I'm kinda confused by this UA. The subclasses are cool and look nicely balanced, and while dragons aren't my favorite I know many people love them, they don't fit with the previous subclasses. The last UA was very spooky, and seemed to point to a Ravenloft/Innistrad. (And Innistrad would work, becuase an Innistrad M:tG set is coming out next year). But these don't really fit into Innistrad, and have a more generic-fantasy feel. They would fit well in a kitchen sink book like Tasha's, but they have been released far too late to be included. I don't know where these subclasses will be published.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
A fool pulls the leaves. A brute chops the trunk. A sage digs the roots.
This is by no means a complaint, but does the Drakewarden seem like a Pokemon subclass to anyone else? Your dragon even goes from charmander to charizard, and you basically keep it in a pokeball most of the time!
I really like the concept of doing a Drakewarden as a STR ranger, maybe with a level of fighter or pally for the heavy armor, really lean into the knight in shining armor motif, but you're a wandering knight fighting alongside a charizard-*ahem*-dragon instead of slaying one.
I also like the idea of the dragon companion being the same one each time, and choosing its type at the beginning for extra emotional investment. They could even lean into the pokemon comparison and have the wings vs water breathing at level 7 decided based off the type of dragon you choose (maybe also including a third or fourth option too).
Choosing the damage output doesn't mean it's a different creature. It's just a creature that can change its damage type. The same way the new Monk can.
This is by no means a complaint, but does the Drakewarden seem like a Pokemon subclass to anyone else? Your dragon even goes from charmander to charizard, and you basically keep it in a pokeball most of the time!
I really like the concept of doing a Drakewarden as a STR ranger, maybe with a level of fighter or pally for the heavy armor, really lean into the knight in shining armor motif, but you're a wandering knight fighting alongside a charizard-*ahem*-dragon instead of slaying one.
I also like the idea of the dragon companion being the same one each time, and choosing its type at the beginning for extra emotional investment. They could even lean into the pokemon comparison and have the wings vs water breathing at level 7 decided based off the type of dragon you choose (maybe also including a third or fourth option too).
Choosing the damage output doesn't mean it's a different creature. It's just a creature that can change its damage type. The same way the new Monk can.
You choose damage type only when the creature is summoned/re-summoned. That does not sound like a creature that can just change type the way the Monk can.
This is by no means a complaint, but does the Drakewarden seem like a Pokemon subclass to anyone else? Your dragon even goes from charmander to charizard, and you basically keep it in a pokeball most of the time!
I really like the concept of doing a Drakewarden as a STR ranger, maybe with a level of fighter or pally for the heavy armor, really lean into the knight in shining armor motif, but you're a wandering knight fighting alongside a charizard-*ahem*-dragon instead of slaying one.
I also like the idea of the dragon companion being the same one each time, and choosing its type at the beginning for extra emotional investment. They could even lean into the pokemon comparison and have the wings vs water breathing at level 7 decided based off the type of dragon you choose (maybe also including a third or fourth option too).
Choosing the damage output doesn't mean it's a different creature. It's just a creature that can change its damage type. The same way the new Monk can.
You choose damage type only when the creature is summoned/re-summoned. That does not sound like a creature that can just change type the way the Monk can.
The thing is that the UA seems to strongly indicate that it is just one drake. After reading it, I noticed that the wording of the abilities seems to indicate that you are bonded to just one drake. No mention of multiples.
The fact all monk stuff costs Ki is ridiculous and should have been fixed eons ago. No other official martial class gets a secondary resource pool without subclassing besides monks (unless you count ranger/paladin spell slots) its silly.
ftfy
The reason monk subclasses all use ki points is because 5e is designed to avoid unnecessary complexity. Most martial classes have no resource pool unless they pick one up via subclass - Battlemaster for example - and even among casters, the only class that has more than one resource pool is Sorcerers, who use both spell slots and metamagic points. Even then, it's questionable whether that distinction is necessary, given that you can convert one into the other pretty much freely. (Actually now I'm thinking about a Sorcerer redesign built around using metamagic points INSTEAD of spell slots - replacing Vancian casting with MP to make the class identity more unique.)
