What is the major difference in Knight class and Warrior class

[NotaNuffian]

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?

 

[Ddraig]

When I think of such class, I always just think of aoe2 and the difference between militia and knight line

 

[NotaNuffian]

When I think of such class, I always just think of aoe2 and the difference between militia and knight line

... then it becomes a fight with a dude with a melee weapon and a normal armor including simple shin guards and helmet versus a dude with a melee weapon, a lance for charging, a horse for charging and a full set of chain, plate, full face helmet for charging.

So like a dude with an AK47 versus a dude in a powered exoskeleton equiped with Barett anti material and M32 rotary.

Seriously I hate classes.

 

[SternenklarenRitter]

I'd say it's the mount that separates the warrior and knight classes. Knights also give the impression of being better armored. It's not because of religious blessings though, then we'd have a paladin, holy knight, or crusader.

 

[TotallyHuman]

Seriously I hate classes.

Then you're a socialist

 

[Biggest-Kusa-Out-There]

A knight can be a social servant in a way. They can act as guards, they can police/patrol the streets, and have relevant roles during peace times.
A warrior would be the base line that separates any individual from those that partake in war... WARrior.

A knight is a warrior with a lord above him. Simple as that.
As for classes in games and rpgs, a warrior would be the base class that further expands.

a lance for charging, a horse for charging and a full set of chain, plate, full face helmet for charging.

That's a lancer, not a knight.

All these classes of physical fighters have their origins in military/clergy ranks. Knight, Lancer, Dragoon, Crusader, Paladin, etc. They're not even the same language in most cases, and a few refer to the same position.
A hoplite, a lancer, a dragoon, a hackapell, a phalanx, and more use the spear-family of weapons. The difference is as relevant as the difference between a spear, a lance, and a pike.

 

[ElijahRyne]

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?

Oh, often times warriors fight by themselves, or in small group, while knights tend to fight in formations. Also knights are cavalry while warriors are infantry. Often times a knight is either from a noble or rich family, with occasional peasants good at fighting. Knights tend to be apprentices/squires for long times while being taught many martial arts before becoming knights, while warriors are either very good with one weapon or taught in quick batches before war.

 

[Mysticant]

I would say what differs is knights are more defense-oriented while warriors are more offense-oriented. Though there are variations of shield warriors and two-handed sword heavy knights, the key idea is the warriors are more militia-like with lighter armor (like hard leather), while knights usually go chainmail to full plate. I would argue that tower shield heavy knights and mobile warriors are the more common variant. There is also the other knights which are actually titled knights (or knighted) which may be strong with their own family line of weapon arts. Anyways, tldr they are probably similar in a sense but knights are usually recognized by a ruling authority, while warriors do not have to be.

 

[Yamemai]

Just my understanding, and not related to anything else: [Note: Gaming understanding, because you mentioned classes, thus I'm assuming it's LitRPG.]

Warrior is more offensive/all-rounder, while Knights are using defensive/tankers.

 

[NotaNuffian]

Then you're a socialist

Still better than being in a society of unclimbable hierarchy...

No wait, every social structure is situated as such because the fuckers who climbed up top knows how to keep their spots and that is by "maintaining the status quo".

Oh, often times warriors fight by themselves, or in small group, while knights tend to fight in formations. Also knights are cavalry while warriors are infantry. Often times a knight is either from a noble or rich family, with occasional peasants good at fighting. Knights tend to be apprentices/squires for long times while being taught many martial arts before becoming knights, while warriors are either very good with one weapon or taught in quick batches before war.

You mean that they are trained to fight in groups because that is how the military works while warriors are just guys who picked up arms and go ham.

A knight can be a social servant in a way. They can act as guards, they can police/patrol the streets, and have relevant roles during peace times.
A warrior would be the base line that separates any individual from those that partake in war... WARrior.

A knight is a warrior with a lord above him. Simple as that.
As for classes in games and rpgs, a warrior would be the base class that further expands.


That's a lancer, not a knight.

All these classes of physical fighters have their origins in military/clergy ranks. Knight, Lancer, Dragoon, Crusader, Paladin, etc. They're not even the same language in most cases, and a few refer to the same position.
A hoplite, a lancer, a dragoon, a hackapell, a phalanx, and more use the spear-family of weapons. The difference is as relevant as the difference between a spear, a lance, and a pike.

Knight vs Lancer - What's the difference?

As nouns the difference between knight and lancer is that knight is a warrior, especially of the middle ages while lancer is...

wikidiff.com

warrior meaning - Google Search

Well crab biscuits.

I would say what differs is knights are more defense-oriented while warriors are more offense-oriented. Though there are variations of shield warriors and two-handed sword heavy knights, the key idea is the warriors are more militia-like with lighter armor (like hard leather), while knights usually go chainmail to full plate. I would argue that tower shield heavy knights and mobile warriors are the more common variant. There is also the other knights which are actually titled knights (or knighted) which may be strong with their own family line of weapon arts. Anyways, tldr they are probably similar in a sense but knights are usually recognized by a ruling authority, while warriors do not have to be.

Just my understanding, and not related to anything else: [Note: Gaming understanding, because you mentioned classes, thus I'm assuming it's LitRPG.]

Warrior is more offensive/all-rounder, while Knights are using defensive/tankers.

