A Defense of the Banneret: A Mechanical Guide to a Supporting Fighter

[Ironheart]

A Defense of the Banneret

A (small) Guide to the Purple Dragon Knight subclass for Fighter
If your actions inspire others to dream more, learn more, do more and become more, you are a leader.
-John Quincy Adams

[Work in Progress]

Hello! I hope I can convince those looking to play a supportive, leadership oriented character that the Purple Dragon Knight (PDK) is the class package that can really express that! Compared to other support centered classes, the PDK can seem limited at first glance, and from an optimization standpoint, doing all of these tasks without spellcasting can seem dangerous. However, with the customization of the fighter chassis, the PDK can heal, buff, and deal damage with the best of them.

This guide builds off of the concept of party efficiency, where if one role is fulfilled well enough by a single PC, other PC's can focus their characters into other aspects of the game.
One great example of this is the battlemaster archetype fighter. Often, a cleric or a druid might want to cast faerie fire, a concentration spell that grants advantage on a creature. However, the battle master can use one of his superiority dice to force a trip attack, which forces a creature to make a Strength saving throw or be knocked prone, which also grants advantage to melee attackers. The cleric or druid, seeing that they don't need to spend their spell granting advantage might spend their valuable concentration on a bless spell instead, to further compound the advantage. Or, they might simply choose to deal more damage with one of their cantrips, saving on their long rest limited spell slot for the next scenario.

Table of Contents

I. Playing a Purple Dragon Knight
II. Creating a PDK
III. Party Roles
IV. Supplements (Feats, Magic Items)
V. Multiclassing
VI. Builds

Color Schematics- for easy reading:

As much as I wanted purple to be the color for this, convention begs me to put stellar, all around great options as sky blue.
Blue indicates a solid pick, and one that I personally like.
Bolded options are also solid picks, that can be considered as alternatives to blue. Every table varies.
Options that are in red are not as good as other options could be.


Sourcebooks Referenced:
Player's Handbook (PHB)
Sword Coast Adventurer's Guide (SCAG)
Xanathar's Guide to Everything (XGtE)
Volo's Guide to Monsters (Volo's)
Dungeon Master's Guide (DMG)

[apply polishing and editing here]

[Ironheart]

PART I
Why play a banneret?

I found myself asking this same question. The Banneret occupies a strange niche of being a support and being a frontline fighter, and has to compete with the likes of Paladins and Bards when filling these two identities.

In the space of the other fighter subclasses, the Banneret seems much less flashy than the Samurai granting himself advantage or the Cavalier having unlimited reactions. Even the Champion, heralded by many as a more simple subclass than any others, seems better tailored to the ‘fightering’ job of hitting stuff and hitting stuff hard than the Banneret.

The Banneret’s strength lies rather in playing up the strengths of your party, particularly being effective for characters that deal lots of damage in single attacks. If action economy has a place in combat, then the PDK have a place in combat.

One strength of the Banneret is that his class abilities don’t scale with his ability modifiers. This means you have much more flexibility in building your character than other classes because once you max out your relevant combat scores, you are free to invest feats into other areas of the game. If you roll well for stats, this can lead to the PDK being a great fighter by virtue of his higher ability scores alone.


The PDK, when viewed in the light of playing the role of a buff supplier, has interesting tools to work with. Right at level 3, you get an ability that doesn’t come for dedicated healers for another 2 levels- the ability to heal more than one target with a bonus action. Oh, and it refreshes on a short rest. Sure, Mass Healing Word lets you roll a d4 and lets you add your ability modifier, and can target more creatures, but when you’re level 3 such healing is only in the dreams of your clerics. This ability just requires verbal components as well- so your hands are always free.


You gain expertise in Persuasion, and if you already have proficiency in persuasion, you select one of these four options to gain proficiency in: Animal Handling, Insight, Intimidation, or Performance.
This is a rare effect for fighters, which creates some nuance for earlier levels of play. If you are already dedicated to playing a party face, having the option to pick up Insight later. You have as many proficiencies as the bard! Picking up the Skilled feat puts you past a rogue in general skill versatility.


Level 10 gets you the best ability to use when flanking with an ally. What if I told you that you can get 6 attacks at advantage in a single turn at level 10, and still have your reaction for a Sentinel OA? Oh, and the 6th attack- It’s a Paladin smiting for an extra 4d8 damage if it lands.

Next level? That increases to 8 attacks. If you use some means to get a BA attack, you are causing as many attacks as a level 20 fighter action surging. This time you’re getting an effect that’s normally avaliable -9 levels- later. The only catch is that you need an ally nearby. A Samurai can come close to this amount of attacks at level 15, but has to give up advantage to do so.

Later on, you can do this twice. And you attack with -two- friends. I prefer to give the so called ‘God Wizard’ a long, knowing look as I recur this a second time, as you’ve nova’d for likely more than his level 9 spell will ever do. Twice.

If that sounds ridiculous- that’s because it is. Still think that PDK’s aren’t worth the wait?


Let me introduce you to Bulwark. You don’t gain immunity from mental saves, but you get something almost as good- incentive not to target you with those things. What happens when you (and your friend) are targeted? You get incredible value even if you (and your friend) fail your save.
Wizards and clerics have a choice to make- spend their turn to just deal with you, or ignore you in favor of targeting the rest of the party. The only thing wrong with this ability is the fact you have limited uses for indomitable, and unlike most of your features, they don’t recharge off of a short rest.


Bulwark only really functions in cases where you have a bad saving throw, and you are able to buff someone who typically has a good saving throw but botched his roll. In a world where Dex, Con and Str saving throws are the ones that matter more on the whole than your mental saves, and the other fact that mental saves don’t typically hit a group, just singular creatures. Regardless, I’ll list the spells that your bulwark will come in handy for by the relevant saves. After looking at a bunch of these, Bulwark seems to be a feature that encourages the DM to always ensure that you are on your feet to do something if he plans to disable the party.

Intelligence

Literally nothing spellwise targets both you and an ally at the same time. You can only help the Wizard with his throws when your friendly neighborhood mind flayer comes to town. If I were to balance this out, I’d switch this saving throw with Constitution or Strength, as they are both much more relevant.

Wisdom

Hold Person, if upcasted to hold you down and someone else. This is a devastating spell effect if cast on your party.

Fear - a pretty bad debuff for those who depend on attack rolls, like yourself. This will be one of the more frequent cases where using Bulwark will definitely work.

Hypnotic Pattern - much like hold person in that you don’t want to fail this save.

Slow - This one is of special importance to you to resist because having your extra attacks shut down is no good.

Command, if upcasted.

Confusion - Not having an action on 1-8 on a d10? Yikes. It’s good to avoid this.

Mass Suggestion - Now no bard can command your entire party to do the Cha-Cha slide.


Charisma

Bane! This, on paper, actually seems like a good reason to have this feature. As much as bless is a strong spell, Bane is also a very strong spell, and having it cast on the party can mean bad news for all of you. However... the caster can just *not* target you, nullifying the protection you grant. However, as a high level fighter, Bane actually affects you the most, so you make for a very risky target to hit with this spell.

Zone of Truth - This is an interesting case, where volunteering to fail your save can actually matter. If one PC has information that’s dangerous to be revealed, Indomitable can make sure they can lie freely, and that you have a chance to as well. Ask your DM about just auto using your indomitable to ensure someone who doesn’t wish to lie can roll twice.

