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.
While the specific terms may be, they aren’t overtly setting specific the way “Purple Dragon Knight” or “Scion of the Three” are, plus Scion of the Three specifically referenced the three gods of the Zhents for its 3 modes. The core concepts behind Spellfire and Bladesinging are fairly setting agnostic- special magic fire and a wizard gish. They’re not invoking the same kind of proper names as these other two.
I didn’t like the PDK because it was bad lore wise. Had it been presented as a Dragonlance class I would have been fine with it. Reworking it as a Banneret knight without the dragon riding is fine with me. Yes, I can see them saying that it in Cormyr many of the members of the Purple Dragon Knights are Bannerets and I’m fine with that as well. What I am teed off with is the language buffs. I ( as most long term members know) am a Ranger fan and to me the reasoning behind the Banneret’s language skills and the Ranger’s seem the same yet the ranger gets only some extra languages with no way to change them while the banneret gets (apparently) both magical access to languages and a way to change their languages on a rest. I know it’s too late now but it would be nice if the first splat book actually brought the base ranger class up to parr on this (and other things that still need some tweaks).
I didn’t like the PDK because it was bad lore wise. Had it been presented as a Dragonlance class I would have been fine with it. Reworking it as a Banneret knight without the dragon riding is fine with me. Yes, I can see them saying that it in Cormyr many of the members of the Purple Dragon Knights are Bannerets and I’m fine with that as well. What I am teed off with is the language buffs. I ( as most long term members know) am a Ranger fan and to me the reasoning behind the Banneret’s language skills and the Ranger’s seem the same yet the ranger gets only some extra languages with no way to change them while the banneret gets (apparently) both magical access to languages and a way to change their languages on a rest. I know it’s too late now but it would be nice if the first splat book actually brought the base ranger class up to parr on this (and other things that still need some tweaks).
That's apples to oranges- Rangers as a base class are getting options Fighters as a base class do not. A particular subclass of Fighter edging slightly ahead doesn't invalidate the Ranger's base class feature. There's a fair chance we'll get a Ranger subclass down the line with a language buff, and even without that Fighters having one option to specialize in languages doesn't invalidate that Rangers get a general advantage to them without having to lock themselves into a particular subclass.
Ace, my point is that both the banneret and the ranger gain access to multiple languages because they are/have been travelers and have been exposed to many languages. Yet the ranger, with access to magic only learns their 3-5 languages and has to use a limited spell slot for comp. Lang. If they want to understand any other one - and they can listen but not speak that language. If the OP is correct then the banneret gets free use of comp. Lang. And can change at least one language they know after a rest. If anything the abilities should be reversed but I would be quite happy if they just brought the ranger up to speed to the banneret standards. The ranger’s language abilities (although often under utilized) is one of the few things the class has that are superior to the other classes and I get annoyed when subclasses take away that superiority. You want to give a different class’s subclass roughly equal ability in one area of another classes superiority that’s fine but don’t make the subclass superior. This is basically the same problem I have with the scout rogue - it gets expertise in survival and nature automatically giving it 6 xpertise not rogue’s standard 4. A scout rogue that got proficiency with nature and survival and then, like the ranger, had to use 2 of its limited expertises in those skills would be fine same here with the banneret - either they should both get access to 3-5 languages and nothing more or they should both get the presented language abilities of the banneret.
And my point is that your point is blowing the meta effect out of proportion. The Ranger main class is a broad generalist. They get an extra starting skill prof, they get expertise- ballooning from 1 to 3 before they hit tier 3, they get two extra languages, and they get traversal features. The banneret gets to be slightly better at languages because this is what the subclass is specialized for. Pretty sure they're not getting any Expertise. Or traversal.
This is like complaining that a Fey Wanderer is invalidating the Bard because they also get Expertise and can add their WIS mod to CHA checks. Yes, with a little finesse in the build they can theoretically edge out the Bard in skill bonuses on social rolls, but that still leaves a lot of other stuff in the Bard's identity they can do better. A subclass performing better in one narrow feature than you get from another main class is not the end of the world, it's the entire reason they make all these different subclasses.
I get your argument, I just don’t agree. I don’t think it’s ok for a subclass of a different class to be better than a main class in the areas that are that main class’s specialties. Can they just barely match it but do so by specializing in those skills instead of more normal class abilities - fine. We’ve both stated opinions we are entitled to so perhaps it’s best to agree to disagree.