When a Bard subclass has a feature that needs resources, it uses Bardic Inspiration. When a caster subclass has a feature that needs resources, it uses spell slots (except for certain Druid subclasses that actually use Wild Shape as a resource). When a Monk subclass has a feature that needs resources, it uses ki points. Why? Because there is already a system there to force resource management, so why bother making a player use two?
Multiclassing is obviously an exception, but it's strictly opt-in, and in a way it self-balances anyway; you might have two or more resource pools by going Battlemaster+Swords Bard+Warlock or something, but the things you can do with each resource pool is diminished compared to a single-class build.
This is untrue.
Fighter alone has several subclasses that use a resource pool:
Battlemaster= Die
Echo Knight= Con modifier number of uses
Eldritch Knight= Spell Slots
Several subclasses have resources outside of the base class and do not force you to use your main class attributes for them.
Paladin is another great example:
They have SEVERAL pools of resources- Spell Slots, Lay on Hands, Channel Divinity, etc...
Me: Martial classes generally don't have resource pools unless they pick subclasses that do so.
You: That's not true, here are subclasses with resource pools belonging to classes that otherwise don't have them.
??? Thank you for providing examples that support my point???
For clarification: when I'm talking about "resource pools," I'm referring to situations where you have a number of abstract points that can be consumed to fuel a variety of effects. Monks have a number of features that draw from the Ki Points pool. Bards have a bunch of different effects that draw on Bardic Inspiration die. Conversely, "do specifically this thing X times per long rest" - like, say, Divine Sense - is NOT a resource pool because it's just the one effect a bunch of times. Channel Divinity doesn't count either because it's not a resource "pool" so much as a thing you can do once per long rest.
In fairness I shouldn't have discounted Rangers and Paladins, who get Hunter's Mark slots and Smite slots respectively, which you can occasionally use to cast spells at your non-caster character's weak-ass DC. I guess Lay On Hands does strictly count as a resource pool... though it's so friggin' niche that I'd argue it should just use the existing resource pool anyway. Have you honestly ever seen a Paladin use Lay On Hands except to revive downed allies with 1hp?
This is by no means a complaint, but does the Drakewarden seem like a Pokemon subclass to anyone else? Your dragon even goes from charmander to charizard, and you basically keep it in a pokeball most of the time!
I really like the concept of doing a Drakewarden as a STR ranger, maybe with a level of fighter or pally for the heavy armor, really lean into the knight in shining armor motif, but you're a wandering knight fighting alongside a charizard-*ahem*-dragon instead of slaying one.
I also like the idea of the dragon companion being the same one each time, and choosing its type at the beginning for extra emotional investment. They could even lean into the pokemon comparison and have the wings vs water breathing at level 7 decided based off the type of dragon you choose (maybe also including a third or fourth option too).
Choosing the damage output doesn't mean it's a different creature. It's just a creature that can change its damage type. The same way the new Monk can.
You choose damage type only when the creature is summoned/re-summoned. That does not sound like a creature that can just change type the way the Monk can.
The thing is that the UA seems to strongly indicate that it is just one drake. After reading it, I noticed that the wording of the abilities seems to indicate that you are bonded to just one drake. No mention of multiples.
It is still a summon, not an actual living creature that you are raising and bonding with. If it is dropped to 0 hp, it poofs out of existence. If the timer runs out, it poofs out of existence. Rangers are attuned to the natural world so having a summon as a companion is out of place and I will say as much in the survey.
This is by no means a complaint, but does the Drakewarden seem like a Pokemon subclass to anyone else? Your dragon even goes from charmander to charizard, and you basically keep it in a pokeball most of the time!
This and the druid Circle of Wildfire have that feeling for me. That subclass at least has a couple features that're useful outside of combat, but I had similar misgivings about it overall as well.
The fact all monk stuff costs Ki is ridiculous and should have been fixed eons ago. No other official martial class gets a secondary resource pool without subclassing besides monks (unless you count ranger/paladin spell slots) its silly.
ftfy
The reason monk subclasses all use ki points is because 5e is designed to avoid unnecessary complexity. Most martial classes have no resource pool unless they pick one up via subclass - Battlemaster for example - and even among casters, the only class that has more than one resource pool is Sorcerers, who use both spell slots and metamagic points. Even then, it's questionable whether that distinction is necessary, given that you can convert one into the other pretty much freely. (Actually now I'm thinking about a Sorcerer redesign built around using metamagic points INSTEAD of spell slots - replacing Vancian casting with MP to make the class identity more unique.)
