When will we get a dragon rider subclass?

The 2014 game had Drakewarden, you can still use it, but in my opinion it could very much use an update.

UA have us the Purple dragon knight. I have some doubts about fighter getting pet subclass since that's mainly rangers schtick. But I don't mind terribly.

As of today we still don't have any official release of a dragon rider subclass, which feels like a huge gap in any fantasy game. Especially one called Dungeons and DRAGONS.

1. Does anyone (wink wink game designers) have any info or even credible speculation on when we will get a dragon rider subclass?

2. Does anyone disagree that the final version should be stronger than what we saw in 2014 and UA?

I am of the opinion, that casters can easily have similar or identical armor class as martials, and they get higher damage. Not to mention a lot of utility in spells. It feels dumb that you usually have to wait to level 14 or 15 to get large flying dragon. Sorcerer's can reliably summon one at level 9 and with many spells they can summon/control a whole fleet of demons, dragons, and other minions.

So what is the big deal with giving the guy who wants to fly on a dragon, a god damn flying dragon mount!? I would personally go as far as to say even if it's a fighter subclass, it should get some form of spellcasting, since that also often goes hand in hand with a dragon bond (Eragon style). You could give them limited pact magic and/or some eldritch invocations, and make it like you make a pact with an actual true dragon (you could do that for ranger as well even if it already is a half caster). The dragon could be able to shape shift into a humanoid to avoid issues with fitting it into small spaces. I trust any fighter or ranger would be happy if they got a large flying dragon around level 7 and some pact magic slots and/or eldritch invocations. And I refuse to believe that would be too powerful. Valor bards would laugh at even such a suggestion.

What do you say Wizards? You can have this idea, it's yours. I, being of sound mind and body willingly give up all rights to this idea. Please use it.

I didn't hear anything on Dragon Rider subclass and wouldn't be surprised if none ever get official release.

I mean the UA Purple Dragon Knight was disliked so much we got the Bannerette instead...

A dragon riding class would be really tough to level progress well would be the issue I see. All your suggestions are interesting, but to balance that against a regular fighter progression AND other classes would make it less impressive.

I agree that we probably won't see one, and i'm ok with that. It would be terribly hard to balance. Especially since 5e and 5.5e mounted combat rules are... almost non-existant. They would first need to actually codify some mounted combat rules, and there seems to be zero interest (from them) of doing so.

Drakewarden was towards the tail end of 5.0e. It should be still pretty usable with the 5.5e Ranger.

An updated 5.5e reprint of it would be nice though.

Quote from Comrade_Jenkens >>

Drakewarden was towards the tail end of 5.0e. It should be still pretty usable with the 5.5e Ranger.

An updated 5.5e reprint of it would be nice though.

 I played a 5.5 drakewarden through level 10. It was, indeed, quite useable. 

The main issue was hunters mark and commanding the drake both competing for a bonus action. Personally, I found it an interesting tactical decision, but I could see it becoming frustrating. 

Quote from hollowtpm >>

I mean the UA Purple Dragon Knight was disliked so much we got the Bannerette instead...

A dragon riding class would be really tough to level progress well would be the issue I see. All your suggestions are interesting, but to balance that against a regular fighter progression AND other classes would make it less impressive.

 The pdk hate was more lore related. I don’t recall folks being mad at the concept mechanically.

One additional point not raised - a large part of what makes dragons interesting is their sapience. This is particularly true in D&D, where their personalities are extremely well defined and diverse.

Because of this, a true dragon rider is a very problematic element from a game design stance.  In such a situation, the game would require one of three options: (1) Ignoring a lot of the dragon lore and treating the animal as a subservient mount (Drakewarden does this by calling the mount a drake, a lesser species of dragonkin); (2) the player plays the dragon as a D&D dragon, essentially giving them a second sapient character, which results in party dynamics problems at a table level; or (3) the DM plays the dragon, inserting themselves into the party in a problematic way.

All of these options are unsatisfying in different ways, fundamentally limiting the fantasy of befriending a true D&D dragon.

As mentioned, a dragon rider does create some issues with lore and other things.

Currently you have dragons as great king/queens or low level ones as NPCs or dragons as BBEGs and/or in between.

The dragon rider class degenerates dragons in to cattle and other domestic herd animals.  Basically, they are the equivalent of horses.  Horses in DnD and through much of history and literature as tools to help people.  Dragons are not a tool, but a foe worthy of comradeship for the good ones or epic battle for the BBEG.

