So folks at GenCon have shown a preview of a Banneret Fighter, replacing the Purple Dragon Knight from an earlier UA. This preview shows third-level features, and I'm going to be frank, all of them highlight how terrible WotC's modern design philosophy is.
To go through each aspect of the revealed features one by one...
Knightly Envoy gives you three sub-features. The very first sub-feature? You can cast comprehend languages as a ritual. A Fighter subclass, with no innate magical nature, and the very first feature is a spell.
The second sub-feature lets you learn one language. But at the end of a long rest, you can change that to another language you've heard or seen in the past 24 hours. You gain the ability to both instantly learn languages from potentially nothing more than a single word, and to instantly forget a learned language at the drop of a hat.
The third sub-feature gives you one proficiency. It's dull, especially when the comparable 2014 feature gave expertise in Persuasion.
The Banneret can still heal allies when using Second Wind. It's still limited to once per short/long rest, its range is halved compared to its 2014 version. But the biggest problem is how it functions. The 2014 version described the feature as inspiring your allies to fight on; as such, it requires your allies to be able to see or hear you to gain the benefit. The 2024 version has no such flavor; you just magically make people in your vicinity feel better when you use your Second Wind. Even the name screams the lack of flavor—"Rallying Cry" becomes just "Group Healing".
These features really highlight how shallow modern subclass design is, as well as the fact that WotC can't create martial subclasses without features that either function like magic or are just magic. Instead of having a character that just learns a bunch of languages, you have to rely on spells or long-rest-swap features. The complete lack of flavor leads to everything feeling like "[x] magically happens". All on a Fighter subclass, the class that should be the easiest to design a subclass without magical features for.
Honestly I like the new language and skill based features, they feel flavourful for the trope of a court knight experience across multiple fields of battle. Using comprehend language + swapping into one heard language per is elegant from a design perspective IMO. It achieves the goal—the character being worldly and polyglottal from their experience as a commander—while also being balanced and efficient. I'm not a fan of the mentality of "making a non-magical copy of a spell because this thing isn't supposed to be magical in nature". The spellcasting system is a good scaffolding system for a lot of features and I personally like how WotC uses it. I feel it reduces the mental overhead of a lot of features—once you've learned how the spell system works, you've done the foundation for a lot of class and subclass features.
As for the healing, yeah, seems toned down but I think seeing the difference it'll make in actual play is key. As for the removal of flavour, I'm not sure that's an issue. People will flavour how best suits their character and I prefer features that don't pigeon hole things.
These features really highlight how shallow modern subclass design is, as well as the fact that WotC can't create martial subclasses without features that either function like magic or are just magic. Instead of having a character that just learns a bunch of languages, you have to rely on spells or long-rest-swap features. The complete lack of flavor leads to everything feeling like "[x] magically happens". All on a Fighter subclass, the class that should be the easiest to design a subclass without magical features for.
This claim that Wizards cannot create subclasses without relying on magical features is without merit. If you look at the martial classes in 2024, it is clear Wizards is trying to offer martials some mundane options and some hybrid-magical/psionic options, ensuring that different playstyles are supported. Let us look at the current classes and subclasses:
Fighter:
- Battle Master - Completely mundane, uses an entirely different system than magic to confer abilities.
- Champion - Completely mundane and simple in design.
- Psi Warrior - Psionic, but does add a spell at level 18.
- Eldritch Knight - Designed to specifically use magic for players that want to play a hybrid character without multiclassing.
Barbarian:
- Berserker - Simple, no magic.
- Wild Heart - Some primal magic.
- World Tree - Some abilities that mimic magic, but do not do so through the regular magic spells.
- Zealot - some abilities that reference divine energy, but do so in a completely different way than spell casters.
Monk:
- Mercy - Some "Magic actions" but no actual spellcasting.
- Shadow - Has some basic spellcasting, but limited to two very specific spells.
- Elements - Can cast one spell and do some magical effects.
- Open Hand - No magic.
Rogue:
- Arcane Trickster - Explicitly designed to be a hybrid class.
- Assassin - No magic.
- Soul Knife - psionic, does not actually do any magic.
- Thief - No magic.
----
Contrary to your claim that Wizards "can't create martial subclasses without features that either function like magic or are just magic", six of the sixteen subclasses in 2024 are completely non-magical/psionic. If you add in the subclasses that have semi-magical/psionic effects but accomplish those effects through a completely different system, independent of the D&D magic system, that number raises to ten of sixteen.