Calm Emotions - Tbh this is a spell that doesn’t see much play on both sides of the screen.

Banishment (if upcasted) - the other really big spell that you need to watch for, although your effect only really works when *you* are targeted and it’s upcasted to include an ally. Taking Mage Slayer actually nullifies use of this spell against you, since if they decide to not banish you, you then become the biggest threat to having them blow their Concentration since you have 3 attacks at this point. If they try to Banish you, you have a better chance of making your save thanks to indomitable. The trick is to get close and just have one round of good attacks, using your bonus damage to bump up your Concentration DC

Seeming - Another fringe case in terms of spells, but in the case where you do not want to have your appearance altered at a caster’s whims for the next 8 hours, you and an ally will probably get to keep your appearance. (A DM more clever than me could get away with framing a party with a crime with this spell.)

Symbols of Fear, Hopelessness, Insanity, Sleep, and Stunning - Now this is a spell that you want to have a second chance on. All of these effects are pretty nasty as openers to an encounter, and smart DM’s will want to have encounters in tandem with as many characters being stunned (or just unable to take actions) as possible.

Divine Word - If this spell is a threat to your party, then you should be running. This spell can be dangerous to party members who are playing the unconsciousness gopher game of going down and coming back up. This is another spell that you might ask your DM if you can intentionally fail it, especially if you have over 50 hit points, so you can save an ally who isn’t so lucky with a reroll.

In a world where this feature only covers about 14 spells and maybe a little less of other monster-derived effects, (to a total of 30 or so instances) Bulwark is a feature that is hard to make relevant. On the other hand, the spells that it does influence (and remember, you can be a bit selfish and actually just spend them all on those Dex and Con saves) are actually... Quite powerful ones. Big hitters like Banishment, Hold Person, and Bane are typically hard counters to martial characters, but you grant rerolls, which has been stated elsewhere as a very strong mechanic. Think of Portent Wizards and Halflings.

So, Bulwark isn’t as bad as it may seem on paper, but remember, it only has it’s relevance as a 15th level feature, and it requires the DM to actually use these spells against you. And then you have to actually fail on the first roll in order for your party to benefit. You might wish to negotiate with your DM to be able to voluntarily fail initial saves just to make your feature more relevant, or just take the Lucky Feat and have Bulwark be an occasional luck point saver.

These conditions lead to some strange synergy with other features like Portent and Bardic Inspiration.

Let’s say you are trying to shield a badly injured ally from, say, a lethal Divine Word with a DC 17 Charisma save. You make your save, and your other party member fails. If the Portent wizard nearby has a roll that will cause you to fail, you can ask them to use it so that you can use indomitable, and give the party member a second chance, which potentially turns a terrible roll made by the Portent Wizard into clutch pseudo-advantage. Weird, right? And you can still make the save as well, since your die is being rerolled as well.


PART II

Creating a Purple Dragon Knight

[Reserved for I & II]

[Ironheart]

[Reserved for III & IV]

[Ironheart]

Part V:

Part VI:

The Fighter also known as 'Mom'
This fighter has effective healing, absurd armor proficiencies and a health pool uniquely qualified to save any of the sneaky kids from anything too hard for them to handle.


Aasimar, probably picking up Folk Hero.

Level 1: Second Wind, Healing Hands, Protection fighting style

At this point- you are not a healer, you are a fighter. Levels 1-4 are arguably the hardest points of this class, since a lot of features and perks that make this composition work come in the later point of tier 1. However, this is offset by having one of the better classes in early levels: Fighter. d10 Hit dice does work, Action surge does work, and being an Aasimar helps too, since you get two resistances. You also get to impose disadvantage on attacks with the protection fighting style, helping the survivability of the party. You have Healing Hands (1 HP) once per long rest, so nobody that you can reach dies if you’ll have anything to say about it. Mommy gotta protect these weird kleptomaniac kids somehow.

Level 2: Action Surge

The next hardest thing about being a low level fighter- not much value out of your action surge. Regardless, being able to attack and dodge in the same turn is pretty good- just make sure you use this resource cautiously.

Level 3: PDK features

It’s here that you begin to help out the party as a whole, though in total you can give out about 12 points altogether once every long rest and 9 extra hit points in every short rest afterward. Not a lot, but it’s about to get much better.

Level 4: Healer Feat

All of a sudden, your healer’s kit becomes your most important resource. 1d6+4+Level is usually not that good by you also supplement your level onto healing for the whole group, which defaults to 12+1d6 points of free healing to everyone (before they spend hit dice, and you get your nice 1d10+level for you before you spend yours). The main thing to worry about is that while you -do- have healing on demand with the healer feat, it’s just not as good as a cleric. Your strength lies within saying “while we short rest, everyone gets an extra 1d6+8 hit points”, maybe saving it for those who are more fragile (in this group, your rogue) in case of a bad spill. As an Aasimar you also have the ability to focus your healing a little, healing for as much as 20 hit points on a single target with everything put together.

The main payoff for this style of play is that when your party does well to solve encounters without expending long rest resources. In typical parties, this means that your clerics and sorcerers get away with spending perhaps one of their higher level spell slots and while everyone may be damaged a bit more, but you can buffer that with a short rest rather than having to commit to a long rest.

Level 5: Extra Attack

Here, you become more proficient at dealing damage, and your healing goes up by 2 points when you combine Second Wind with the Healer dice. The fact you keep pace as a relevant threat on the front is really important to your role as a healer, because damage that your allies don’t take is effectively damage you won’t have to heal. You don’t mind because between your mighty d10 HD, your second wind uses, and your Healer feat (which you can also target yourself with) to cover any other HP you need.

Level 6: Inspiring Leader

Once again, you continue to buffer off of short rests by an amount scaling off of your level. This is temporary HP, which doesn’t technically count as healing, but most of your healing comes off of short rests anyway. Selection of this feat does infer that you have a pretty good charisma score- with the Aasimar's +2 to charisma you can get away with a 13 Charisma without having to tax your other scores. You can delay this feat selection for level 8 if improving your own durability or damage is your priority.

If you have time and money for it, training in a herbalism kit to brew potions can also supplement your healing. Potions and healer kits are both expensive, but once you’ve gotten a few rewards, and once the party sees how much healing you bring to the table, I’m sure they’ll want to pay down their health insurance. If your wisdom modifier is high enough, you can also try asking around to see if you can solicit scrolls of Cure Wounds at 2nd level, or potions of greater healing for a rainy day. Each cost about 250 gp, and you’ll be buying lots of healer’s kits for 5 gp each.

And... that's all of the requisite parts for the build. From here on out, you scale up according to your level, get better heals, and are able to help your party survive.

[Reserved for V & VI]

[Ironheart]

[Reserved for my paranoia]

[Yunru]

What if I told you that you can get 6 attacks at advantage in a single turn at level 10, and still have your reaction for a Sentinel OA? Oh, and the 6th attack- It’s a Paladin smiting for an extra 4d8 damage if it lands.

I'd tell you an Elven Samurai could do it better, at range, and deal more damage. Possibly even a regular Samurai.


Next level? That increases to 8 attacks.
I believe you mean 7? 6 from you, 1 from them.


Later on, you can do this twice.Meanwhile the Samurai can do their call shtick three times in the first combat, and then once each following combat.


