates to people in the setting. Also how would magic effect the world, and the economy?
Can someone sell anything in real life? If yes, then people in D&D can sell magic items.
Can magic treasure not be treasure? If no, then people would buy magic treasure. It is not treasure if it is not valued by people. Magic not being valued by people takes away from it being wondrous. Who would buy something magical? I would think lots of people with money would!
Can someone's intelligence or charisma affect trade? If yes, then people in D&D can sell items for more (or less) than 50% of its value.
Would people adventure for treasure? If yes, then said people would likely know how to go about selling treasure. Also there would be methods of selling treasure. Auction houses, dealers, and sales agents. The degree depending on how advanced the economy was.
Would people have non-combat magic? If yes, then we need to have some non-combat spells, and items. There should be spells that help build things, deal with food preservation, a toothache, cleaning, preserving wood, preventing rust, pest control, warming water, and lots of health related magic.
This is one reason I find the notion of spell casters with a limited number of cantrips and spells to be off-putting. If I included such non-adventuring magic, then I would expect all (most?) of the casters to be able to use it. Perhaps some mechanic similar to the cleric.
The crate food and water spell (via a caster with two or more 3rd level spell slots) could feed 30+ people every day, and create ~22,000+ gallons of water per year. I could see such a caster being kidnapped, or the massive water reserves of a community with such a caster being attacked during a drought. Perhaps they keep the watter in barrels, inside barns, are buying up all the old barrels on the market, are hiring lumberjacks, carpenters, and coopers. Perhaps they keep the water in deep underground basins like they did in Dune, and need stonecutters, and masons.
Something I find odd in 5e is the fact that a plate armor (1,500gp) suit is worth 3-15 magic swords. I would price a magic sword at the high end of uncommon item range (101gp to 500gp), and that would be 500gp, so a plate armor suit is perhaps worth 3 magic swords.
I think this is odd. I would likely make +1 magic swords worth more, perhaps 2,000gp to 5,000gp. I would also likely make magical armor cost two to three times as much (perhaps more), as weapon technology tends to outpace armor technology (I would figure even with magic technology this would be true).
Perhaps old runes are glutted with +1 swords, and not nearly as many magic pate armor suits. Perhaps the magic needed to enchant metal is proportionate to its weight.
Oh well, economics are always ignored.
darkrose5000 wrote:
Elfcrusher wrote:
Shasarak wrote:
Bluenose wrote: