Drakewarden needs some concrete lore. Nearly every other class has either at least of lore (like how most monk traditions give a bit of backstory of the practitioners) or doesn't really require it (Berserker Barbarian or Champion Fighter, for example, don't require much of an explanation). What that lore could be is anyone's guess.
Drakewarden needs some concrete lore. Nearly every other class has either at least of lore (like how most monk traditions give a bit of backstory of the practitioners) or doesn't really require it (Berserker Barbarian or Champion Fighter, for example, don't require much of an explanation). What that lore could be is anyone's guess.
This is a good place for a player or DM to use their own imagination.
I think The Dragon Monk might benefit from an option to specialize in one element and gain the ability to ignore resistance and eventually immunity to that element.
Drakewarden needs some concrete lore. Nearly every other class has either at least of lore (like how most monk traditions give a bit of backstory of the practitioners) or doesn't really require it (Berserker Barbarian or Champion Fighter, for example, don't require much of an explanation). What that lore could be is anyone's guess.
This is a good place for a player or DM to use their own imagination.
I think The Dragon Monk might benefit from an option to specialize in one element and gain the ability to ignore resistance and eventually immunity to that element.
I agree. Drakewarden lore might have the Drakewardens being a secret organization of Dragon Tamers.
Drakewarden needs some concrete lore. Nearly every other class has either at least of lore (like how most monk traditions give a bit of backstory of the practitioners) or doesn't really require it (Berserker Barbarian or Champion Fighter, for example, don't require much of an explanation). What that lore could be is anyone's guess.
This is a good place for a player or DM to use their own imagination.
I think The Dragon Monk might benefit from an option to specialize in one element and gain the ability to ignore resistance and eventually immunity to that element.
Not a terrible idea for the monk, would solve the strange squeamishnessness i have towards switching elements for every attack.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Where words fail, swords prevail. Where blood is spilled, my cup is filled" -Cartaphilus
"I have found the answer to the meaning of life. You ask me what the answer is? You already know what the answer to life is. You fear it more than the strike of a viper, the ravages of disease, the ire of a lover. The answer is always death. But death is a gentle mistress with a sweet embrace, and you owe her a debt of restitution. Life is not a gift, it is a loan."
Drakewarden needs some concrete lore. Nearly every other class has either at least of lore (like how most monk traditions give a bit of backstory of the practitioners) or doesn't really require it (Berserker Barbarian or Champion Fighter, for example, don't require much of an explanation). What that lore could be is anyone's guess.
This is a good place for a player or DM to use their own imagination.
Eh, "poor conception, let the DM fix it" is not good professional game design when you're talking about subclasses that are being floated for future publication. Is the Drake a creature? Where does it go when it's not summoned? Is it more of a construct akin to the constructed Drakes seen in prior established lore? Etc. Begged questions and loose ends are fine narratively but I'd wager no officially published class feature is this vague, hence the pushback and debate over the past pages. Weirder powers have been floated in UA with more grounding that the Drakewarden.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
This lack of information about the drake would be another clue that this is part of a larger book of dragons, but I agree with @MidnightPlat that it’s hard to playtest when you don’t know what’s going on. Even a paragraph or 2 of box text wouldn’t be a bad thing.
Drakewarden needs some concrete lore. Nearly every other class has either at least of lore (like how most monk traditions give a bit of backstory of the practitioners) or doesn't really require it (Berserker Barbarian or Champion Fighter, for example, don't require much of an explanation). What that lore could be is anyone's guess.
This is a good place for a player or DM to use their own imagination.
Eh, "poor conception, let the DM fix it" is not good professional game design when you're talking about subclasses that are being floated for future publication. Is the Drake a creature? Where does it go when it's not summoned? Is it more of a construct akin to the constructed Drakes seen in prior established lore? Etc. Begged questions and loose ends are fine narratively but I'd wager no officially published class feature is this vague, hence the pushback and debate over the past pages. Weirder powers have been floated in UA with more grounding that the Drakewarden.
As a DM I prefer an open ended approach. I prefer to do my own world building. All I need from them are mechanics that work that I can build upon. It’s not much labor to tell my player where their drake goes or to ask them where they prefer it to go. I have a pretty creative group.
This lack of information about the drake would be another clue that this is part of a larger book of dragons, but I agree with @MidnightPlat that it’s hard to playtest when you don’t know what’s going on. Even a paragraph or 2 of box text wouldn’t be a bad thing.