It is clear Wizards can, in fact, "create martial subclasses without features that either function like magic or are just magic" - they have done so repeatedly and have at least one completely non-magical option for every single martial class. They also design semi-magic and magic based subclasses because players want options - that is a good thing.
Also, trading out what should realistically be hard knowledge is not a new concept- Fighting Styles can be exchanged on a level up, Masteries on a Long Rest, certain subclass options at various points, etc. Is it entirely realistic? No. Does it strike a good medium between flexibility to adapt to different scenarios or experiment with different options while setting reasonable limits on how much a character gets at once? Yes.
Firstly, I’d be hesitant to judge an entire subclass based on one level’s worth of powers. Yes, this does seem a little underwhelming, it feels kind of like a package of ribbon abilities. But this might not be all, it might just be some of the bits they gave out on a pregen character because it was all that would be relevant in the adventure at the con. I’ll wait until I get the context of the full subclass. (And if your problem is with ‘24 subclasses, have a look at the original pdk. It’s terrible.)
Second, as Davyd said, it seems a lot simpler to just let them cast a spell than to invent a whole new system which would just end up giving them the effects of a spell. And the FR is a super-high magic setting. Giving out a spell or two to a subclass designed specifically to fit into that setting is pretty on brand.
Finally, barbarians should be the easiest to design a nonmagical subclass for. There was a time when they couldn’t even use a magic weapon, and they specifically can’t cast spells when they’re using their main class feature.
Firstly, I’d be hesitant to judge an entire subclass based on one level’s worth of powers. Yes, this does seem a little underwhelming, it feels kind of like a package of ribbon abilities. But this might not be all, it might just be some of the bits they gave out on a pregen character because it was all that would be relevant in the adventure at the con. I’ll wait until I get the context of the full subclass. (And if your problem is with ‘24 subclasses, have a look at the original pdk. It’s terrible.)
Second, as Davyd said, it seems a lot simpler to just let them cast a spell than to invent a whole new system which would just end up giving them the effects of a spell. And the FR is a super-high magic setting. Giving out a spell or two to a subclass designed specifically to fit into that setting is pretty on brand.
Finally, barbarians should be the easiest to design a nonmagical subclass for. There was a time when they couldn’t even use a magic weapon, and they specifically can’t cast spells when they’re using their main class feature.
The original PDK is not as bad as you make it out to be. I agree with everything else you said, though :)
I'm the opposite. I was gonna dump the PDK if they kept the dragon haha. Drakewarden exists for that.
I'm happy for you, truly. For those who were looking for a mediocre generic Warlord, they've gotten what they were after I guess.
The UA PDK did several things that Drakewarden doesn't do. And it would have been nice to have just one pet class in the game that isn't a spellcaster.
Hopefully they retool the dragon rider Fighter down the line. While the amethyst dragon powers probably wouldn’t fit, it could make a fitting concept for the next time they revisit Dragonlance.
Hopefully they retool the dragon rider Fighter down the line. While the amethyst dragon powers probably wouldn’t fit, it could make a fitting concept for the next time they revisit Dragonlance.
Hopefully! I just don't want to see it replace the PDK.
Hopefully they retool the dragon rider Fighter down the line. While the amethyst dragon powers probably wouldn’t fit, it could make a fitting concept for the next time they revisit Dragonlance.
Hopefully! I just don't want to see it replace the PDK.
Before you celebrate the dragon's demise entirely however, the same folks from GenCon who leaked the "Banneret" change are saying that the art and lore of the PDK still contains a whole bunch of amethyst dragons. If that's true, it's the worst of both worlds - lore purists still have to contend with PDKs being tied to literal purple dragons now rather than being chivalric but otherwise mundane knights named after a specific past foe, and those who wanted a dragonriding knight mechanically don't get what we want either.
it would have been nice to have just one pet class in the game that isn't a spellcaster.
LOL. I've got a homebrew rogue subclass called the Rascal for exactly that reason. It's a pretty glaring gap
Plus, who doesn't want a pickpocketing monkey friend?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock) Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric) Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
Hopefully they retool the dragon rider Fighter down the line. While the amethyst dragon powers probably wouldn’t fit, it could make a fitting concept for the next time they revisit Dragonlance.
