I agree with the above, that a fighter with TP's is the way to go...
But if a GM were to decide that creating a new profession was the way he wanted to go... What differences would you guys see between the generic fighter and a knight?
-I believe a knight would be in more socialized (at least with the higher classes) then the average fighter, this could mean a skill bonus to specific influence skills or a decrease in the price from 2/7 to 2/5 or something like that..
-Similarly the price for Communications could go down.. perhaps an unusual 2/3/3?
Knights did not learn social skill, they had clerics and common folks hired for these tasks.
-Knights might be less out door'sy then the usual fighter and suffer a cost increase in Outdoor-environmental. In fact Outdoor-animal could go up.. a LOT as well. Knights rarely care for their own animals... the only skill in the Outdoor-animal cat. that knights would usually use is riding, and since they otherwise ignore animals (aside from killing them) it makes sense for it to be more expensive.
Wrong and wrong. Knights were men of action who spent most of their time in the wilderness. The only exceptions would be royal officers (and even so, a constable was expected to spend his time fighting and enforcing the law) and high ranking nobles with too much land (and ladies) to look after.
The greatest number amongst the knights were poor nobles who only held a small portion of land (they were called "hobereaux", they had absolutely no means of sustaining servants and thus had to take care of their horse(s) themselves. A knight was expected and to and did know how to handle, take care and sometimes heal a horse. How else could it be when some horses were trained to attack anyone who approached them but their rider ?
-Subterfuge skills could be increased even further in price.
I don't think so. 95% of medieval warfare was made of ambushes and raids. What is called the "werra" (root for both "war" and "guerre") was an affair of stealing cattle, burning down houses, destroying or taking away harvests... Did it never ring a bell that the english won Sluys, Cr?cy and Poitiers and thus took the half of the french kingdom and that Charles V and his men took it back without any major battle won ?
Have a look at the beginning of "kingdom of heaven" (director's cut) for an insight about a fight that invloves a bit of stealth (setting of a trap, using a horse to shield one's movement).
-Weapon skills could be less diversified, increasing the costs for categories 4-7
Just take a flaw that prohibits the use of ranged weapons, including artillery.
The first weapon category should be "pole arms", the second should be "1H edged", the rest is up to the timeline.
11th century (birth of the knight concept) : 3rd category would be 1h concussion, for shield bashes (2 weapon fighting was not yet a good option, the shield being really cumbersome).
12 th century : 1h concussion again, for maces (an habit brought back from the crusades) and shields
13 th century : just like above, but 2 weapon fighting becomes a serious possibility
14th century : 2 handed weapons appear, in the form of the longsword (brand d'ar?on) but is mainly used one handed on horse. On foot, it is used against poorly armoured spear wielders. Appearance of the the cavalry axes and hammers.
15th century : Same than above, except that bastard swords are used instead of the couple sword/longsword (the bastard sword blade is shorter than the longsword).
16th century : the rise of powder weapons ends the knight's supremacy. France keeps the armed knight tradition alive into the 17th century even though not with great success.
The traditionnal knight of the 12th century would wear a full coat of mail or a byrnie made of metal plates sewn on leather, an helmet, carry a large cone shaped shield, a sword, a long spear or a lance, a dagger and perhaps a mace or axe. 2 weapon fighting was not to common. On foot, the nights would form a shieldwall, the first line standing fast with swords and axes, the second and third one thrusting their spears.
The traditional knight of the 14th century would wear a plate and mail armour and carry on horse a lance, a sword, a longsword, a dagger and maybe an axe, mace or hammer for armour penetration. Daggers, and armour penetrating weapons were used in the left hand. Shield were sometimes used but became smaller with the progresse of armours and thus were more and more used to attack. They received spikes, sharpened rims, gutters and broken surfaces to keep weapon points and edges from harming the wearer or the shield itself.
On foot, he would carry either a pole arm or his longsword and the remainder of his weaponry. Behing the lines were servants that were supposed to bring heavy weapons like two handed axes and hammers, or to take and give longswords (too long to be carried on the knight's weapon belt - do not even think of carrying it in the back) and pole arms.
On the battle field, knights were storming footsoldiers. It took long preparation to prevent the knights from destroing their foes : Crecy, Poitiers and Azincourt were lost mainly to mud, caltrops and stakes that prevented the french knights to join the fray in an efficient way, while Patay, Formigny and Castillon are fine examples of what a small number of knights can do to a mass of footsoldiers. The 3 latter battles all were won by surprise. Mobility being the main advantage of cavalry, it took really stupid commanders to charge headlong into a mass of prepared infantry.
Read Jean Froissart ("Chroniques") to have a good understanding of knights's ways of fighting and ethics.
