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 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.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Playing D&D since 1982
Have played every version of the game since Basic (original Red Box Set), except that abomination sometimes called 4e.
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.
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.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
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.
Playing D&D since 1982
Have played every version of the game since Basic (original Red Box Set), except that abomination sometimes called 4e.
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.
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.