Question: The Knight's Birthright Mount

[Frost]

The description states:
In addition to their starting money, knights begin play with a fully outfitted riding horse (saddle, blankets, saddlebags,
bit and bridle, harness, horseshoes, and meal). The mounts are hardier than most, having 2d8+2 hit points. A riding horse is not trained for combat, and a knight has some difficulty fighting from a riding horse (see mounted combat).

However, on the next page, the PH gives states for a riding horse and light war horse.

Why does it give both stats if the birthright mount is a riding horse?

[Dungeoneer]

I think it's there because it's assumed that eventually the Knight will want a Light Warhorse or that he can train his horse to fight via attribute checks once he is experienced enough himself. That was my take on it when I saw that. I was asking myself the same thing.

[Lord Dynel]

That was my assumption, too, Frost. The stats for both creatures are different than M&T (the Riding Horse has a few more hit points, the Light War Horse has one better AC), and that might be enough to warrant their inclusion, alone. However, I thought it was for ease of use as to why they were here, so a player did not need to reference M&T just to get his horse stats (and as Dungeoneer stated, the eventual upgrade).

[nightstorm]

why not just give a warhorse?? It's not going to be that unbalancing. Wouldn't he be givin a warhorse and not a riding horse? Giving a knight a riding horse is like giving your son his Grandmother's Pinto for his first car.

[serleran]

Yeah, and while on that subject of entitlement, why not bestow Polish Hussar armor, a large steel shield, bartering for the heavy warhorse, a horseman's flail and hammer, a heavy lance, and a broadsword, plus accoutrements and necessary retention gear (weapon oil, scabbards, clothing) plus a retinue of assistants...

That is extreme, of course, but the knight is a knight by birth... not because of wealth.

It may very well be that the family, especially the father, has a warhorse but that may be the only one. The son still must prove himself.

At least, the way I see it, anyway. Also, a primary reason I have removed the knight as a class and made it something one can choose to pursue through advancement.

[redwullf]

Yeah, and while on that subject of entitlement, why not bestow Polish Hussar armor, a large steel shield, bartering for the heavy warhorse, a horseman's flail and hammer, a heavy lance, and a broadsword, plus accoutrements and necessary retention gear (weapon oil, scabbards, clothing) plus a retinue of assistants...

That is extreme, of course, but the knight is a knight by birth... not because of wealth.

It may very well be that the family, especially the father, has a warhorse but that may be the only one. The son still must prove himself.

At least, the way I see it, anyway. Also, a primary reason I have removed the knight as a class and made it something one can choose to pursue through advancement.

I don't agree that a knight must be a knight by birth - could be someone who squired and was finally knighted upon reaching adulthood, or by some great deed on the battlefield...or simply faking some documents and calling themselves a knight (a la "A Knight's Tale"). Traditionally, only nobles are likely to be knighted simply by virtue of being noble (thus at birth).

[Arduin]

Giving a knight a riding horse is like giving your son his Grandmother's Pinto for his first car.

Not at all true. Even a VERY brief study of Medieval history will tell you otherwise...

[Traveller]

If I'm not mistaken, not all knights had horses. The ones that did had riding horses, with war horses used when going into battle. While it may seem to make no sense to have stats for both a riding horse and warhorse in the PHB, knights did not enter battle using riding horses. They would have a destrier for that purpose.

The PHB makes it clear that the knight has some difficulty fighting from a riding horse. Problem is, there is no mounted combat section in the PHB, making the "see mounted combat" reference irrelevant. All that exists for mounted combat is a pair of modifiers for being on a mount, which are completely negated due to the knight's horsemanship ability. The one advantage of having a light war horse over a riding horse when using the horsemanship ability is that the light war horse can make its normal attacks during combat with a knight mounted on its back. A riding horse cannot.

The only reason I believe the light war horse stats are in the book is convenience. Since knights do not use riding horses in battle it stands to reason they would need a war horse. This war horse has different stats from the norm simply because it is a "best of breed" war horse, selected by the knight using his horsemanship ability.

[Lurker]

I’ll admit that it always annoyed me when I started playing a knight (Cavalier back in the day). I mean come on, I’m a mounted death dealer with a lance and a sword … But, as a history guy, Arduin and Red are right on the money on it.

“Knights” were the cream of the crop and it was an expensive list of equipment they needed. A true (non-errant) knight had to have his arms armor, a riding horse, and a war horse. Plus he needed a squire, and to properly equip them too.
That was brought home to me in one of my favorite “historical fiction” books. In part of it, the son of a common knight and the nephew to the crown prince were friends. They both do something to help the prince and were rewarded with being knighted (and the equipment they needed to fulfill the requirements of being a knight). The nephew was amazed at how thankful his friend was. He replied by saying to the effect “It was never in doubt you would be a knight, you have the name, the land, and the money you need. I would never have been a knight without the prince’s help. My name means nothing to anyone besides my father and his lord, it has no land tied to it, and I fight in barrowed armor and with barrowed sword. At best, I would be a squire for the rest of my life, hopefully serving a good knight who serves a good lord”.