When a Bard subclass has a feature that needs resources, it uses Bardic Inspiration. When a caster subclass has a feature that needs resources, it uses spell slots (except for certain Druid subclasses that actually use Wild Shape as a resource). When a Monk subclass has a feature that needs resources, it uses ki points. Why? Because there is already a system there to force resource management, so why bother making a player use two?
Multiclassing is obviously an exception, but it's strictly opt-in, and in a way it self-balances anyway; you might have two or more resource pools by going Battlemaster+Swords Bard+Warlock or something, but the things you can do with each resource pool is diminished compared to a single-class build.
This is untrue.
Fighter alone has several subclasses that use a resource pool:
Battlemaster= Die
Echo Knight= Con modifier number of uses
Eldritch Knight= Spell Slots
Several subclasses have resources outside of the base class and do not force you to use your main class attributes for them.
Paladin is another great example:
They have SEVERAL pools of resources- Spell Slots, Lay on Hands, Channel Divinity, etc...
Me: Martial classes generally don't have resource pools unless they pick subclasses that do so.
You: That's not true, here are subclasses with resource pools belonging to classes that otherwise don't have them.
??? Thank you for providing examples that support my point???
For clarification: when I'm talking about "resource pools," I'm referring to situations where you have a number of abstract points that can be consumed to fuel a variety of effects. Monks have a number of features that draw from the Ki Points pool. Bards have a bunch of different effects that draw on Bardic Inspiration die. Conversely, "do specifically this thing X times per long rest" - like, say, Divine Sense - is NOT a resource pool because it's just the one effect a bunch of times. Channel Divinity doesn't count either because it's not a resource "pool" so much as a thing you can do once per long rest.
In fairness I shouldn't have discounted Rangers and Paladins, who get Hunter's Mark slots and Smite slots respectively, which you can occasionally use to cast spells at your non-caster character's weak-ass DC. I guess Lay On Hands does strictly count as a resource pool... though it's so friggin' niche that I'd argue it should just use the existing resource pool anyway. Have you honestly ever seen a Paladin use Lay On Hands except to revive downed allies with 1hp?
Point being this: Maritals either have an always on abilities (ranger/rogue/barbarian/some fighter) or multiple pools of resources (fighter/paladin/artificer) with which to use abilities.
Monk doesn't have the benefit of as many always on abilities (speed mostly and deflect missile which becomes less and less valuable as you level) that are routinely as benefital as the others always on.
They have one pool of resources that they use for both base class features and subclass features. Because of this they are going to underperform as they will have to choose one or the other.
Paladins can bring up a downed teammate without burning a spell slot. Fighter doesn't have to burn action surge to get battle manuvers or to mark enemies.
This is a step in the right direction for monk as they need free uses of subclass abilities to make it feel worth it. Right now it's 99% better to stun in most situations.
I'm kinda confused by this UA. The subclasses are cool and look nicely balanced, and while dragons aren't my favorite I know many people love them, they don't fit with the previous subclasses. The last UA was very spooky, and seemed to point to a Ravenloft/Innistrad. (And Innistrad would work, becuase an Innistrad M:tG set is coming out next year). But these don't really fit into Innistrad, and have a more generic-fantasy feel. They would fit well in a kitchen sink book like Tasha's, but they have been released far too late to be included. I don't know where these subclasses will be published.
Most likely because people have been reading too much into the past UA. It's entirely possible that it isn't hinting at anything specific at all and that Wizards is just giving us more or less random things they wanted to check with the community be it theme-wise or balance-wise. ;)
Sure, it could just be nothing. I was trying to find a thematic connect between the UA subclass, and one does not seem to be present.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
A fool pulls the leaves. A brute chops the trunk. A sage digs the roots.
First, I like the implication from both flavor texts that your character was approached by either Tiamat, or Bahamut. : )
The "Ascendant Dragon" Monk certainly suits a dragon cultist of Tiamat...what with all the flexibility of swapping your elemental damage for your unarmed strikes & breathe weapon.
This, to me, serves to emphasize the best characteristic of monk combat...you can describe your unarmed strikes as anything...from punches, kicks...elbow smashes, knees strikes...finger jabs, headbutts...etc.
