NotaNuffian
This does spark joy.
- Joined
- Nov 26, 2019
- Messages
- 3,715
- Points
- 183
While this problem has always been in my mind ever since I read CN depictions of these two classes, it is only in The Original Vampire did I decided to ask out.
The grading system they use is from one to a defined number and in most occasions like in a xianxia, "lower levels cannot be higher levels" unless it is MC and his band of freaks.
The topic of knight has been properly, sort of, listed out as to why knights are better than warriors and this is just a refresher;
A. Because of religion and knights are often blessed/ appointed and thus they gain a stats boost compared to the warrior class.
B. Those who becomes a knight is often better trained with techniques of horse riding, sword techniques, body tempering and etc (weird when they don't list out archery and then I recalled it is only in Japan did they taught the squires) and even vagrant knights aka ronins are still better than warriors.
Warriors on the other hand, I got nothing other than the fact that they are supposed to be the inferior of knights. No full explanation given inside or out of work. The actual history never really explains the class as well, solely because knight is a form of warrior, a better equiped and armored warrior. The pillaging vikings are one, the common soldiers like farmers who got forcefully drafted in are not though.
So for anyone who read this, what is the defining factor in differentiating the two?
The grading system they use is from one to a defined number and in most occasions like in a xianxia, "lower levels cannot be higher levels" unless it is MC and his band of freaks.
The topic of knight has been properly, sort of, listed out as to why knights are better than warriors and this is just a refresher;
A. Because of religion and knights are often blessed/ appointed and thus they gain a stats boost compared to the warrior class.
B. Those who becomes a knight is often better trained with techniques of horse riding, sword techniques, body tempering and etc (weird when they don't list out archery and then I recalled it is only in Japan did they taught the squires) and even vagrant knights aka ronins are still better than warriors.
Warriors on the other hand, I got nothing other than the fact that they are supposed to be the inferior of knights. No full explanation given inside or out of work. The actual history never really explains the class as well, solely because knight is a form of warrior, a better equiped and armored warrior. The pillaging vikings are one, the common soldiers like farmers who got forcefully drafted in are not though.
So for anyone who read this, what is the defining factor in differentiating the two?