I prefer to give the so called ‘God Wizard’ a long, knowing look as I recur this a second time, as you’ve nova’d for likely more than his level 9 spell will ever do.It's hyperbole, I know, but for more than 40d6 across a roughly 20000 feet area? Of course, you mention a God Wizard, so they're not even doing damage, that enemy's just no longer an issue anyway. And then they turn you into a frog with that 9th level spell you gave a knowing look about :P


If that sounds ridiculous- that’s because it is.Ridiculous exaggeration, maybe :P

[micahaphone]

I haven't played one, but I guess my biggest gripe looking at them is that most of their abilities are tied to base fighter things.

-What if you want to heal your allies, but you personally aren't below half health?
-what if you want to hand out an extra attack, but aren't in a spot where you personally want to action surge?
-what if you roll a nat 20 on your save against the BBEG, but your ally rolls a nat 1?

I agree that the extra proficiency/expertise are nice. A stellar ribbon.

[Fable Wright]

Level 10 gets you the best ability to use when flanking with an ally. What if I told you that you can get 6 attacks at advantage in a single turn at level 10, and still have your reaction for a Sentinel OA? Oh, and the 6th attack- It’s a Paladin smiting for an extra 4d8 damage if it lands.

[[laughs in Druidic]]

Sixteen attacks from a velociraptor horde from level 5 w/Pack Tactics advantage, going up to 32 at level 9, conjured with one action. Trust me, the DPR is higher than a PDK will ever put out.


Next level? That increases to 8 attacks. If you use some means to get a BA attack, you are causing as many attacks as a level 20 fighter action surging. This time you’re getting an effect that’s normally avaliable -9 levels- later. The only catch is that you need an ally nearby. A Samurai can come close to this amount of attacks at level 15, but has to give up advantage to do so.

Gasp.


Later on, you can do this twice. And you attack with -two- friends. I prefer to give the so called ‘God Wizard’ a long, knowing look as I recur this a second time, as you’ve nova’d for likely more than his level 9 spell will ever do. Twice.

The God Wizard has a Simulacrum that was True Polymorphed into at least an Ancient Red Dragon. And Meteor Swarm/Wish/Foresight on that Elvish Accuracy Sharpshooter Samurai/Shapechange.


If that sounds ridiculous- that’s because it is. Still think that PDK’s aren’t worth the wait?

I mean, yes. Battlemaster gets godly martial skill per short rest at level 3, including the ability to Commander's Strike to let your allies get additional attacks. Eldritch Knights get Shield/Find Familiar/Absorb Elements/Dragon's Breath while your one unique feature is a small AoE heal, and then at level 10 can force you to make a save at disadvantage vs Hold Person on the action surge, with the juicy auto-crits at advantage.

Fighter has a really high bar to clear based off Champion/Samurai/Battlemaster/Eldritch Knight. PDK just does not get there.

I adore Royal Envoy, just because it opens up an entire new role for the Fighter in the party, but other than that? Features are pretty garbage.

[stoutstien]

I want to like the PDK but a cavalier with inspiring leader just does it better or a glamour bard with a small order domain dip or a BM with a Mastermind dip or.. well.. anything not using the banner.

[Ironheart]

I'd tell you an Elven Samurai could do it better, at range, and deal more damage. Possibly even a regular Samurai.
On the whole, the PDK will always have an additional attack (until level 15) because he has his bonus action to use rather than having to use it to gain advantage. That, and bonus dice from other classes that have stronger singular attacks pushes comparable numbers apart.

While I agree that a samurai can outdamage this combo if he leveraged Elven Accuracy to cancel out the penalty from Sharpshooter, that infers that higher AC opponents may have the fewer amount of attacks land, whereas the PDK (who requires no feat investment) enjoys a comparable degree of damage for enemies with lower AC and more reliable damage for enemies with higher AC's.

A better discussion of this principle is found at EvilAnagram's Fighter guide http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?471427-An-Illustrated-Manual-for-Inflicting-Violence-A-Guide-to-Fightering on the first and second pages, I think.

As for doing it at range? Well, to each their own, but a PDK can also stand 60 feet away and still do the same thing. Samurai is better if more distance is more important, but the whole land big damage and then get out of counterattacking range schtick? Both subclasses are capable.

I believe you mean 7? 6 from you, 1 from them.
You have 6 from your attack actions, as well as an additional bonus attack and the ally's reaction attack, totaling 8.


Meanwhile the Samurai can do their call shtick three times in the first combat, and then once each following combat.
It's as if the Samurai is meant to function without any allies around or something. The only thing that the PDK has over this is that his healing from Rallying Cry will scale up to be more than the THP that the Samurai gains, and can be stacked with THP.


It's hyperbole, I know, but for more than 40d6 across a roughly 20000 feet area? Of course, you mention a God Wizard, so they're not even doing damage, that enemy's just no longer an issue anyway. And then they turn you into a frog with that 9th level spell you gave a knowing look about :P

Applying your ability modifier in damage is what makes it comparable, leaving alone the damage dice that you get to roll. And that's why Indomitable exists.


Ridiculous exaggeration, maybe :P

At least the ridiculousness generated this exchange.

[SpawnOfMorbo]

Rogue.

Armored Rogue supports the party and depending on your DM heal with a healer's kit as a bonus action once per short rest if you take thief. Personally, I prefer mastermind with bonus action help.

Armored front line rogue has so many more options for build customization that there's never a reason to pick fighter other than "I like fighter and not having as many helpful features".

Other fighters deal more damage than the PDK, so that isn't a negative to the rogue.

Even if your DM doesn't let you use "use an item" as a bonus action work with healers kit (which, I get, but it isn't broken so...) you still get features that will allow you to run around the battlefield and stabilize or heal allies (potions if need be). You also at level 13 (with thief) get used magic device and can start using wands or whatever support spell you can get your grubby little hands on. This is far and away so much better than anything the PDK gets.

Anytime you think about playing the fighter, there's always a choice out there that's better, unless you just want to move and hit I guess (which isn't the point of a support fighter).

Arnored front line sword and board rogue is amazing at support.

[ad_hoc]

Level 3 is when the Fighter gets their core subclass ability.

And the Banneret's is terrible compared to what other subclasses get.

It isn't Mass Healing Word - it can't revive a character from 0.

I wouldn't call level 7 an 'earlier' level either for the Persuasion Expertise. 7 is the last level that I care about when looking at what a character will get. Everything after that I'm both not playing long enough to use much and have played too much already to have counted on.

[RickAllison]

The Banneret falls into the same category as Undying Warlock and, to a lesser extent, Battlerager for me; it's an immensely flavorful and cool subclass that I will always want to make work because it just hits the right cords for me... until I start thinking about how it will actually play compared to other subclasses. They are just bad. These are examples of subclasses that really should have been playtested with Unearthed Arcana because then they could see where they weren't really up to snuff. The heal is too little to matter for real healing, and it can't help when you want it to work most, when your healer (and maybe other PCs) is down. Like it or not, the strength of the fighter in 5e is being able to create a real depth of combat via feats that make you a blender. The best way to play a Banneret is to just acknowledge that you will never be a warlord, and accept that you are a fighter that can face and has some decent side effects. If you try to build around the Banneret chassis, you will end up sorely disappointed at the end of the day.

[NNescio]

Level 10 gets you the best ability to use when flanking with an ally. What if I told you that you can get 6 attacks at advantage in a single turn at level 10, and still have your reaction for a Sentinel OA? Oh, and the 6th attack- It’s a Paladin smiting for an extra 4d8 damage if it lands.