But now, you can do all that while adding some elemental flavor...your bites can now deal acid damage...your kicks conjure water and now freeze for cold damage...your fists glow red from searing heat...chops now cut through the air like a lightning bolt...it's quite nice.
And the slew of draconic features certainly works well...breathe weapon? An aura ability? These a powerful boons to the Monk chassis, which does not normally have AOE attacks or features. Not too shabby...certainly not overpowered.
I like the image of "WIngs Unfurled"...don't forget; Monks get a baked-in "Slow Fall" to their normal features...so your Monk can leap mightily through the air with their suddenly-conjured dragon wings, breathe an element into a flying target, or clobber them with "Stunning Strike"...and then safely drift back down, if need be.
...and the Reaction-based re-rolling of "Persuasion" or "Intimidation" check is a nifty social boon...better, since you can keep using it until it works.
As for the Drakewarden...it's great. It's damn great.
If the Ascendant Dragon Monk was attempting to emulate the movements of a dragon through martial arts...then I picture the Drakewarden Ranger as a deadly dance with a dragon (albeit a smaller one for much of their progression).
It's a pet class with some heft to it, as well a a subclass which grants the Ranger some elemental power, too...the capstone successfully make me want to level Ranger fully, as a Large mount with the ability to trigger Reaction-based resistance is pretty sweet.
Personally, I want to merge the backstory suggestions...the Ranger drank some strange substance in the wilds which gave them magical powers, and had a vision of Bahamut bestowing some grand mission to them...and then, BAM...a little dragon appears.
...as such, I will name the little dragon Peyote. : )
I think the important thing that needs to be addressed as far as the theme goes with the Drakewarden is what the Drake Companion actually is.
Is the Drake an actual creature that was hatched from an egg or found in the wilderness and bonded with similar to the beast master’s beast companion?
Or is it meant to be a draconic primal/totem spirits that can take on different features and elements depending on the magic you imbue it with similar to a familiar from the find familiar spell and how each casting of said spell can allow you to change its form to fit different scenarios.
While the flavor seems to give you the option to pick either identification (and one can obviously just choose to pick the same element and flying/swimming form to mimic this) the mechanic seems to lean more towards the second option.
Personally, I like the idea that it is more of a draconic totem spirit and enjoy the idea that using your magic allows it to take a more solid form and gain different features. You help to give it shape and a physical presence and it gives you it’s powers and loyalty.
As far as the features go, now that I have given the Drakewarden more thought.....
Drake Companion - Despite liking the idea of it being a spirit like a familiar.....a familiar can remain indefinitely until killed and I feel the Drake should be treated the same. Allow us to choose during a long rest what form the Drake takes. If the Drake is killed or you wish to change its form, you must use a Lv 1 or higher spell slot to revive/resuming it. This allows you some flexibility in a pinch of your Drake isn’t in a favorable form or if it dies so you aren’t stuck having to wait until a full rest to get your Drake back.
Bond of Fang and Scale - Just up the size to medium here so the growth is more natural. Yes, small races can ride them if this is done but honestly, it isn’t the be all end all.
Drake’s Breath - Honestly I don’t have any problem with this. It’s a free breath weapon attack that you can then choose to do again with a spell slot of 3 or higher. Maybe it could be a bit better but I think it’s fine.
Perfected Bond - I feel like bumping up the damage of the Drake’s infused strikes by another die might be a nice idea but otherwise I think this feature is fine.
Other Notes
Health and Stats - If the Drake gets hit die, let’s us determine the Drake’s health with those. It would have 3d10 at 3rd level plus its +2 to con. Also, maybe when the Drake grows, it’s stats can get buffed? I’m not sure how that that might work but if it’s meant to grow with us, I feel like it’s stats should reflex that. Plus, I feel that it should be adding its strength to its bite attack.
Spells - I understand that the Drake is the main feature and it can eat up spell slots, but I think this class should still get extra prepared spells. Something like Chromatic Orb or Absorb Elements at Lv 1, Dragon’s Breath at 2nd Lv, and so on.
Anyways, here are my thoughts, hope they aren’t too much of a ramble to read.