I get your argument, I just don’t agree. I don’t think it’s ok for a subclass of a different class to be better than a main class in the areas that are that main class’s specialties. Can they just barely match it but do so by specializing in those skills instead of more normal class abilities - fine. We’ve both stated opinions we are entitled to so perhaps it’s best to agree to disagree.
For me it is comical to try to picture the guy who prefers hanging out in the wilderness with his dog and no one else as the "language specialist" That is not a Ranger's gig in my opinion and belongs with a character that is a social specialist, not a survival specialist.
Oh gee, in a magical world full of dragons and wonder, fighters can't use any magic. You know, because of course an ordinary, non-magical human being can swing around a (fantasy) great sword, carry 150 pounds of gear, run 30 feet in six seconds, and jump 10 feet by default. Yes.
Look, I get some of the complaints around less flavor for subclasses. I think that's a misunderstanding- the idea is to let players flavor it more dynamically than the traditional flavor which could be a bit restrictive- but I do agree that having *no* flavor feels bad. I would rather have both- suggest a flavor, but make it clear that players can make some choices.
But having magical abilities to understand languages (and, heaven forbid, forget them!)? I don't think that's a bridge too far. Bolstering allies with second wind? I mean, think about all the rallying speeches in great works of fantasy. Sure, I would have liked to see more flavor, but I don't think the problems you're pointing at in the original post are the problems with 2024 design. There are problems there, sure, but every system has problems. Misidentifying them isn't going to help with fixing them.
Oh gee, in a magical world full of dragons and wonder, fighters can't use any magic. You know, because of course an ordinary, non-magical human being can swing around a (fantasy) great sword, carry 150 pounds of gear, run 30 feet in six seconds, and jump 10 feet by default. Yes.
Look, I get some of the complaints around less flavor for subclasses. I think that's a misunderstanding- the idea is to let players flavor it more dynamically than the traditional flavor which could be a bit restrictive- but I do agree that having *no* flavor feels bad. I would rather have both- suggest a flavor, but make it clear that players can make some choices.
But having magical abilities to understand languages (and, heaven forbid, forget them!)? I don't think that's a bridge too far. Bolstering allies with second wind? I mean, think about all the rallying speeches in great works of fantasy. Sure, I would have liked to see more flavor, but I don't think the problems you're pointing at in the original post are the problems with 2024 design. There are problems there, sure, but every system has problems. Misidentifying them isn't going to help with fixing them.
I feel the best way to fix 2024's design flaws is to just stick to 2014 because it's a better balanced game.
The "ritual to cast comprehend language" is just the rules part of "the fighter sits down and concentrates on the language to find it's meaning". It's just a representation of what Antonio Banderas character does in the 13th Warrior by using pre-existing rules and magical effects as a support for simplicity and balance.
It's like the Artificers who are using spells for the simplicity of the rules while in roleplay are not "proper" magicians but crazy tinkerers that mimic spells effects through "technomagical" guizmos. Like they don't really "cast" Acid Splash, but maybe throw an acid potion instead, or use a water gun containing acid, or something of the sort.
It's rules for the gameplay, you then use your imagination to portray the effect of those rules in the context of the character.
While this new Banneret might be underwhelming, for it to be able to use Comprehend Language is not a problem whatsoever.
I get your argument, I just don’t agree. I don’t think it’s ok for a subclass of a different class to be better than a main class in the areas that are that main class’s specialties. Can they just barely match it but do so by specializing in those skills instead of more normal class abilities - fine. We’ve both stated opinions we are entitled to so perhaps it’s best to agree to disagree.
For me it is comical to try to picture the guy who prefers hanging out in the wilderness with his dog and no one else as the "language specialist" That is not a Ranger's gig in my opinion and belongs with a character that is a social specialist, not a survival specialist.
Let me flip that for you then - think of the American mountain man - out there doing his sur Al thing in a wilderness filled with 10 to 50 different versions of native tribes with various languages. If he couldn’t pick up the language quickly and show he was at least a potential friend no matter how good he was at stealth he would be dead quickly. Given the layout of ( at least) many DnD worlds with varying bands of orcs, gnolls, goblins, bugbears, hobgoblins, wild ( antisocial) elves, lone Dwarven delvings, small hidden Hollingsworth and gnome communities along with potential barbarian human groups a ranger is going to run into hee too needs to be fairly skilled linguist.
I get your argument, I just don’t agree. I don’t think it’s ok for a subclass of a different class to be better than a main class in the areas that are that main class’s specialties. Can they just barely match it but do so by specializing in those skills instead of more normal class abilities - fine. We’ve both stated opinions we are entitled to so perhaps it’s best to agree to disagree.