How are you getting advantage? Unless you're assuming flanking rules, which are optional. And neither is it 'universal' (automatic assumption on most forums and tables), unlike feats and multiclassing.

(Because flanking invalidates a lot of class features/spells/other effects [e.g. pack tactics] that are intended to grant advantage at some cost. Of course the Samurai is going to feel weaker after you cheapen one of its main shticks. Flanking wrecks game balance, and makes melee combat far deadlier than it should be [especially at lower levels].)

[Corran]

Bulwark has some distinct drawbacks that I think need mentioning. As is, I think that the guide's description of it tries to sell it as something that it's not.

First of all, it only affects half the saves, and I would say that it's the wrong half for how we can use it. AoE's will be what will trigger this effect most often, and most AoE's will be targeting dex saves. Not to mention that the number of things targeting dex, str or con is about triple the number of things targeting mental saves.

Secondly, and this another big drawback imo, it only triggers when you use indomitable, which by itself wouldn't be bad if there were not restrictions on when and how you can use indomitable. You can use indomitable only if you fail the save. If indomitable allowed you to use it whenever you wanted, and also allowed to pick between rolls, then bulwark would be far less situational than it currently is. Because as is, you want it when both you and an ally failed a mental save, which is very different in usefulness than if just an ally failed an important save. These things really make it a very situational feature for my liking.

There is however something that might be worth noticing. It does not specify timing regarding the ally's failed saving throw. It just needs to be from the same effect. So it can deal with pre existing conditions on your allies, as long as it's the same effect. This makes me think of stuff like being poisoned or being grappled or petrification, though such effects will normally target the saves that bulwark does not affect. I am not sure how useful this really is, but it's something extra there might be clever uses for.

I'd also make a mention of rogues when talking about inspiring surge. It's the allies that profit most from it, and given how little the subclass adds to the main class, having a rogue ally or not could be very important regarding the banneret's efficiency. Also, while inspiring surge is not much different compared to the battlemaster's commander's strike (or whatever that maneuver is called), I think it needs mentioning how well it has the potential to scale at higher levels. I am saying potential, cause that extra attack wont matter much unless you find a good candidate for it. At these levels (stealing ideas from posts above), we could be talking about a rogue (with 9-10 d6 sneak attack) and about someone using shapechange.

[SpawnOfMorbo]

Bulwark has some distinct drawbacks that I think need mentioning. As is, I think that the guide's description of it tries to sell it as something that it's not.

First of all, it only affects half the saves, and I would say that it's the wrong half for how we can use it. AoE's will be what will trigger this effect most often, and most AoE's will be targeting dex saves. Not to mention that the number of things targeting dex, str or con is about triple the number of things targeting mental saves.

Secondly, and this another big drawback imo, it only triggers when you use indomitable, which by itself wouldn't be bad if there were not restrictions on when and how you can use indomitable. You can use indomitable only if you fail the save. If indomitable allowed you to use it whenever you wanted, and also allowed to pick between rolls, then bulwark would be far less situational than it currently is. Because as is, you want it when both you and an ally failed a mental save, which is very different in usefulness than if just an ally failed an important save. These things really make it a very situational feature for my liking.

There is however something that might be worth noticing. It does not specify timing regarding the ally's failed saving throw. It just needs to be from the same effect. So it can deal with pre existing conditions on your allies, as long as it's the same effect. This makes me think of stuff like being poisoned or being grappled or petrification, though such effects will normally target the saves that bulwark does not affect. I am not sure how useful this really is, but it's something extra there might be clever uses for.

I'd also make a mention of rogues when talking about inspiring surge. It's the allies that profit most from it, and given how little the subclass adds to the main class, having a rogue ally or not could be very important regarding the banneret's efficiency. Also, while inspiring surge is not much different compared to the battlemaster's commander's strike (or whatever that maneuver is called), I think it needs mentioning how well it has the potential to scale at higher levels. I am saying potential, cause that extra attack wont matter much unless you find a good candidate for it. At these levels (stealing ideas from posts above), we could be talking about a rogue (with 9-10 d6 sneak attack) and about someone using shapechange.


Also, Indomitable is once per long rest.

Once. Per. Long. Rest.

That's ridiculous for what indomitable does (crap feature to begin with) and what you get from the PDK.

Indomitable should have been "Con mod to saving throws" to be on equal with the Paladin.

[Corran]

Also, Indomitable is once per long rest.

Once. Per. Long. Rest.

That's ridiculous for what indomitable does (crap feature to begin with) and what you get from the PDK.

Indomitable should have been "Con mod to saving throws" to be on equal with the Paladin.
You get more uses as you level (2 times at lvl 13 and 3 times at lvl 17). It's not as good as sth like con mod to saves though, for sure.

[SpawnOfMorbo]

You get more uses as you level (2 times at lvl 13 and 3 times at lvl 17). It's not as good as sth like con mod to saves though, for sure.

Most won't get to 13, I actually hestitated talking about Use Magic Device for the thief due to this but at least UMD is a real class feature at that level.

[Nhorianscum]

To say a good thing about PDK. All of the class features are incredibly efficent in terms of action economy.

[HappyDaze]

The Banneret falls into the same category as Undying Warlock and, to a lesser extent, Battlerager for me; it's

They all fall into the same category for me: crap from SCAG and therefore stuff I do not use in my games. I really loathe everything about that book.

[RickAllison]

They all fall into the same category for me: crap from SCAG and therefore stuff I do not use in my games. I really loathe everything about that book.

I love the idea about all of them. A barbarian who fights by grappling and slamming his own body about? COOL! A Fighter who acts as face and has party support? GREAT! A pseudo-undead Warlock? AMAZING! But then the actual subclasses are so disappointing. If it weren't for the mechanics being so bad, those three would likely be my favorite subclasses for those classes.

[GlenSmash!]

I love the idea about all of them. A barbarian who fights by grappling and slamming his own body about? COOL! A Fighter who acts as face and has party support? GREAT! A pseudo-undead Warlock? AMAZING! But then the actual subclasses are so disappointing. If it weren't for the mechanics being so bad, those three would likely be my favorite subclasses for those classes.

I think back then WotC were so afraid of power creep that the SCAG subclasses all came out nerfed.

I have no explanation for the SCAG cantrips however.

[stoutstien]

I think back then WotC were so afraid of power creep that the SCAG subclasses all came out nerfed.

I have no explanation for the SCAG cantrips however.

Big issue was that Wotc core team didn't write the content for Scag. That's why all the subclasses are below the curve and the cantrips are above.

I forget who actually did the mechanics for it.

[Amechra]

That's why all the subclasses are below the curve and the cantrips are above.

"Above the curve" is an understatement. Assuming you keep your ability scores up, trigger their bonus damage, and are only using a d8 weapon, the weapon cantrips match Eldritch Blast + Agonizing Blast in terms of expected damage. That's before any optimization you do of the actual melee weapon attack they're attached to. It's just kinda goofy.

More on topic: The Banneret would actually be worth people's time if it just gave those powers out differently. Like, I dunno:

"At 3rd level, [healing power]. Whenever you use your Second Wind, you may use this feature without spending an action. Doing so does not count towards your uses of this feature."

[HappyDaze]

Big issue was that Wotc core team didn't write the content for Scag. That's why all the subclasses are below the curve and the cantrips are above.

I forget who actually did the mechanics for it.

Green Ronin, a company whose products I have done my best to stay clear.