While I'm not defending the lack of lore text to really get a feel for this class, I can agree that one possibility as to why the lore text is so......non substantial could be partly due to whatever book this might be a part of still being in development and as such the concrete lore for them hasn't been finalized. To me it seems more like they are interested in people's opinions of the mechanics behind the class (drakewarden specifically), partly because if the class becomes official its beast companion mechanics could then be transferred to other pet subclasses by errata to help streamline how these type of companions would work maybe.
I could probably look through the different draconomicans and other dragon themed lore books from different editions and gather some lore that would definitely fit the theme of the drakewarden (and the monk, as well as subclass ideas for other classes), lore that is official but just not updated to this edition. I think that's why I'm not as bothered by the current lore for this ranger subclass at the moment and I'm more interested in its actual mechanics which I like but also think need to be tweaked as I stated in an earlier post.
Though they could have at least just made up their mind and stated it was either a spirit or a true creature, instead of the odd bit that pretty amounts to "yes, but no"
Drakewarden needs some concrete lore. Nearly every other class has either at least of lore (like how most monk traditions give a bit of backstory of the practitioners) or doesn't really require it (Berserker Barbarian or Champion Fighter, for example, don't require much of an explanation). What that lore could be is anyone's guess.
This is a good place for a player or DM to use their own imagination.
Eh, "poor conception, let the DM fix it" is not good professional game design when you're talking about subclasses that are being floated for future publication. Is the Drake a creature? Where does it go when it's not summoned? Is it more of a construct akin to the constructed Drakes seen in prior established lore? Etc. Begged questions and loose ends are fine narratively but I'd wager no officially published class feature is this vague, hence the pushback and debate over the past pages. Weirder powers have been floated in UA with more grounding that the Drakewarden.
Eh, game design is about the crunch. You can flavour it however you like and every group can and will handle those things differently.
Eh eh, game design is a sandwiching of mechanics and setting/lore/flavor. In this instance you have mechanics that are vaguely related to other mechanics (aforementioned stat blocs and attendant lore) and beyond that the crunch is literally a rough ride as written. Now clean up your peanut butter, Skippy ;)
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
Drakewarden needs some concrete lore. Nearly every other class has either at least of lore (like how most monk traditions give a bit of backstory of the practitioners) or doesn't really require it (Berserker Barbarian or Champion Fighter, for example, don't require much of an explanation). What that lore could be is anyone's guess.
This is a good place for a player or DM to use their own imagination.
I've gotta agree with MidnightPlat here. There's a big difference between "we're leaving this open-ended for player/DM creativity" and "we have absolutely no idea what this thing is, we'll let the DM figure it out." The former is fine, and absolutely great, but the latter is lazy and not creative. I love being able to reflavor hexblade warlocks as being possessed by a sentient and evil magic weapon, or making circle of moon druids be animorphs, or eldritch knights as arcane bodyguards. I love that freedom and appreciate subclasses and classes being open-ended, but this is different.
WotC eitehr has no idea what Drakes are in 5e, or they're not telling. Guard and Ambush drakes are created by the Cult of the Dragon out of the scales of true dragons. That is what we know about Drakes in 5e. However, this UA says they are "minor dragons," which is an incredibly lazy explanation. IMHO, WotC better figure out what the hell the difference is between Drakes and True Dragons before publishing this subclass. Otherwise, they're just being lazy.
I have a mechanics question. For the ranger, the level 11 ability "Drake's Breathe". It say as an action YOU or the Drake does the cone... Am I reading that correctly that 1 YOU CAN BREATHE WEAPON ATTACK, and 2 it costs YOUR ACTION to make the drake do it. Meaning the drake could breathe weapon with my action, then my bonus action command it to bite attack? And I dont personally get an attack.
Just wanted to make sure I have the mechanics right.
Thanks for posting that! I checked yesterday and was wondering when it would be out. I guess I'm going to go back to my in depth post on my thoughts and basically transport them to that survey now.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Drakewarden needs some concrete lore. Nearly every other class has either at least of lore (like how most monk traditions give a bit of backstory of the practitioners) or doesn't really require it (Berserker Barbarian or Champion Fighter, for example, don't require much of an explanation). What that lore could be is anyone's guess.
This is a good place for a player or DM to use their own imagination.
I think The Dragon Monk might benefit from an option to specialize in one element and gain the ability to ignore resistance and eventually immunity to that element.
I agree. Drakewarden lore might have the Drakewardens being a secret organization of Dragon Tamers.
Not a terrible idea for the monk, would solve the strange squeamishnessness i have towards switching elements for every attack.