Both subclasses look exciting to me. For the Drakewarden, I would prefer the drake get the breath weapon at level 11 instead of the PC. Perhaps that is what was meant, but it was not written well.
The more I think about it, the more I dislike these subclasses and both of them for the same reason. They seem less like D&D characters and more like Video game characters. This is more for the Ranger than the Monk, but the fact that they just swap out their type when ever they like seems impersonal. Choosing a dragon type and sticking with it just seems right in my opinion, and again this really more for the Ranger than the Monk, but does apply to both.
While I think the Monk should choose a dragon type I am more likely to accept them swapping out than I am the Ranger. The Ranger's Drake companion should be a companion, not a summon that can be swapped around without a second thought, and the Ranger's abilities should be tied to the choice of companion at 3rd level.
Yep just changing it every summon seems cheap, like you're playing pokemon. You should pick a dragon type at the start, and stay with that dragon, bonding with it and having it as a real character you grow attached to.
I can understand the sentiment of wanting to form a bond with the dragon buddy. However, if we're cool with our dragon friend magically "empowering" strikes at 30 ft away then I just don't see it as much of a stretch to think one magic dragon could draw on different types of magical energy. Also, what's stopping people who just want one type of dragon from just not summoning it as another type?
The problem with the desire to limit players to one type of dragon from the game balance perspective is that it would be a serious nerf to the class. Resistance to one type of damage is occasionally useful but not great (ask any dragonborn player). Resistance to many types that you can switch out as needed is actually pretty good.
The more I think about it, the more I dislike these subclasses and both of them for the same reason. They seem less like D&D characters and more like Video game characters. This is more for the Ranger than the Monk, but the fact that they just swap out their type when ever they like seems impersonal. Choosing a dragon type and sticking with it just seems right in my opinion, and again this really more for the Ranger than the Monk, but does apply to both.
While I think the Monk should choose a dragon type I am more likely to accept them swapping out than I am the Ranger. The Ranger's Drake companion should be a companion, not a summon that can be swapped around without a second thought, and the Ranger's abilities should be tied to the choice of companion at 3rd level.
Yep just changing it every summon seems cheap, like you're playing pokemon. You should pick a dragon type at the start, and stay with that dragon, bonding with it and having it as a real character you grow attached to.
I can understand the sentiment of wanting to form a bond with the dragon buddy. However, if we're cool with our dragon friend magically "empowering" strikes at 30 ft away then I just don't see it as much of a stretch to think one magic dragon could draw on different types of magical energy. Also, what's stopping people who just want one type of dragon from just not summoning it as another type?
The problem with the desire to limit players to one type of dragon from the game balance perspective is that it would be a serious nerf to the class. Resistance to one type of damage is occasionally useful but not great (ask any dragonborn player). Resistance to many types that you can switch out as needed is actually pretty good.
Honestly the only change I would make to the class right now is add medium size at level 7.
Overall it seems pretty good. Good gods we know ranger needs help with versatility and this would help.
I'm kinda confused by this UA. The subclasses are cool and look nicely balanced, and while dragons aren't my favorite I know many people love them, they don't fit with the previous subclasses. The last UA was very spooky, and seemed to point to a Ravenloft/Innistrad. (And Innistrad would work, becuase an Innistrad M:tG set is coming out next year). But these don't really fit into Innistrad, and have a more generic-fantasy feel. They would fit well in a kitchen sink book like Tasha's, but they have been released far too late to be included. I don't know where these subclasses will be published.
A fool pulls the leaves. A brute chops the trunk. A sage digs the roots.
My Improved Lineage System
Choosing the damage output doesn't mean it's a different creature. It's just a creature that can change its damage type. The same way the new Monk can.
You choose damage type only when the creature is summoned/re-summoned. That does not sound like a creature that can just change type the way the Monk can.
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
The thing is that the UA seems to strongly indicate that it is just one drake. After reading it, I noticed that the wording of the abilities seems to indicate that you are bonded to just one drake. No mention of multiples.
Me: Martial classes generally don't have resource pools unless they pick subclasses that do so.
You: That's not true, here are subclasses with resource pools belonging to classes that otherwise don't have them.
??? Thank you for providing examples that support my point???