With that, I always start my 1-3rd level “knights” out as being trained squires with some of the needed equipment, but not full knights being titled “Sir”. They have to prove themselves, gain the needed money/equipment etc to be called a knight/Sir. Even then they are errant knights until they are funded enough to have followers, equip them etc.

As for why the stats for both horses, I’d say for ease of reference. Plus, who knows, the player my luck out and max his’ starting gold and try and afford a light war horse right out the gate (or be like every player I know that has started a 1st level knight, and try and convince the DM into bending the rules for them and give them a war horse, so the could be said horse mounted, death dealers)

[Lord Dynel]

I haven't had a knight in my game(s) yet. In a way, I see knights very much a "cultural class," much like the barbarian. They both have their places in my campaign.

I've already made it known to my players that there will be multiple ways to become a knight, just as long as they can craft their character within the confines of class as written. Whether they're landed gentry (appointed by a royal or noble), they follow the traditional page/squire/knight process (and are a child of aristocracy), or they're a knight-errant and they're roaming the land to find deeds worthy enough to earn the rank (they'd be knight by class and lifestyle, though not necessarily in the setting). My only issue with this is what I'm going to do if/when one of another class (say, a fighter or paladin) earns the title of knight though deed at some point in the campaign? I suppose I can consider the designation a separate thing.

I agree that a traditional knight should probably have better equipment than what should be available (good arms and armor, a couple of horses, a page or squire themselves) but I don't want to change any rules to reflect this. An appointed knight or knight errant wouldn't be hard to pull off by the class as written, but the traditional one would be a little rough. But it hasn't come up yet in my games, so I guess I have to wait and see. Who's to say the knight can't have an old, beat up suit of plate mail that would have the same AC value of the splint mail he could afford at 1st level, but have the weight and EV of true plate mail? Or shiny, new splint mail.

In game terms, a horse is a decent feature of the knight class, if for nothing more than to paint the picture of a traditional knight a little better. Without it, they'd be a little worse off than the fighter, until they started getting their other class abilities. As to why the stats are there, I still say to give a player the stats for a warhorse, as I'm sure he'll want to upgrade as soon as he can afford it and having the stats available is a nice touch.

[nightstorm]

Remember RPG classes are BASED on historical examples and yet do not and are not historical themselves. I stand by what I say. Part of the RPG class is horsemanship. I would even argue that to full fill the idea they should start with a suit of armor.

[Arduin]

Remember RPG classes are BASED on historical examples and yet do not and are not historical themselves. I stand by what I say. Part of the RPG class is horsemanship. I would even argue that to full fill the idea they should start with a suit of armor.

If you're going to give them that much of a wealth advantage, you'll need to weaken them elsewhere...

[Snoring Rock]

I think the RAW are sufficient. Nobles can lose fortunes just like anyone else. Who says noble blood means wealth? They tend to go together but they are not one in the same.

Ok so Sir Ruplelips has a son who is a knight; does that mean he does not have to prove his quality? Using the land and title as treasure in the CKG, as a knight you get quarters in the keep of the lord. You have a place to live free of charge. You have a riding horse and you get to roll for gold. That is good enough. Adding armor, advanced skills, etc., just tends to throw it off balance.

I find everyone feels like it is fair when they get similar treatment using the CKG land and title for treasure. I have a player running a knight in my Wilderlands campaign and they are loving it. He started out with RAW and a few levels later has a larger fiefdom and rides a better mount.

I like it like it is written.

[Lurker]

I haven't had a knight in my game(s) yet. In a way, I see knights very much a "cultural class," much like the barbarian. They both have their places in my campaign.

I've already made it known to my players that there will be multiple ways to become a knight, just as long as they can craft their character within the confines of class as written. Whether they're landed gentry (appointed by a royal or noble), they follow the traditional page/squire/knight process (and are a child of aristocracy), or they're a knight-errant and they're roaming the land to find deeds worthy enough to earn the rank (they'd be knight by class and lifestyle, though not necessarily in the setting). My only issue with this is what I'm going to do if/when one of another class (say, a fighter or paladin) earns the title of knight though deed at some point in the campaign? I suppose I can consider the designation a separate thing.

I agree that a traditional knight should probably have better equipment than what should be available (good arms and armor, a couple of horses, a page or squire themselves) but I don't want to change any rules to reflect this. An appointed knight or knight errant wouldn't be hard to pull off by the class as written, but the traditional one would be a little rough. But it hasn't come up yet in my games, so I guess I have to wait and see. Who's to say the knight can't have an old, beat up suit of plate mail that would have the same AC value of the splint mail he could afford at 1st level, but have the weight and EV of true plate mail? Or shiny, new splint mail.

In game terms, a horse is a decent feature of the knight class, if for nothing more than to paint the picture of a traditional knight a little better. Without it, they'd be a little worse off than the fighter, until they started getting their other class abilities. As to why the stats are there, I still say to give a player the stats for a warhorse, as I'm sure he'll want to upgrade as soon as he can afford it and having the stats available is a nice touch.