[RickAllison]

Green Ronin, a company whose products I have done my best to stay clear.

Aren't they the group who did part of Mutants and Masterminds?

[stoutstien]

Green Ronin, a company whose products I have done my best to stay clear.

Thank you. I know his name was almost a colour but couldn't come up with it for the life of me.

[HappyDaze]

Aren't they the group who did part of Mutants and Masterminds?

Yes, M&M was theirs, along with the AGE system and it's offshoots, plus products for other game lines.

[ad_hoc]

How are you getting advantage? Unless you're assuming flanking rules, which are optional. And neither is it 'universal' (automatic assumption on most forums and tables), unlike feats and multiclassing.

If by 'most' you mean less than half.

The flanking rule I would guess is being used by less than 1% of tables though.

[RickAllison]

If by 'most' you mean less than half.

The flanking rule I would guess is being used by less than 1% of tables though.

I would heavily disagree with your characterization. Despite them being variant rules for simplicity, feats and multiclassing being on the table is the default assumption for all forums (you have to specify "No feats" or "No multiclassing" or dips and feats will come up), and there are no statistics out there I know of to corroborate either way for tables, but I'm inclined to think that most groups run with the full rules.

[Daphne]

I would heavily disagree with your characterization. Despite them being variant rules for simplicity, feats and multiclassing being on the table is the default assumption for all forums

Most D&D players are "casuals", they don't talk about RPGs in random forums with strangers.

[Fable Wright]

If by 'most' you mean less than half.

Adventurer's League rules allow feats and multiclass builds. Given that AL is a game that anyone can join and acts as a baseline for most open tables, it's going to be WAY WAY WAY more than half of all games that allow multiclass.

EDIT:



In our last survey, we asked you which areas of D&D you thought needed expansion, and solicited feedback for the latest revision of the mystic character class and new rules for psionics.

In terms of overall content, feats were far and away the most requested new element. Over 70 percent of you want more feats for your game. Feats also had the least opposition to their expansion.*


At least 70% of players want more feats, which is incongruous with the assertion that fewer than 50% of tables use them. That would be about 25% of players saying "I can't use this, but I want more of it!"

[RickAllison]

Most D&D players are "casuals", they don't talk about RPGs in random forums with strangers.

I would love to see your statistics for that. Purely armchair math here, but "casuals" don't tend to invest deep into it and continue playing. Plus while they aren't likely to hang around discussing on forums, it doesn't mean they won't come across them while doing a Google search for an easy build. Google is almost a reflex at this point, and I would bet that a fair amount of casuals essentially just copy/paste something or look at a guide to just paint by the dots rather than going through the book and making everything him or herself.

But if you have statistics otherwise, I'd love to hear them. Otherwise "universal" seems an accurate descriptor for most games that will ever matter for this conversation.

[Reevh]

"Above the curve" is an understatement. Assuming you keep your ability scores up, trigger their bonus damage, and are only using a d8 weapon, the weapon cantrips match Eldritch Blast + Agonizing Blast in terms of expected damage. That's before any optimization you do of the actual melee weapon attack they're attached to. It's just kinda goofy.


I don't think that's a safe assumption. Moreover, it's melee only, unlike EB-AB.

But I agree with your general premise that it's well above the curve, especially when paired with classes that don't rely on extra attack for their melee attacks, like Rogue and Cleric.

[GlenSmash!]

Big issue was that Wotc core team didn't write the content for Scag.
Oh yeah!

I forgot that this was when they were outsourcing books.

[Waazraath]

I think back then WotC were so afraid of power creep that the SCAG subclasses all came out nerfed.


That's a bit exagerated, ain't it? I mean, yeah, Battlerager, Banneret and Undying are far below average... and Crown pally is a bit on the weak side (but no more than that).

On the other hand, Bladesinger wizard, Storm Sorcerer, Mastermind and Swashbuckler Rogue, Long Death and Sun Soul monk, and Arcana cleric are somewhere between average up to very strong.

[Chaos Jackal]

That's a bit exagerated, ain't it? I mean, yeah, Battlerager, Banneret and Undying are far below average... and Crown pally is a bit on the weak side (but no more than that).

On the other hand, Bladesinger wizard, Storm Sorcerer, Mastermind and Swashbuckler Rogue, Long Death and Sun Soul monk, and Arcana cleric are somewhere between average up to very strong.

Storm, Mastermind, Swashbuckler and Sun Soul are XGtE archetypes, not SCAG. Moreover, Storm, Long Death and Sun Soul are pretty weak archetypes, and Mastermind is definitely not above average outside of a social campaign.

Bladesinger is a promising wizard archetype which, unfortunately, suffers from a number of issues (namely MAD and its core feature having very limited uses) if you wanna play them as a full-on gish. Not bad by any means, and can be pretty strong, but strange in its implementation.

Arcana cleric I'd say is the only clearly above-average archetype from those you mentioned.

[Evaar]

Intelligence

Literally nothing spellwise targets both you and an ally at the same time.

Enchanter casting Feeblemind and twinning it would do it. Not exactly something you'll run into frequently and it would be questionable to target the Fighter as part of that twin, but you wrote "literally nothing" so I had to think of a counter-example.

[GlenSmash!]

Storm, Mastermind, Swashbuckler and Sun Soul are XGtE archetypes, not SCAG.

These were actually published first in SCAG, then again in XGtE. Some had minor tweaks I believe.

[Waazraath]

These were actually published first in SCAG, then again in XGtE. Some had minor tweaks I believe.

This.

Of all the SCAG subclasses, Arcana, Bladesinger and Swashbuckler are good in my book.

[Chaos Jackal]

These were actually published first in SCAG, then again in XGtE. Some had minor tweaks I believe.

True, I forgot. Point about most of them being subpar still stands.


This.

Of all the SCAG subclasses, Arcana, Bladesinger and Swashbuckler are good in my book.

Pretty much.

[GlenSmash!]

That's a bit exagerated, ain't it? I mean, yeah, Battlerager, Banneret and Undying are far below average... and Crown pally is a bit on the weak side (but no more than that).

On the other hand, Bladesinger wizard, Storm Sorcerer, Mastermind and Swashbuckler Rogue, Long Death and Sun Soul monk, and Arcana cleric are somewhere between average up to very strong.

I know Storm Sorcerer had its expanded spell list from its UA version removed. I don't know if it's still good or not though, I am admittedly not the type to play full casters. I do whoever think that Sun Soul is on the weak side when it was published I struggled to think what it could do that a Longbow wielding Wood Elf PHB subclass monk could not, besides spend KI on burning hands.

The other options I do think are average, beisdes Bladesinger being a great defensive Wizard option Arcana Cleric being the real stand out.

[RickAllison]

That's a bit exagerated, ain't it? I mean, yeah, Battlerager, Banneret and Undying are far below average... and Crown pally is a bit on the weak side (but no more than that).

On the other hand, Bladesinger wizard, Storm Sorcerer, Mastermind and Swashbuckler Rogue, Long Death and Sun Soul monk, and Arcana cleric are somewhere between average up to very strong.

Bladesinger: This one is on par with the other disciplines, but I think it failed at what it was trying to do. It was supposed to make a weapon-using wizard, but it ends up being far more effective as just a wizard who has some serious defensive buffs, especially until you get the offense buffs at higher levels. Like an Abjurationist with the SCAG cantrips is about on par as a bladesinger while still getting their wizardly stuff.