For clarification: when I'm talking about "resource pools," I'm referring to situations where you have a number of abstract points that can be consumed to fuel a variety of effects. Monks have a number of features that draw from the Ki Points pool. Bards have a bunch of different effects that draw on Bardic Inspiration die. Conversely, "do specifically this thing X times per long rest" - like, say, Divine Sense - is NOT a resource pool because it's just the one effect a bunch of times. Channel Divinity doesn't count either because it's not a resource "pool" so much as a thing you can do once per long rest.
In fairness I shouldn't have discounted Rangers and Paladins, who get Hunter's Mark slots and Smite slots respectively, which you can occasionally use to cast spells at your non-caster character's weak-ass DC. I guess Lay On Hands does strictly count as a resource pool... though it's so friggin' niche that I'd argue it should just use the existing resource pool anyway. Have you honestly ever seen a Paladin use Lay On Hands except to revive downed allies with 1hp?
It is still a summon, not an actual living creature that you are raising and bonding with. If it is dropped to 0 hp, it poofs out of existence. If the timer runs out, it poofs out of existence. Rangers are attuned to the natural world so having a summon as a companion is out of place and I will say as much in the survey.
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
This and the druid Circle of Wildfire have that feeling for me. That subclass at least has a couple features that're useful outside of combat, but I had similar misgivings about it overall as well.
Birgit | Shifter | Sorcerer | Dragonlords
Shayone | Hobgoblin | Sorcerer | Netherdeep
Point being this: Maritals either have an always on abilities (ranger/rogue/barbarian/some fighter) or multiple pools of resources (fighter/paladin/artificer) with which to use abilities.
Monk doesn't have the benefit of as many always on abilities (speed mostly and deflect missile which becomes less and less valuable as you level) that are routinely as benefital as the others always on.
They have one pool of resources that they use for both base class features and subclass features. Because of this they are going to underperform as they will have to choose one or the other.
Paladins can bring up a downed teammate without burning a spell slot. Fighter doesn't have to burn action surge to get battle manuvers or to mark enemies.
This is a step in the right direction for monk as they need free uses of subclass abilities to make it feel worth it. Right now it's 99% better to stun in most situations.
Sure, it could just be nothing. I was trying to find a thematic connect between the UA subclass, and one does not seem to be present.
A fool pulls the leaves. A brute chops the trunk. A sage digs the roots.
My Improved Lineage System
How long does it usually take before this goes live on the character creator?
First, I like the implication from both flavor texts that your character was approached by either Tiamat, or Bahamut. : )
The "Ascendant Dragon" Monk certainly suits a dragon cultist of Tiamat...what with all the flexibility of swapping your elemental damage for your unarmed strikes & breathe weapon.
This, to me, serves to emphasize the best characteristic of monk combat...you can describe your unarmed strikes as anything...from punches, kicks...elbow smashes, knees strikes...finger jabs, headbutts...etc.
But now, you can do all that while adding some elemental flavor...your bites can now deal acid damage...your kicks conjure water and now freeze for cold damage...your fists glow red from searing heat...chops now cut through the air like a lightning bolt...it's quite nice.
And the slew of draconic features certainly works well...breathe weapon? An aura ability? These a powerful boons to the Monk chassis, which does not normally have AOE attacks or features. Not too shabby...certainly not overpowered.
I like the image of "WIngs Unfurled"...don't forget; Monks get a baked-in "Slow Fall" to their normal features...so your Monk can leap mightily through the air with their suddenly-conjured dragon wings, breathe an element into a flying target, or clobber them with "Stunning Strike"...and then safely drift back down, if need be.
...and the Reaction-based re-rolling of "Persuasion" or "Intimidation" check is a nifty social boon...better, since you can keep using it until it works.
As for the Drakewarden...it's great. It's damn great.
If the Ascendant Dragon Monk was attempting to emulate the movements of a dragon through martial arts...then I picture the Drakewarden Ranger as a deadly dance with a dragon (albeit a smaller one for much of their progression).
It's a pet class with some heft to it, as well a a subclass which grants the Ranger some elemental power, too...the capstone successfully make me want to level Ranger fully, as a Large mount with the ability to trigger Reaction-based resistance is pretty sweet.
Personally, I want to merge the backstory suggestions...the Ranger drank some strange substance in the wilds which gave them magical powers, and had a vision of Bahamut bestowing some grand mission to them...and then, BAM...a little dragon appears.