Hopefully! I just don't want to see it replace the PDK.
Before you celebrate the dragon's demise entirely however, the same folks from GenCon who leaked the "Banneret" change are saying that the art and lore of the PDK still contains a whole bunch of amethyst dragons. If that's true, it's the worst of both worlds - lore purists still have to contend with PDKs being tied to literal purple dragons now rather than being chivalric but otherwise mundane knights named after a specific past foe, and those who wanted a dragonriding knight mechanically don't get what we want either.
I'm actually fine with a dragon themed Fighter - I just don't think it should be the Purple Dragon Knight. despite the name, it already has its roots in established lore. I'd be perfectly fine if they made the Drakewarden, for example, a Fighter subclass in the 2024 rules instead of a Ranger.
I'm actually fine with a dragon themed Fighter - I just don't think it should be the Purple Dragon Knight. despite the name, it already has its roots in established lore. I'd be perfectly fine if they made the Drakewarden, for example, a Fighter subclass in the 2024 rules instead of a Ranger.
That's what I'm saying:
The Fighter subclass that does a few healing and direction things is now just "Banneret" and may not mention the Cormyrian order at all.
If and when the book does mention "Purple Dragon Knight" specifically, get ready for a bunch of knights hanging around with purple dragons, crunch or no crunch.
I'm actually fine with a dragon themed Fighter - I just don't think it should be the Purple Dragon Knight. despite the name, it already has its roots in established lore. I'd be perfectly fine if they made the Drakewarden, for example, a Fighter subclass in the 2024 rules instead of a Ranger.
That's what I'm saying:
The Fighter subclass that does a few healing and direction things is now just "Banneret" and may not mention the Cormyrian order at all.
If and when the book does mention "Purple Dragon Knight" specifically, get ready for a bunch of knights hanging around with purple dragons, crunch or no crunch.
Obviously we will not know until the book is published, but I expect there to be some kind of descriptor in the flavor text portion of the class guide that ties the class into the forgotten realms. Something like "In the Cormyrian, the bannerets are the Purple Dragon Knights, elite... [some lore]."
As a whole, I am glad they are removing the reference to a specific order of knights in the subclass. As a general rule, I do not think such universal elements as subclasses should be setting-specific and using a neutral term like "banneret" helps make the subclass more flexible and less requiring of flavoring. Frankly, I am disappointed they are going with "Scion of the Three" for the rogue subclass, instead of making it something that has no connection to one particular plane.
I'm actually fine with a dragon themed Fighter - I just don't think it should be the Purple Dragon Knight. despite the name, it already has its roots in established lore. I'd be perfectly fine if they made the Drakewarden, for example, a Fighter subclass in the 2024 rules instead of a Ranger.
That's what I'm saying:
The Fighter subclass that does a few healing and direction things is now just "Banneret" and may not mention the Cormyrian order at all.
If and when the book does mention "Purple Dragon Knight" specifically, get ready for a bunch of knights hanging around with purple dragons, crunch or no crunch.
Obviously we will not know until the book is published, but I expect there to be some kind of descriptor in the flavor text portion of the class guide that ties the class into the forgotten realms. Something like "In the Cormyrian, the bannerets are the Purple Dragon Knights, elite... [some lore]."
As a whole, I am glad they are removing the reference to a specific order of knights in the subclass. As a general rule, I do not think such universal elements as subclasses should be setting-specific and using a neutral term like "banneret" helps make the subclass more flexible and less requiring of flavoring. Frankly, I am disappointed they are going with "Scion of the Three" for the rogue subclass, instead of making it something that has no connection to one particular plane.
I'm normally against "setting-specific subclasses" too... except this is a setting book, so if they're going to do that kind of thing anywhere this would be the place.
And Scion of the Three isn't the only example, Spellfire is also a Faerun-specific phenomenon.
I'm actually fine with a dragon themed Fighter - I just don't think it should be the Purple Dragon Knight. despite the name, it already has its roots in established lore. I'd be perfectly fine if they made the Drakewarden, for example, a Fighter subclass in the 2024 rules instead of a Ranger.
That's what I'm saying:
The Fighter subclass that does a few healing and direction things is now just "Banneret" and may not mention the Cormyrian order at all.
If and when the book does mention "Purple Dragon Knight" specifically, get ready for a bunch of knights hanging around with purple dragons, crunch or no crunch.