Storm Sorcerer: This also fits in the weaker subclasses. It has some neat tricks and could combo well with the right things, but taken on its own it is a superbly squishy class that is encouraged to be in the worst of things, which is a very bad idea.

Mastermind: Also weaker. It's a class built around social stuff and enabling other party members when it is part of the class that should be the one being enabled. That being said, a social/intrigue game could see it being put to good use, and if Unearthed Arcana is allowed then the Historian feat combos extremely well. But in most games, you'd be better off with a familiar to do this job instead.

Swashbuckler: This one is good. It does what it is supposed to, does it well enough to matter, and isn't busted.

Long Death: Same as Swashbuckler.

Sun Soul: Weaker. It's an interesting gimmick and it works enough to get interest, but it is definitely underpowered. It does have the unique qualifier of being the only truly at-will ranged AoE with its Masenko-Ha before like the Wizard's L18 feature. Even the Hunter's AoE at least requires arrows (although a magic item could get around that).

Arcana Cleric: This is good.

I'd say we have the trinity of Swashbuckler, Long Death, and Arcana that at least meet the average capabilities with what they were doing. Bladesinger is also good, but not at what it is supposed to do well. The rest are either weak or their strengths are too niche for most games.

[Waazraath]

I know Storm Sorcerer had its expanded spell list from its UA version removed. I don't know if it's still good or not though, I am admittedly not the type to play full casters. I do whoever think that Sun Soul is on the weak side when it was published I struggled to think what it could do that a Longbow wielding Wood Elf PHB subclass monk could not, besides spend KI on burning hands.

The other options I do think are average, beisdes Bladesinger being a great defensive Wizard option Arcana Cleric being the real stand out.

Storm's average as far as I'm concerned... compared with the PHB subclasses, a bit weaker than Draconic, but I'd prefer it above Wild Magic. The free disengage (without having to spend an action), elemental resistances, extra damage: it's nice enough. Sun Soul is indeed a tad weaker than Shadow and Open Hand (though I'd prefer it above 4e), while Long Death is on par with Shadow and Open Hand afaic.

It could have been a tad stronger, I agree though, and I feel with the sentiment that the 3 subclasses that are seriously left behind are a bit of a pity, since their concepts are cool. Oh well.

[ad_hoc]

I would heavily disagree with your characterization. Despite them being variant rules for simplicity, feats and multiclassing being on the table is the default assumption for all forums (you have to specify "No feats" or "No multiclassing" or dips and feats will come up), and there are no statistics out there I know of to corroborate either way for tables, but I'm inclined to think that most groups run with the full rules.

Mearls has stated that less than half of all tables use feats.

While I haven't seen Mearls or Crawford give an exact number for multiclassing I have gotten the feeling that it is similar or even lower (anecdotally I have seen feats more common than multiclassing too).

The full rules does not include feats and multiclassing. They are optional modules that can be added to the game. They aren't 'taken away'.


Adventurer's League rules allow feats and multiclass builds. Given that AL is a game that anyone can join and acts as a baseline for most open tables, it's going to be WAY WAY WAY more than half of all games that allow multiclass.


Right but AL probably comprises 1% or so of all 5e tables so it is essentially meaningless for this discussion.

I bet the vast majority of tables both don't care about AL and have no idea what the rules are.

[Fable Wright]

Right but AL probably comprises 1% or so of all 5e tables so it is essentially meaningless for this discussion.

I bet the vast majority of tables both don't care about AL and have no idea what the rules are.

By my estimate, 29% of DMs wear green hats on Fridays, 3% of tables are actually playing Ogres and Oubliettes, and 12% of players started their first campaign in a tavern.

See how meaningless statements are even if you attach a made up number to them?

There is one source of hard numbers, though. The company with the most skin in the race, who went to exhaustive effort to get the most statistically valid set of data about their player base.

Not to beat a dead horse, but here's what they said:



In terms of overall content, feats were far and away the most requested new element. Over 70 percent of you want more feats for your game. Feats also had the least opposition to their expansion.*


Mearls is saying things that directly contradict the survey. I don't believe him.

[Emongnome777]

By my estimate, 29% of DMs wear green hats on Fridays, 3% of tables are actually playing Ogres and Oubliettes, and 12% of players started their first campaign in a tavern.

See how meaningless statements are even if you attach a made up number to them?

There is one source of hard numbers, though. The company with the most skin in the race, who went to exhaustive effort to get the most statistically valid set of data about their player base.

Not to beat a dead horse, but here's what they said:



Mearls is saying things that directly contradict the survey. I don't believe him.

How was this survey done? How do we know those that participated in the survey represent the whole gaming population? You reference this survey, but it doesn’t mean much if the surveyed group is only a specific subset. If it was taken from the website for instance, I’d say that isn’t representative of the gaming population as a whole. Just my opinion.

[GlenSmash!]

There is still a difference between players that answered a survey and all players. So while >70% of players who answer this survey would like more feats (me among them) WotC has still stated most players still don't use them. While they have never said how they got this data it's likely that at least some of it is gathered through D&D Beyond.

My own take is that my players can barely be bothered to crack open a book, and at least 2 of them would ask "What's a feat?" even though I allow feats.

[MaxWilson]

There is still a difference between players that answered a survey and all players. So while >70% of players who answer this survey would like more feats (me among them) WotC has still stated most players still don't use them.

"Most PCs don't take feats" != "most tables don't allow feats", especially considering how much play takes place at low levels when you have only 0 or 1 ASIs.

WotC data indicates that most PCs do not have a feat, but this doesn't say much about table rules. FWIW, my very first campaign in 5E as a player back in 2015 allowed feats, but I think only one person took one (Shield Master) because nobody else was sure if they were really worth it compared to boosting your prime stats. It wouldn't shock me if that sort of thing explained WotC's survey results.

[Fable Wright]

How was this survey done? How do we know those that participated in the survey represent the whole gaming population? You reference this survey, but it doesn’t mean much if the surveyed group is only a specific subset. If it was taken from the website for instance, I’d say that isn’t representative of the gaming population as a whole. Just my opinion.

We do not, in the end, have the full details on how the survey was carried out. It was the big 2018 survey that was carried out by the same company that makes Magic: The Gathering, which annually generates around $1 billion in revenue and has biennial surveys in much the same manner. No survey is perfect, but at the moment it is the most authoritative one, and its stated goal was to get the most complete picture of D&D that the company could get.

It's a more complete data point than a possibly misinterpreted comment that one guy heard one developer say that one time late at night. If you have a better source for D&D stats, I'd love to hear about it! I have so many questions about the big data of the game.

[MaxWilson]

We do not, in the end, have the full details on how the survey was carried out. It was the big 2018 survey that was carried out by the same company that makes Magic: The Gathering, which annually generates around $1 billion in revenue and has biennial surveys in much the same manner. No survey is perfect, but at the moment it is the most authoritative one, and its stated goal was to get the most complete picture of D&D that the company could get.

It's a more complete data point than a possibly misinterpreted comment that one guy heard one developer say that one time late at night. If you have a better source for D&D stats, I'd love to hear about it! I have so many questions about the big data of the game.

Here are some interesting stats from D&D Beyond: https://www.enworld.org/threads/here-are-the-most-popular-d-d-feats-war-caster-leads-the-pack.666137/

At low levels, 4% of D&D Beyond PCs have feats. At high levels, 57-58% of D&D Beyond PCs have feats.