LD, I ran into the same problem (back when I had time to think about DMing). To cover it, I went with the "knight" class was the Cavalier, but almost anyone (fighter, Paladin, cavalier, and even a few rangers) could earn the title of Knight/Sir. Cavaliers were just the better horseback fighter and with the charisma needed to lead the others. That way you could have a gruff, uncouth "knight" who was a battle field promoted knight but a poor leader of his peers next to a knight that could force of personality be a leader of men and cause fear in the enemies. They were both “Sir” such and such, the both had the best arms and armor they could afford, the peasants still deferred to them etc, but Lord help the fighter with a title if he had to joust the caviler or was expected to lead a lance of his peers or a troop of men.

I like what you pointed out on the armor. That is how I've played it in my games before. Also, In my world only a knight or a knight's man can have a long/bastard sword. Especially in the low levels (1-3ish). That could go into the knight class allowing them to start out with a sword other fighters will have to earn the right to own.

Snoring rock, rgr on your post. If the knight is worth his salt, then in a few levels he will be able to afford a war horse better armor etc.

[Lord Dynel]

Part of the RPG class is horsemanship. I would even argue that to full fill the idea they should start with a suit of armor.

I agree on both. Of course, a suit of splint mail or ring mail are suits of armor. I don't mean to sound obvious (or obtuse ), but a starting knight - even the "child of aristocracy' I mentioned earlier - has to start somewhere. Maybe, for him, it's ring mail.

[Treebore]

Back when I asked about this a few years ago I was told the Light Warhorse was there "just in case". Meaning if the CK wanted to allow the Knight to start with a Light Warhorse. I think they were supposed to "errata" this by adding a sentence explaining this, but it obviously did not happen.

[serleran]

My belief is that the knight was intended to start with a light war horse, but in discussion, it was decided that this might be too much, given the XP progression (the cost of the birthright mount ability is fairly low), and so it was changed to a beefed riding horse as compensation. However, the original idea was left behind as a Kirkian way to allow choice.

[Frost]

Well, for what it's worth, I'm letting the knights in my campaign have the light warhorse. Just seemed a bit more heroic (even if not realistic). After all, it's not like the rest of the game is very historically accurate.

In short, I went with the Rule of Cool.

Apart from the money issue, I didn't see it as terribly unbalancing.

[nightstorm]

As for the "too powerful" thing, remember it's just a horse. Unless you are doing some grand above ground only campaign, that horse is nothing but a liability when you go dungeoneering. "Oh sorry Sir, but while you were exploring the lost caverns of Tel Nogh, your prized warhorse was eaten by a griffin."

[Ieuane]

As for the "too powerful" thing, remember it's just a horse. Unless you are doing some grand above ground only campaign, that horse is nothing but a liability when you go dungeoneering. "Oh sorry Sir, but while you were exploring the lost caverns of Tel Nogh, your prized warhorse was eaten by a griffin."

Anecdote Alert: I had a player who loved gaming, but hated dungeons, going underground, into ruins, etc., and would always play a Knight, Cavalier, Paladin, whatever would tap into mounted combat. To give you an idea, I think he watched the charge of the Rohirrim from ROTK a million times. It was like religion.

Once he had a horse, his ass was glued to that saddle. He'd try and sleep in it if he could. The goal of the campaign became, "Do not dismount." I've now been conditioned to hate giving players horses, and when they do get them, they are always fair game in a fight, as in the griffin "tragedy" you mention. Getting better. It's funny now, but it annoyed the hell out of me then.

[nightstorm]

I think it along the same lines as those ( and they will remain nameless) who want to play unplayable character races.
I had one wanting to play a centaur. A "discussion" ensured with me saying "Sure you can play it" knowing full well what was going to happen.
Before they even got out of the town, they had to go to a tavern to get info-except for the centuar who was too big to fit in the door.
"What am I going to do in the mean time?" asked the Centuar.
"You'll just have to stay outside and eat some grass" I replied.
Then we got to the Dungeon..
Needless to say by the end of the first game he went from Centuar to elf.

The point of the knight is that he has abilities that do not require a horse. BUT one of his important abilities is horsemanship.
Giving him a riding horse is like giving a stunt driver a family SUV over a two door sports car. If you're going to give him the ability at first level then give him the tools to do it.

[Arduin]

As for the "too powerful" thing, remember it's just a horse. Unless you are doing some grand above ground only campaign, that horse is nothing but a liability when you go dungeoneering. "Oh sorry Sir, but while you were exploring the lost caverns of Tel Nogh, your prized warhorse was eaten by a griffin."

Yes, you are correct. They'd need to hire full time people for care & protection for that. It would eat up any monetary advantage...

[Traveller]

Horses get very skittish in enclosed places deep underground, like dungeons.

Of course, other than the fact I'm going to have to add a clarification regarding the mount to the discussion thread I set up for the purpose, this discussion has been quite illuminating. I personally don't have much more to add to it, except none of it affects my game. I don't allow the knight class in my game, along with barbarians, bards, and monks.