For me it is comical to try to picture the guy who prefers hanging out in the wilderness with his dog and no one else as the "language specialist" That is not a Ranger's gig in my opinion and belongs with a character that is a social specialist, not a survival specialist.
Let me flip that for you then - think of the American mountain man - out there doing his sur Al thing in a wilderness filled with 10 to 50 different versions of native tribes with various languages. If he couldn’t pick up the language quickly and show he was at least a potential friend no matter how good he was at stealth he would be dead quickly. Given the layout of ( at least) many DnD worlds with varying bands of orcs, gnolls, goblins, bugbears, hobgoblins, wild ( antisocial) elves, lone Dwarven delvings, small hidden Hollingsworth and gnome communities along with potential barbarian human groups a ranger is going to run into hee too needs to be fairly skilled linguist.
I think both having access to more languages makes sense. I don't particularly like the PDK getting Comprehend Languages and I'd rather see it get an extra language or two but whatever. I'm just happy to see they're reverting it from the Drakewarden Fighter.
I agree, my complaint with the banner et language abilities was not that they shouldn’t have them, they should. But with the format and extent vs the other language heavy PC - the ranger. Both should be skilled linguists (IMNSHO). If the ranger got CL for free and could cast it as a ritual I would be fine with it.
I agree, my complaint with the banner et language abilities was not that they shouldn’t have them, they should. But with the format and extent vs the other language heavy PC - the ranger. Both should be skilled linguists (IMNSHO). If the ranger got CL for free and could cast it as a ritual I would be fine with it.
I'd rather neither got Comprehend Languages but here we are. 5.5 has been a disappointment across the board.
I agree, my complaint with the banner et language abilities was not that they shouldn’t have them, they should. But with the format and extent vs the other language heavy PC - the ranger. Both should be skilled linguists (IMNSHO). If the ranger got CL for free and could cast it as a ritual I would be fine with it.
Again, though. Setting aside a particular narrative aimed to justify being a polyglot, the Ranger class is mechanically designed to be a generalist. They dip into many different areas enough to be effective. The banneret is supposed to be a specialist at this. Ergo, they are more capable in this particular segment because they’re not juggling half a dozen other things.
I get your argument, I just don’t agree. I don’t think it’s ok for a subclass of a different class to be better than a main class in the areas that are that main class’s specialties. Can they just barely match it but do so by specializing in those skills instead of more normal class abilities - fine. We’ve both stated opinions we are entitled to so perhaps it’s best to agree to disagree.
For me it is comical to try to picture the guy who prefers hanging out in the wilderness with his dog and no one else as the "language specialist" That is not a Ranger's gig in my opinion and belongs with a character that is a social specialist, not a survival specialist.
Let me flip that for you then - think of the American mountain man - out there doing his sur Al thing in a wilderness filled with 10 to 50 different versions of native tribes with various languages. If he couldn’t pick up the language quickly and show he was at least a potential friend no matter how good he was at stealth he would be dead quickly. Given the layout of ( at least) many DnD worlds with varying bands of orcs, gnolls, goblins, bugbears, hobgoblins, wild ( antisocial) elves, lone Dwarven delvings, small hidden Hollingsworth and gnome communities along with potential barbarian human groups a ranger is going to run into hee too needs to be fairly skilled linguist.
You mean like Lewis and Clark that had a translator?
I get your argument, I just don’t agree. I don’t think it’s ok for a subclass of a different class to be better than a main class in the areas that are that main class’s specialties. Can they just barely match it but do so by specializing in those skills instead of more normal class abilities - fine. We’ve both stated opinions we are entitled to so perhaps it’s best to agree to disagree.
For me it is comical to try to picture the guy who prefers hanging out in the wilderness with his dog and no one else as the "language specialist" That is not a Ranger's gig in my opinion and belongs with a character that is a social specialist, not a survival specialist.
Let me flip that for you then - think of the American mountain man - out there doing his sur Al thing in a wilderness filled with 10 to 50 different versions of native tribes with various languages. If he couldn’t pick up the language quickly and show he was at least a potential friend no matter how good he was at stealth he would be dead quickly. Given the layout of ( at least) many DnD worlds with varying bands of orcs, gnolls, goblins, bugbears, hobgoblins, wild ( antisocial) elves, lone Dwarven delvings, small hidden Hollingsworth and gnome communities along with potential barbarian human groups a ranger is going to run into hee too needs to be fairly skilled linguist.