[Yunru]

It wouldn't shock me if that sort of thing explained WotC's survey results.Especially given how much the number of characters with feats spiked from level 12 onwards.

[RickAllison]

Mearls has stated that less than half of all tables use feats.

While I haven't seen Mearls or Crawford give an exact number for multiclassing I have gotten the feeling that it is similar or even lower (anecdotally I have seen feats more common than multiclassing too).

The full rules does not include feats and multiclassing. They are optional modules that can be added to the game. They aren't 'taken away'.



Right but AL probably comprises 1% or so of all 5e tables so it is essentially meaningless for this discussion.

I bet the vast majority of tables both don't care about AL and have no idea what the rules are.

That stat was based off data extracted from D&D Beyond and the characters that were created using the site, which skews us in several ways. It tells literally nothing about the tables playing D&D. I don't mean that as an exaggeration, these stats are about the characters, not the tables. So it is not that less than half of all tables use feats, it is that less than half of the characters used feats. Which isn't hard when 90% of said characters are below level 10 and that is heavily leaning toward the lower levels, which are the levels with the lowest probability of having feats.

First, that includes all the level 1-3 characters which, if they aren't variant humans (which, as of a more recent sampling, comprised 4% of characters), can't take feats yet, and so all of the characters at those levels hold no significance in terms of determining whether feats are allowed. Because, I can't stress this enough, anyone who doesn't make a variant human can't. I'm also going to guess that these numbers aren't very representative because there are likely a number of people who tried DDB out, decided they didn't want to do it, and so they have basic characters which are just hanging around, bringing down the average.

Second, there is the nature of choosing ASIs vs feats, which is especially important before your primary stat is maxed out. There are very few casters who are going to take War Caster, Spell Sniper, or Resilient (Con) before their casting stat is maxed. Weapon characters are generally in a similar place unless their fighting style relies on a feat. Assuming point-buy or rolls that are roughly in line with that, very few people are going to take a feat at level 4 either because they are going to be boosting their primary stat. At levels 6 (fighter ASI) and 8, we get a more general curving out as we approach maximum for the primary stat. Exceptions to the general rule are probably going to be PAM, Sharpshooter, Shield Master, GWM, and other build-defining feats, as well as half-feats which bring a stat to even. The stats even reflect this! Levels 4-7, we see a raise in characters with feats up to 34%, which is actually higher than I would have expected. Once we get to level 8, the gap lessens even more to 49%; at this level, a non-fighter point-buy with a favorable race (+2 bonus) can have a maxed stat and also a half-feat, fighters have had three ASIs and certainly have maxed their stat, and now will be looking for feats unless they really need more Con. At 12+ it is a majority, as would be expected once everyone, even the races which have no bonus for your primary stat, have maxed it.

Third, there is a difference between a player not choosing to use feats or multiclassing for their character, and being at a table where it's not allowed. Multiclassing in general is a bit of a rarity even when permitted because most of the time it is better to just stay in your class. Multiclasses tend to be for specific purposes that a single-class character can't adequately fit. And for feats, not everyone needs them. A Paladin or Monk have two stats they will be running off of, while various subclasses and combat styles of other classes will have a secondary ability score they will want to raise second. Even when feats are allowed, a sword-and-board Eldritch Knight or an Arcane Trickster may not take a feat because they spend other ASIs on the casting stat until much higher levels.

Fourth, this is restricted to people using D&D Beyond for their character sheets. D&D Beyond. So by default, you are restricted to Firearms Specialist (Critical Role?), Grappler (and who is taking that???), and Svirnefblin Magic which is restricted to one race. Forgive me if I doubt the reliability of stats coming from a severe minority of players who would rather create their sheets on that website after having to pay for content they likely already own.

As for multiclassing, we do have some stats from Beyond for that too. 11% of active characters of level 2+ were multiclassed, with exact compositions ranging from 32-33% for fighters and rogues down to 8% for druids. And again, this doesn't count level 1 characters for obvious reasons.

[Zuras]

Level 3 is when the Fighter gets their core subclass ability.

And the Banneret's is terrible compared to what other subclasses get.

It isn't Mass Healing Word - it can't revive a character from 0.

I wouldn't call level 7 an 'earlier' level either for the Persuasion Expertise. 7 is the last level that I care about when looking at what a character will get. Everything after that I'm both not playing long enough to use much and have played too much already to have counted on.

The fact that it only works if they can hear you is what makes PDK terrible. The healing is a tiny amount, as well. Compared to what the other Fighter Subclasses get, it’s abysmal. My son tried one in Adventurers’ League, where you are allowed to rebuild your character between sessions up to 5th level.

He tried PDK for one session, and Rallying Cry did absolutely nothing for him. Tried Battle Master next week and killed a Goblin with a riposte in his first round of combat.

Inspiring Surge should have been the 3rd level ability for the PDK to be competitive at all.

[RickAllison]

The fact that it only works if they can hear you is what makes PDK terrible. The healing is a tiny amount, as well. Compared to what the other Fighter Subclasses get, it’s abysmal. My son tried one in Adventurers’ League, where you are allowed to rebuild your character between sessions up to 5th level.

He tried PDK for one session, and Rallying Cry did absolutely nothing for him. Tried Battle Master next week and killed a Goblin with a riposte in his first round of combat.

Inspiring Surge should have been the 3rd level ability for the PDK to be competitive at all.

See or hear you, but the point is moot. It loses the biggest utility of healing, which is to get people up, and which is really the main way that the ability could be worth it. Frankly, it's beaten out by any other fighter packing Inspiring Leader.

[Yunru]

See or hear you, but the point is moot. It loses the biggest utility of healing, which is to get people up, and which is really the main way that the ability could be worth it. Frankly, it's beaten out by any other fighter packing Inspiring Leader.Even if it could pick people up, it risks overflow if you use it on someone near full health unlike Inspiring Leader, and risks the downed person missing their turn, unlike Inspiring Leader.

Now if Second Wind and it were both changed to be THP, it might be better (although even then Inspiring Leader would affect more of the party).

[Zuras]

Mastermind: Also weaker. It's a class built around social stuff and enabling other party members when it is part of the class that should be the one being enabled. That being said, a social/intrigue game could see it being put to good use, and if Unearthed Arcana is allowed then the Historian feat combos extremely well. But in most games, you'd be better off with a familiar to do this job instead.

You can take Magic Initiate, get a Familiar, and give out Advantage twice a round. I have a rogue that does that and it’s quite effective, at least in Tier 1 play.

[Yunru]

Mastermind: Also weaker. It's a class built around social stuff and enabling other party members when it is part of the class that should be the one being enabled. That being said, a social/intrigue game could see it being put to good use, and if Unearthed Arcana is allowed then the Historian feat combos extremely well. But in most games, you'd be better off with a familiar to do this job instead.

No no no, they always come in pairs: The mastermind and the apprenticemind :P
But for real, two Masterminds get a lot more out of it than just one does.

[RickAllison]

No no no, they always come in pairs: The mastermind and the apprenticemind :P
But for real, two Masterminds get a lot more out of it than just one does.

Oh god, dual Masterminds, just passing each other advantage for days XD

[SpawnOfMorbo]

We do not, in the end, have the full details on how the survey was carried out. It was the big 2018 survey that was carried out by the same company that makes Magic: The Gathering, which annually generates around $1 billion in revenue and has biennial surveys in much the same manner. No survey is perfect, but at the moment it is the most authoritative one, and its stated goal was to get the most complete picture of D&D that the company could get.