"Where words fail, swords prevail. Where blood is spilled, my cup is filled" -Cartaphilus
"I have found the answer to the meaning of life. You ask me what the answer is? You already know what the answer to life is. You fear it more than the strike of a viper, the ravages of disease, the ire of a lover. The answer is always death. But death is a gentle mistress with a sweet embrace, and you owe her a debt of restitution. Life is not a gift, it is a loan."
Eh, "poor conception, let the DM fix it" is not good professional game design when you're talking about subclasses that are being floated for future publication. Is the Drake a creature? Where does it go when it's not summoned? Is it more of a construct akin to the constructed Drakes seen in prior established lore? Etc. Begged questions and loose ends are fine narratively but I'd wager no officially published class feature is this vague, hence the pushback and debate over the past pages. Weirder powers have been floated in UA with more grounding that the Drakewarden.
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
This lack of information about the drake would be another clue that this is part of a larger book of dragons, but I agree with @MidnightPlat that it’s hard to playtest when you don’t know what’s going on. Even a paragraph or 2 of box text wouldn’t be a bad thing.
Dale
Helping you make lives better through TTRPGs
As a DM I prefer an open ended approach. I prefer to do my own world building. All I need from them are mechanics that work that I can build upon. It’s not much labor to tell my player where their drake goes or to ask them where they prefer it to go. I have a pretty creative group.
While I'm not defending the lack of lore text to really get a feel for this class, I can agree that one possibility as to why the lore text is so......non substantial could be partly due to whatever book this might be a part of still being in development and as such the concrete lore for them hasn't been finalized. To me it seems more like they are interested in people's opinions of the mechanics behind the class (drakewarden specifically), partly because if the class becomes official its beast companion mechanics could then be transferred to other pet subclasses by errata to help streamline how these type of companions would work maybe.
I could probably look through the different draconomicans and other dragon themed lore books from different editions and gather some lore that would definitely fit the theme of the drakewarden (and the monk, as well as subclass ideas for other classes), lore that is official but just not updated to this edition. I think that's why I'm not as bothered by the current lore for this ranger subclass at the moment and I'm more interested in its actual mechanics which I like but also think need to be tweaked as I stated in an earlier post.
Though they could have at least just made up their mind and stated it was either a spirit or a true creature, instead of the odd bit that pretty amounts to "yes, but no"
"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
im planning to make a drakewarden Pokémon trainer, any suggestions for it?
It's out on the character builder people!!
I am an average mathematics enjoyer.
>Extended Signature<
Both the Drakewarden and the Way of the Ascendent Dragon are on the class pages but I cant select either of them in the character builder.
On the first page of the Character Builder, did you turn on Playtest Content?
Eh eh, game design is a sandwiching of mechanics and setting/lore/flavor. In this instance you have mechanics that are vaguely related to other mechanics (aforementioned stat blocs and attendant lore) and beyond that the crunch is literally a rough ride as written. Now clean up your peanut butter, Skippy ;)
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
I've gotta agree with MidnightPlat here. There's a big difference between "we're leaving this open-ended for player/DM creativity" and "we have absolutely no idea what this thing is, we'll let the DM figure it out." The former is fine, and absolutely great, but the latter is lazy and not creative. I love being able to reflavor hexblade warlocks as being possessed by a sentient and evil magic weapon, or making circle of moon druids be animorphs, or eldritch knights as arcane bodyguards. I love that freedom and appreciate subclasses and classes being open-ended, but this is different.
WotC eitehr has no idea what Drakes are in 5e, or they're not telling. Guard and Ambush drakes are created by the Cult of the Dragon out of the scales of true dragons. That is what we know about Drakes in 5e. However, this UA says they are "minor dragons," which is an incredibly lazy explanation. IMHO, WotC better figure out what the hell the difference is between Drakes and True Dragons before publishing this subclass. Otherwise, they're just being lazy.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
I have a mechanics question. For the ranger, the level 11 ability "Drake's Breathe". It say as an action YOU or the Drake does the cone... Am I reading that correctly that 1 YOU CAN BREATHE WEAPON ATTACK, and 2 it costs YOUR ACTION to make the drake do it. Meaning the drake could breathe weapon with my action, then my bonus action command it to bite attack? And I dont personally get an attack.
Just wanted to make sure I have the mechanics right.
Yes, that is correct.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
Survey is up! https://dnd.wizards.com/articles/unearthed-arcana/survey-subclasses5
Thanks for posting that! I checked yesterday and was wondering when it would be out. I guess I'm going to go back to my in depth post on my thoughts and basically transport them to that survey now.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
Hopefully the drakenwarden gets good reviews, and we see it again with the required tweaks.
WotC has a habit of just throwing out the entire concept for good if it's not universally liked for certain classes.