You mean like Lewis and Clark that had a translator?
I would say the translator was more of a ranger than Lewis and Clark tbh
I get your argument, I just don’t agree. I don’t think it’s ok for a subclass of a different class to be better than a main class in the areas that are that main class’s specialties. Can they just barely match it but do so by specializing in those skills instead of more normal class abilities - fine. We’ve both stated opinions we are entitled to so perhaps it’s best to agree to disagree.
For me it is comical to try to picture the guy who prefers hanging out in the wilderness with his dog and no one else as the "language specialist" That is not a Ranger's gig in my opinion and belongs with a character that is a social specialist, not a survival specialist.
Let me flip that for you then - think of the American mountain man - out there doing his sur Al thing in a wilderness filled with 10 to 50 different versions of native tribes with various languages. If he couldn’t pick up the language quickly and show he was at least a potential friend no matter how good he was at stealth he would be dead quickly. Given the layout of ( at least) many DnD worlds with varying bands of orcs, gnolls, goblins, bugbears, hobgoblins, wild ( antisocial) elves, lone Dwarven delvings, small hidden Hollingsworth and gnome communities along with potential barbarian human groups a ranger is going to run into hee too needs to be fairly skilled linguist.
You mean like Lewis and Clark that had a translator?
I would say the translator was more of a ranger than Lewis and Clark tbh
While the specific terms may be, they aren’t overtly setting specific the way “Purple Dragon Knight” or “Scion of the Three” are, plus Scion of the Three specifically referenced the three gods of the Zhents for its 3 modes. The core concepts behind Spellfire and Bladesinging are fairly setting agnostic- special magic fire and a wizard gish. They’re not invoking the same kind of proper names as these other two.
I didn’t like the PDK because it was bad lore wise. Had it been presented as a Dragonlance class I would have been fine with it. Reworking it as a Banneret knight without the dragon riding is fine with me. Yes, I can see them saying that it in Cormyr many of the members of the Purple Dragon Knights are Bannerets and I’m fine with that as well. What I am teed off with is the language buffs. I ( as most long term members know) am a Ranger fan and to me the reasoning behind the Banneret’s language skills and the Ranger’s seem the same yet the ranger gets only some extra languages with no way to change them while the banneret gets (apparently) both magical access to languages and a way to change their languages on a rest. I know it’s too late now but it would be nice if the first splat book actually brought the base ranger class up to parr on this (and other things that still need some tweaks).
Wisea$$ DM and Player since 1979.
That's apples to oranges- Rangers as a base class are getting options Fighters as a base class do not. A particular subclass of Fighter edging slightly ahead doesn't invalidate the Ranger's base class feature. There's a fair chance we'll get a Ranger subclass down the line with a language buff, and even without that Fighters having one option to specialize in languages doesn't invalidate that Rangers get a general advantage to them without having to lock themselves into a particular subclass.
I am a big fan of the ranger class as well, I would welcome more options for the class.
Ace, my point is that both the banneret and the ranger gain access to multiple languages because they are/have been travelers and have been exposed to many languages. Yet the ranger, with access to magic only learns their 3-5 languages and has to use a limited spell slot for comp. Lang. If they want to understand any other one - and they can listen but not speak that language. If the OP is correct then the banneret gets free use of comp. Lang. And can change at least one language they know after a rest. If anything the abilities should be reversed but I would be quite happy if they just brought the ranger up to speed to the banneret standards. The ranger’s language abilities (although often under utilized) is one of the few things the class has that are superior to the other classes and I get annoyed when subclasses take away that superiority. You want to give a different class’s subclass roughly equal ability in one area of another classes superiority that’s fine but don’t make the subclass superior. This is basically the same problem I have with the scout rogue - it gets expertise in survival and nature automatically giving it 6 xpertise not rogue’s standard 4. A scout rogue that got proficiency with nature and survival and then, like the ranger, had to use 2 of its limited expertises in those skills would be fine same here with the banneret - either they should both get access to 3-5 languages and nothing more or they should both get the presented language abilities of the banneret.
Wisea$$ DM and Player since 1979.
And my point is that your point is blowing the meta effect out of proportion. The Ranger main class is a broad generalist. They get an extra starting skill prof, they get expertise- ballooning from 1 to 3 before they hit tier 3, they get two extra languages, and they get traversal features. The banneret gets to be slightly better at languages because this is what the subclass is specialized for. Pretty sure they're not getting any Expertise. Or traversal.