Quote from Xalthu

 The pdk hate was more lore related. I don’t recall folks being mad at the concept mechanically.

 I recall there being complaints that it was largely a weaker Drakewarden in terms of many of its abilities.

Quote from 6thLyranGuard >>

Quote from Xalthu

 The pdk hate was more lore related. I don’t recall folks being mad at the concept mechanically.

 I recall there being complaints that it was largely a weaker Drakewarden in terms of many of its abilities.

 Could have been. I should have learned by now about making blanket statements. 

Eh, I didn't pay a lot of attention to it, so I might be remembering wrong.

A dragon rider class would be nice 

Drakewarden works for me though. Could use a buff, which I would love to see if the DnD team decides to do it in the future. 

I believe if you don't balance against baseline fighter, but against wizard or sorcerer, you can squeeze a lot into the subclass. Hell just give them the ability to "summon Drahonic spirit" like draconic sorcerer's have, and you have better pet than the old Drakewarden. And you still don't get the pure power casters have.

Also, I don't agree that oets have to be purely about damage or stats. I hate when you take 3 or 6 levels in a pet class, you get a very bad deal since it doesn't have meaningful stats and usually can't be used for that much else. If the dragon acts as a special familiar (akin to the sphinx of wonder) early on. Then it grows into large at level 5 or 7 or something whilst still being weak fighter, it can act as the "find steed" spell, being able to act as a flying mount. Then at level 14 it becomes a menace. That way you get some use out of it at every level. You don't have to wait until crazy high levels for you to be able to ride your dragon, which is what the class is all about and at later levels it helps you close the martials/casters gap.

To summarize, level 3 gets you essentially pact of the chain, which I think is good. Level 7 let's say, gives you Find steed as if it's cast at level 4. Also very nice I think. And at level 14 you get a monster pet. All of these seem good for fighter, but also not stronger than all the other subclasses, just some. As a bonus, when multiclassing, you always get something you can use. Nobody wants a combat pet that can't land a hit. Everyone wants a familiar or a mount.

This thread might be dead, but I forgot I made it so I'm just now coming back to it.

True, true, but I'd like if the old one was better than it ended up being, and I'd especially like if they made a new one that really measure up to many of the updates. They could maybe tack some buff on the dragons attack if it targeted a marked oponent. So it wouldn't feel as bad to concentrate on a hunters mark.

I think it was mostly lore. The mechanics were nothing exceptional, but not terrible. I also think even if the subclass didn't add much damage, many fighters would like the option to fly reliably of nothing else. Once again WotC deemed that flight is reserved for levels 14-20, while full casters, half casters, and many bon casters have access to it at levels 5-10. I just don't get why I can't fly my dragon.

Because people demanded the integrity of Ed Greenwood's lore not be besmirched by a changed subclass that acts as a forced unapproved retcon(Ed Greenwood has supreme canon authority on the FR, & can just ignore stuff WotC does, but that didn't occur to people at the time).

I just don't get why I can't fly my dragon.

Super easy to figure out:
YOU DM A GAME WITH 4 DRAGON RIDERS.
When the balance of every encounter is just complete TRASH
You'll comprehend why the rules are the way they are.
Especially if you have to go through the Encounter & MAPS system here and click on all those enemies you need to add to an encounter to make it appear remotely challening at the start, only to watch everything on the map be obliterated for you to come to the conclusion you wasted an hour of your life setting up this two minute encounter. 

hopefully, never

If we were going to get one it would be from a Dragonlance book, because that is where Dragon Riders appeared.

It took a whole apocalyptic war of good and evil to get Dragons to allow people to ride them and they were still pretty much the ones in charge of the relationship. It isn't something that would really lend itself an adventure unless it was like a half dragon and their doting Dragon parent who won't let them adventure alone even though they are 50. because "that isn't very old for a dragon sweety."

I don't think we are getting one.

Quote from GnollitAll78450 >>

If we were going to get one it would be from a Dragonlance book, because that is where Dragon Riders appeared.

It took a whole apocalyptic war of good and evil to get Dragons to allow people to ride them and they were still pretty much the ones in charge of the relationship. It isn't something that would really lend itself an adventure unless it was like a half dragon and their doting Dragon parent who won't let them adventure alone even though they are 50. because "that isn't very old for a dragon sweety."

I don't think we are getting one.

 Eh, dragon riders appear in almost every D&D setting (Dark Suns and Ravenloft being the two I can immediately think of that don't have them).  They're most iconic to Dragonlance and appear in the largest numbers there, but they show up in most other settings as well.