So in terms of gameplay, knights are definitely higher up in the tech tree solely because of their defensive armor compared to "warriors" who wear armor made of leather of sorts.

So the differentiation of a warrior and a knight becomes if he dons a metal armor or not?

 

[BlackKnightX]

Knight is specialized in defense, while warrior is specialized in offense? Totally just a random guess.

 

[Cipiteca396]

Warrior is a generic term for anyone who fights professionally, or anyone who belongs to a 'Warrior' caste.

In RPGs, they would typically be the default, generic class, which can level up into something cool like Berserker, Mercenary or Knight. Exceptions would be when you start with a pre-evolution class like Journeyman or Squire.

A knight is typically a type of warrior who either owns land and commands soldiers as a member of the Medieval European Warrior caste appointed by the King, or a heavily trained soldier who either acts as Heavy Cavalry or Mounted Infantry. Romantically speaking, they would do it all.

 

[CupcakeNinja]

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?

Just think of it as a specialization. A warrior can use any weapon, but that doesnt mean he is skilled in it. You feel me? Anyone with basic training can be called a warrior, even if they lack the mentality of one. But that doesnt make them an elite archer, spearman or calvary rider.

 

[DarkGodEM]

Warriors beat the shit out of you

Knights beat the shit out of others in your stead

 

[NotaNuffian]

Just think of it as a specialization. A warrior can use any weapon, but that doesnt mean he is skilled in it. You feel me? Anyone with basic training can be called a warrior, even if they lack the mentality of one. But that doesnt make them an elite archer, spearman or calvary rider.

I get it, it is just a general term, like calling someone a white collar worker general.

So in most CN novels who tried the western vibe, the warrior class is BS when compared to knight because for that exact reasoning. Like, a knight is always better than a warrior cuz specialization.

 

[DisillusionedNovice]

Knights: Disciplined and well-trained in the sense that they went to an academy. Very uniform in style. Typically adorned with well-made armor and weaponry. Usually fights with class, maybe honor. As someone else said, they can be seen as a police force of sorts as well. Employed.
Warriors: Wild, usually not uniformly trained (self-taught so-to-say). Larger weapon variety (greataxes, axes, warhammers, maces, etc...). Warriors I'd reckon are strictly melee as well, not really common for a warrior to use ranged weaponry. Strength focused, not dexterious like a knight may be. Dirty tactics while fighting are used depending on the warrior in question (sand in eyes, gouging, spit). Boisterous and wild in nature. Commonly outfitted in leather or light clothing, personally. Pants and no shirt-type vibe.

These are just my opinions though, it's what I imagine when I think of either.

 

[Biggest-Kusa-Out-There]

I get it, it is just a general term, like calling someone a white collar worker general.

So in most CN novels who tried the western vibe, the warrior class is BS when compared to knight because for that exact reasoning. Like, a knight is always better than a warrior cuz specialization.

It's like the simplified version of witch and sorceress. Both are completely different from each other but get ranked for simplicity's sake.

If you want to techincal: A warrior is anyone who has gone to actual war. But a fat dude in an office can be a Knight if he's appointed.

 

[ArcadiaBlade]

Knights tend to be more durable when it comes to being attack by orcs and goblins. Warriors tend to be depicted to prefer sho-

*Reads the Thread more deeply and felt like it isn't the write answer*

*Puts back the Porn Encyclopedia and pulls up the Lore Encyclopedia*

Generally, the difference between Knights and Warriors is that one is spec out in multiple specialization due to living in a harsher enviroments while a Knight lives more luxurious than its counter-part. It is like the Eastern Version of Samurais and Ronins(Outcast Samurais) yet has a large difference between them.

For start, Warriors act more like mercs and Adventurers to earn income while Knights tend to be professionally trained. Due to that, it is mostly generalize that Knights tend to be seen in Castles and Cities due to that while Warriors are your everyday Mercenaries who tend to be on the lower scale or even the poor version of the knight.

Warriors tend to be inferior to Knights mainly due to how Knights tend to be not only better equipped but also has training while Warriors tend to be seen with leather clothings and cheap weapons.

Most knights are made from families who can afford knight training and even Noble Children who aren't eligible for inheritence. Warriors come from poor backgrounds and tend to carry more experience while Knights have more training and sometimes talent.

*Puts Down Lore Encyclopedia and Pulls up the Game Encyclopedia *

Mostly games use them as Classes based from them due to how its made from the social class they belong to. Warriors(poor background) and Knights(Average to Rich background) are class based on this and it is also pointed out that Warriors are mostly depicted to have an all-rounder set of skills(mainly due to how they would prefer to specialize in many weapon classes to compensate their lack of equipment. Knights on the other hand, specialize in defence(mostly comes to wearing armor), tend to be seen with horses(due to their training in horse riding and such) and are equipped to have church's blessings or any type of blessings(due to them being closer to be seen on cities and such).

*Closes Book*

Thats it for my Ted Talk. Thank you very much.

 

[LordJoyde]

A warrior fights for people while a knight fights for a cause.

Combine them and you get the Paladin who fights for concepts~.

 

[Silver_Sky]

Knight wields swords and armor with a balance of offense and defense and usually has some kind of leadership skills and horse riding skills as well.
Warriors focus a lot of offense typically brute force have no leadership in most cases and have no general specialization of skills.
Like a bandit or farmer can be warriors.
Maybe its better to say they are cannon fodder.