...as such, I will name the little dragon Peyote. : )
I think the important thing that needs to be addressed as far as the theme goes with the Drakewarden is what the Drake Companion actually is.
Is the Drake an actual creature that was hatched from an egg or found in the wilderness and bonded with similar to the beast master’s beast companion?
Or is it meant to be a draconic primal/totem spirits that can take on different features and elements depending on the magic you imbue it with similar to a familiar from the find familiar spell and how each casting of said spell can allow you to change its form to fit different scenarios.
While the flavor seems to give you the option to pick either identification (and one can obviously just choose to pick the same element and flying/swimming form to mimic this) the mechanic seems to lean more towards the second option.
Personally, I like the idea that it is more of a draconic totem spirit and enjoy the idea that using your magic allows it to take a more solid form and gain different features. You help to give it shape and a physical presence and it gives you it’s powers and loyalty.
As far as the features go, now that I have given the Drakewarden more thought.....
Drake Companion - Despite liking the idea of it being a spirit like a familiar.....a familiar can remain indefinitely until killed and I feel the Drake should be treated the same. Allow us to choose during a long rest what form the Drake takes. If the Drake is killed or you wish to change its form, you must use a Lv 1 or higher spell slot to revive/resuming it. This allows you some flexibility in a pinch of your Drake isn’t in a favorable form or if it dies so you aren’t stuck having to wait until a full rest to get your Drake back.
Bond of Fang and Scale - Just up the size to medium here so the growth is more natural. Yes, small races can ride them if this is done but honestly, it isn’t the be all end all.
Drake’s Breath - Honestly I don’t have any problem with this. It’s a free breath weapon attack that you can then choose to do again with a spell slot of 3 or higher. Maybe it could be a bit better but I think it’s fine.
Perfected Bond - I feel like bumping up the damage of the Drake’s infused strikes by another die might be a nice idea but otherwise I think this feature is fine.
Other Notes
Health and Stats - If the Drake gets hit die, let’s us determine the Drake’s health with those. It would have 3d10 at 3rd level plus its +2 to con. Also, maybe when the Drake grows, it’s stats can get buffed? I’m not sure how that that might work but if it’s meant to grow with us, I feel like it’s stats should reflex that. Plus, I feel that it should be adding its strength to its bite attack.
Spells - I understand that the Drake is the main feature and it can eat up spell slots, but I think this class should still get extra prepared spells. Something like Chromatic Orb or Absorb Elements at Lv 1, Dragon’s Breath at 2nd Lv, and so on.
Anyways, here are my thoughts, hope they aren’t too much of a ramble to read.
"Meddle not in the affairs of dragons, for thou art crunchy and taste good with ketchup."
Characters for Tenebris Sine Fine
RoughCoronet's Greater Wills
My thoughts are: hell yes.
In all seriousness, these are pretty balanced and have some amazing theme. Seems a great thing for this. I could imagine a kobold one...
'The Cleverness of mushrooms always surprises me!' - Ivern Bramblefoot.
I'll worldbuild for your DnD games!
Just a D&D enjoyer, check out my fiverr page if you need any worldbuilding done for ya!
Both subclasses look exciting to me. For the Drakewarden, I would prefer the drake get the breath weapon at level 11 instead of the PC. Perhaps that is what was meant, but it was not written well.
I can understand the sentiment of wanting to form a bond with the dragon buddy. However, if we're cool with our dragon friend magically "empowering" strikes at 30 ft away then I just don't see it as much of a stretch to think one magic dragon could draw on different types of magical energy. Also, what's stopping people who just want one type of dragon from just not summoning it as another type?
The problem with the desire to limit players to one type of dragon from the game balance perspective is that it would be a serious nerf to the class. Resistance to one type of damage is occasionally useful but not great (ask any dragonborn player). Resistance to many types that you can switch out as needed is actually pretty good.
Honestly the only change I would make to the class right now is add medium size at level 7.
Overall it seems pretty good. Good gods we know ranger needs help with versatility and this would help.
The Monk's Breath of the Dragon will get nerfed. It's automatic damage for no resource...
It's limited to Proficiency a day, and then 1 ki each time after that. It's very little resource, but still a litlle