Obviously we will not know until the book is published, but I expect there to be some kind of descriptor in the flavor text portion of the class guide that ties the class into the forgotten realms. Something like "In the Cormyrian, the bannerets are the Purple Dragon Knights, elite... [some lore]."
As a whole, I am glad they are removing the reference to a specific order of knights in the subclass. As a general rule, I do not think such universal elements as subclasses should be setting-specific and using a neutral term like "banneret" helps make the subclass more flexible and less requiring of flavoring. Frankly, I am disappointed they are going with "Scion of the Three" for the rogue subclass, instead of making it something that has no connection to one particular plane.
I'm normally against "setting-specific subclasses" too... except this is a setting book, so if they're going to do that kind of thing anywhere this would be the place.
And Scion of the Three isn't the only example, Spellfire is also a Faerun-specific phenomenon.
As is Bladesinging.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
So folks at GenCon have shown a preview of a Banneret Fighter, replacing the Purple Dragon Knight from an earlier UA. This preview shows third-level features, and I'm going to be frank, all of them highlight how terrible WotC's modern design philosophy is.
To go through each aspect of the revealed features one by one...
These features really highlight how shallow modern subclass design is, as well as the fact that WotC can't create martial subclasses without features that either function like magic or are just magic. Instead of having a character that just learns a bunch of languages, you have to rely on spells or long-rest-swap features. The complete lack of flavor leads to everything feeling like "[x] magically happens". All on a Fighter subclass, the class that should be the easiest to design a subclass without magical features for.
Honestly I like the new language and skill based features, they feel flavourful for the trope of a court knight experience across multiple fields of battle. Using comprehend language + swapping into one heard language per is elegant from a design perspective IMO. It achieves the goal—the character being worldly and polyglottal from their experience as a commander—while also being balanced and efficient. I'm not a fan of the mentality of "making a non-magical copy of a spell because this thing isn't supposed to be magical in nature". The spellcasting system is a good scaffolding system for a lot of features and I personally like how WotC uses it. I feel it reduces the mental overhead of a lot of features—once you've learned how the spell system works, you've done the foundation for a lot of class and subclass features.
As for the healing, yeah, seems toned down but I think seeing the difference it'll make in actual play is key. As for the removal of flavour, I'm not sure that's an issue. People will flavour how best suits their character and I prefer features that don't pigeon hole things.
Find my D&D Beyond articles here
Glad to see they're keeping the theme for my favourite class in the game.
This claim that Wizards cannot create subclasses without relying on magical features is without merit. If you look at the martial classes in 2024, it is clear Wizards is trying to offer martials some mundane options and some hybrid-magical/psionic options, ensuring that different playstyles are supported. Let us look at the current classes and subclasses:
Fighter:
- Battle Master - Completely mundane, uses an entirely different system than magic to confer abilities.
- Champion - Completely mundane and simple in design.
- Psi Warrior - Psionic, but does add a spell at level 18.
- Eldritch Knight - Designed to specifically use magic for players that want to play a hybrid character without multiclassing.
Barbarian:
- Berserker - Simple, no magic.
- Wild Heart - Some primal magic.
- World Tree - Some abilities that mimic magic, but do not do so through the regular magic spells.
- Zealot - some abilities that reference divine energy, but do so in a completely different way than spell casters.
Monk:
- Mercy - Some "Magic actions" but no actual spellcasting.
- Shadow - Has some basic spellcasting, but limited to two very specific spells.
- Elements - Can cast one spell and do some magical effects.
- Open Hand - No magic.
Rogue:
- Arcane Trickster - Explicitly designed to be a hybrid class.
- Assassin - No magic.
- Soul Knife - psionic, does not actually do any magic.
- Thief - No magic.
----
Contrary to your claim that Wizards "can't create martial subclasses without features that either function like magic or are just magic", six of the sixteen subclasses in 2024 are completely non-magical/psionic. If you add in the subclasses that have semi-magical/psionic effects but accomplish those effects through a completely different system, independent of the D&D magic system, that number raises to ten of sixteen.
It is clear Wizards can, in fact, "create martial subclasses without features that either function like magic or are just magic" - they have done so repeatedly and have at least one completely non-magical option for every single martial class. They also design semi-magic and magic based subclasses because players want options - that is a good thing.