This is like complaining that a Fey Wanderer is invalidating the Bard because they also get Expertise and can add their WIS mod to CHA checks. Yes, with a little finesse in the build they can theoretically edge out the Bard in skill bonuses on social rolls, but that still leaves a lot of other stuff in the Bard's identity they can do better. A subclass performing better in one narrow feature than you get from another main class is not the end of the world, it's the entire reason they make all these different subclasses.
I get your argument, I just don’t agree. I don’t think it’s ok for a subclass of a different class to be better than a main class in the areas that are that main class’s specialties. Can they just barely match it but do so by specializing in those skills instead of more normal class abilities - fine. We’ve both stated opinions we are entitled to so perhaps it’s best to agree to disagree.
Wisea$$ DM and Player since 1979.
For me it is comical to try to picture the guy who prefers hanging out in the wilderness with his dog and no one else as the "language specialist" That is not a Ranger's gig in my opinion and belongs with a character that is a social specialist, not a survival specialist.
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
Oh gee, in a magical world full of dragons and wonder, fighters can't use any magic. You know, because of course an ordinary, non-magical human being can swing around a (fantasy) great sword, carry 150 pounds of gear, run 30 feet in six seconds, and jump 10 feet by default. Yes.
Look, I get some of the complaints around less flavor for subclasses. I think that's a misunderstanding- the idea is to let players flavor it more dynamically than the traditional flavor which could be a bit restrictive- but I do agree that having *no* flavor feels bad. I would rather have both- suggest a flavor, but make it clear that players can make some choices.
But having magical abilities to understand languages (and, heaven forbid, forget them!)? I don't think that's a bridge too far. Bolstering allies with second wind? I mean, think about all the rallying speeches in great works of fantasy. Sure, I would have liked to see more flavor, but I don't think the problems you're pointing at in the original post are the problems with 2024 design. There are problems there, sure, but every system has problems. Misidentifying them isn't going to help with fixing them.
I feel the best way to fix 2024's design flaws is to just stick to 2014 because it's a better balanced game.
But it's just the wording of the rules ?
The "ritual to cast comprehend language" is just the rules part of "the fighter sits down and concentrates on the language to find it's meaning". It's just a representation of what Antonio Banderas character does in the 13th Warrior by using pre-existing rules and magical effects as a support for simplicity and balance.
It's like the Artificers who are using spells for the simplicity of the rules while in roleplay are not "proper" magicians but crazy tinkerers that mimic spells effects through "technomagical" guizmos. Like they don't really "cast" Acid Splash, but maybe throw an acid potion instead, or use a water gun containing acid, or something of the sort.
It's rules for the gameplay, you then use your imagination to portray the effect of those rules in the context of the character.
While this new Banneret might be underwhelming, for it to be able to use Comprehend Language is not a problem whatsoever.
Let me flip that for you then - think of the American mountain man - out there doing his sur Al thing in a wilderness filled with 10 to 50 different versions of native tribes with various languages. If he couldn’t pick up the language quickly and show he was at least a potential friend no matter how good he was at stealth he would be dead quickly. Given the layout of ( at least) many DnD worlds with varying bands of orcs, gnolls, goblins, bugbears, hobgoblins, wild ( antisocial) elves, lone Dwarven delvings, small hidden Hollingsworth and gnome communities along with potential barbarian human groups a ranger is going to run into hee too needs to be fairly skilled linguist.
Wisea$$ DM and Player since 1979.
I think both having access to more languages makes sense. I don't particularly like the PDK getting Comprehend Languages and I'd rather see it get an extra language or two but whatever. I'm just happy to see they're reverting it from the Drakewarden Fighter.
I agree, my complaint with the banner et language abilities was not that they shouldn’t have them, they should. But with the format and extent vs the other language heavy PC - the ranger. Both should be skilled linguists (IMNSHO). If the ranger got CL for free and could cast it as a ritual I would be fine with it.
Wisea$$ DM and Player since 1979.
I'd rather neither got Comprehend Languages but here we are. 5.5 has been a disappointment across the board.
Again, though. Setting aside a particular narrative aimed to justify being a polyglot, the Ranger class is mechanically designed to be a generalist. They dip into many different areas enough to be effective. The banneret is supposed to be a specialist at this. Ergo, they are more capable in this particular segment because they’re not juggling half a dozen other things.
You mean like Lewis and Clark that had a translator?
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
I would say the translator was more of a ranger than Lewis and Clark tbh
Find my D&D Beyond articles here
Almost certainly.
Perhaps so, but the claim was Mountain Men knew lots languages while history says otherwise
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master