Also, trading out what should realistically be hard knowledge is not a new concept- Fighting Styles can be exchanged on a level up, Masteries on a Long Rest, certain subclass options at various points, etc. Is it entirely realistic? No. Does it strike a good medium between flexibility to adapt to different scenarios or experiment with different options while setting reasonable limits on how much a character gets at once? Yes.
Firstly, I’d be hesitant to judge an entire subclass based on one level’s worth of powers. Yes, this does seem a little underwhelming, it feels kind of like a package of ribbon abilities. But this might not be all, it might just be some of the bits they gave out on a pregen character because it was all that would be relevant in the adventure at the con. I’ll wait until I get the context of the full subclass. (And if your problem is with ‘24 subclasses, have a look at the original pdk. It’s terrible.)
Second, as Davyd said, it seems a lot simpler to just let them cast a spell than to invent a whole new system which would just end up giving them the effects of a spell. And the FR is a super-high magic setting. Giving out a spell or two to a subclass designed specifically to fit into that setting is pretty on brand.
Finally, barbarians should be the easiest to design a nonmagical subclass for. There was a time when they couldn’t even use a magic weapon, and they specifically can’t cast spells when they’re using their main class feature.
The original PDK is not as bad as you make it out to be. I agree with everything else you said, though :)
Seems like I should strongly consider buying the FR release. It would be my first purchase on DDB since the Core Rules.
DM mostly, Player occasionally | Session 0 form | He/Him/They/Them
EXTENDED SIGNATURE!
Doctor/Published Scholar/Science and Healthcare Advocate/Critter/Trekkie/Gandalf with a Glock
Try DDB free: Free Rules (2024), premade PCs, adventures, one shots, encounters, SC, homebrew, more
Answers: physical books, purchases, and subbing.
Check out my life-changing
The meh heard round the world. If they really dumped the dragon companion, then I'll be ignoring this
PDKBanneret just like I ignored the last one.Based on the screencap I saw on reddit, I'd be a better tactician just by being a Battlemaster and picking Inspiring Leader.
I'm the opposite. I was gonna dump the PDK if they kept the dragon haha.
Drakewarden exists for that.
I'm happy for you, truly. For those who were looking for a mediocre generic Warlord, they've gotten what they were after I guess.
The UA PDK did several things that Drakewarden doesn't do. And it would have been nice to have just one pet class in the game that isn't a spellcaster.
Hopefully they retool the dragon rider Fighter down the line. While the amethyst dragon powers probably wouldn’t fit, it could make a fitting concept for the next time they revisit Dragonlance.
Hopefully! I just don't want to see it replace the PDK.
Before you celebrate the dragon's demise entirely however, the same folks from GenCon who leaked the "Banneret" change are saying that the art and lore of the PDK still contains a whole bunch of amethyst dragons. If that's true, it's the worst of both worlds - lore purists still have to contend with PDKs being tied to literal purple dragons now rather than being chivalric but otherwise mundane knights named after a specific past foe, and those who wanted a dragonriding knight mechanically don't get what we want either.
LOL. I've got a homebrew rogue subclass called the Rascal for exactly that reason. It's a pretty glaring gap
Plus, who doesn't want a pickpocketing monkey friend?
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock)
Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric)
Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
I'm actually fine with a dragon themed Fighter - I just don't think it should be the Purple Dragon Knight. despite the name, it already has its roots in established lore. I'd be perfectly fine if they made the Drakewarden, for example, a Fighter subclass in the 2024 rules instead of a Ranger.
That's what I'm saying:
Obviously we will not know until the book is published, but I expect there to be some kind of descriptor in the flavor text portion of the class guide that ties the class into the forgotten realms. Something like "In the Cormyrian, the bannerets are the Purple Dragon Knights, elite... [some lore]."
As a whole, I am glad they are removing the reference to a specific order of knights in the subclass. As a general rule, I do not think such universal elements as subclasses should be setting-specific and using a neutral term like "banneret" helps make the subclass more flexible and less requiring of flavoring. Frankly, I am disappointed they are going with "Scion of the Three" for the rogue subclass, instead of making it something that has no connection to one particular plane.
I'm normally against "setting-specific subclasses" too... except this is a setting book, so if they're going to do that kind of thing anywhere this would be the place.
And Scion of the Three isn't the only example, Spellfire is also a Faerun-specific phenomenon.
As is Bladesinging.