It's a more complete data point than a possibly misinterpreted comment that one guy heard one developer say that one time late at night. If you have a better source for D&D stats, I'd love to hear about it! I have so many questions about the big data of the game.

Side note, my wife does stats and psych for a Ph.D and she saw the surveys for WotC D&D and said they were trash at actually giving anyone useful data, mostly because there's too many variables for the "why" and so WotC aleays goes off faulty information.

Basically, we both could give the same answer for two oposite reasons.

Just thought I would throw that out there.

[Yunru]

Side note, my wife does stats and psych for a Ph.D and she saw the surveys for WotC D&D and said they were trash at actually giving anyone useful data, mostly because there's too many variables for the "why" and so WotC aleays goes off faulty information.

Basically, we both could give the same answer for two oposite reasons.

Just thought I would throw that out there.

And it's also not a competitive hobby like MtG is, so there's no "top 10" or so to look at and see if they need to add variance either.

[ad_hoc]

We do not, in the end, have the full details on how the survey was carried out. It was the big 2018 survey that was carried out by the same company that makes Magic: The Gathering, which annually generates around $1 billion in revenue and has biennial surveys in much the same manner. No survey is perfect, but at the moment it is the most authoritative one, and its stated goal was to get the most complete picture of D&D that the company could get.

It's a more complete data point than a possibly misinterpreted comment that one guy heard one developer say that one time late at night. If you have a better source for D&D stats, I'd love to hear about it! I have so many questions about the big data of the game.

But the one you linked to was posted in 2016.

Then, a couple years later, I believe after the big survey was done (where they received 3 times their target number of responses and had to close it early), we have Mearls saying that less than half of all tables use feats.


That stat was based off data extracted from D&D Beyond and the characters that were created using the site, which skews us in several ways.

Mearls never said it was from Beyond.

They have surveys of a ton of players, way more than who play Beyond.

I trust Mearls' data over those publicly available D&D Beyond demographics that we've seen which I am skeptical of as you are.


Side note, my wife does stats and psych for a Ph.D and she saw the surveys for WotC D&D and said they were trash at actually giving anyone useful data, mostly because there's too many variables for the "why" and so WotC aleays goes off faulty information.

Basically, we both could give the same answer for two oposite reasons.

Just thought I would throw that out there.

But what if they're taking broad demographic data and don't care about the 'why'.

I'm sure your wife does a good job, but I also bet that WotC have also hired stats professionals to write surveys for them which will give them the data that they want.

[RickAllison]

But the one you linked to was posted in 2016.

Then, a couple years later, I believe after the big survey was done (where they received 3 times their target number of responses and had to close it early), we have Mearls saying that less than half of all tables use feats.



Mearls never said it was from Beyond.

They have surveys of a ton of players, way more than who play Beyond.

I trust Mearls' data over those publicly available D&D Beyond demographics that we've seen which I am skeptical of as you are.



But what if they're taking broad demographic data and don't care about the 'why'.

I'm sure your wife does a good job, but I also bet that WotC have also hired stats professionals to write surveys for them which will give them the data that they want.

Could you just quote whatever podcast this was? Because so far all you have offered is saying that Mearls said it once, but the only other record I can find of him saying this is you stating this same thing on the ENWorld forums

[ad_hoc]

Could you just quote whatever podcast this was? Because so far all you have offered is saying that Mearls said it once, but the only other record I can find of him saying this is you stating this same thing on the ENWorld forums

He talked about it in a Happy Fun Hour.

I'm fine with you not believing me.

Really though, it shouldn't be hard to believe that less than half of tables use an optional rules module. That's just common sense to me.

[SpawnOfMorbo]

But what if they're taking broad demographic data and don't care about the 'why'.

When you ask "is this class better than this other class", everyone could say yes but mean completely oposite things.

Maybe people like that class A is strong than class B. Maybe people don't like non-casters and class B is a non-caster. Maybe some people's optimization levels are different for the classes? What if a bunch of people are all saying "yes" but yes is good to a lot and yes is bad to others?

Essentially, their questions were always so vague that it looks just like the type of servey someone will put out if they don't know how to collect data from a servey OR if they just want to give the perception of collecting data (plenty companies do this when they want to show productivity and they already have a solution).

The only things those serveys really told WotC is that "x number of people like Y" but everything comparing one thing to another was trash. Especially the balanced questions, even I was like "you learn nothing from these".

[RickAllison]

He talked about it in a Happy Fun Hour.

I'm fine with you not believing me.

Really though, it shouldn't be hard to believe that less than half of tables use an optional rules module. That's just common sense to me.

Less so when it is a rules module that was in the core book, has a history of being a key part of character customization, and that surveys from multiple sources have reported more than majority support of people using them. Try to see it from the perspective that there are multiple data packets being shown supporting the prolific nature of feats, while the only support we have against that is hearsay. Like, even doing a search, all I found about your hearsay was you talking about it on a different forum. And even knowing the name of the podcast, what I'm finding instead is Mearls talking about doing an episode devoted to feat design, which does not exactly support your claim.

[Fable Wright]

He talked about it in a Happy Fun Hour.

I'm fine with you not believing me.

Really though, it shouldn't be hard to believe that less than half of tables use an optional rules module. That's just common sense to me.

Strictly speaking, all maps of all kinds are purely optional for D&D. I've still yet to see a group that never broke out a sheet of paper to draw out a basic grid at some point or other for positioning.

Strictly speaking, all magic items are entirely optional. I've still yet to see a table where no one in the party has one after level 8.

If someone told me that Mike Mearls once said on an uncited video that fewer than half of all tables used magic items, or that more than 50% of all groups went purely theater of the mind, I'd tell them that they were nuts and probably wildly misconstruing the statement.

Likewise, I will disbelieve that fewer than half of all tables are using feats at all, no matter how reputable that video of that guy you know that you just can't find right now sounded at the time.

[GlenSmash!]

"Most PCs don't take feats" != "most tables don't allow feats", especially considering how much play takes place at low levels when you have only 0 or 1 ASIs. Very true. my own table is evidence of that.


WotC data indicates that most PCs do not have a feat, but this doesn't say much about table rules. FWIW, my very first campaign in 5E as a player back in 2015 allowed feats, but I think only one person took one (Shield Master) because nobody else was sure if they were really worth it compared to boosting your prime stats. It wouldn't shock me if that sort of thing explained WotC's survey results.

It's possible. Probably even. I almost always like a feat that offers more bonus action options, as I don't really player casters or rogues and I tend to have limited options for those. I find my characters get more out of improved action economy than +2 to main stat. But our Warlock, Druid and Rogue haven't taken any feats and probably won't since our campaign is likely to end before 12.

I am aware that I am a statistical outlier.



Side note, my wife does stats and psych for a Ph.D and she saw the surveys for WotC D&D and said they were trash at actually giving anyone useful data, mostly because there's too many variables for the "why" and so WotC aleays goes off faulty information.

Basically, we both could give the same answer for two oposite reasons.

Just thought I would throw that out there.

I've also found several of the surveys to be a bit lackluster. I'll type out my reasons in the text box they usually have at the end, but I very much doubt anyone is sifting through those beyond a few keyword checks.

Far easier to aggregate the multiple choice options.

[GlenSmash!]

I'm finding instead is Mearls talking about doing an episode devoted to feat design, which does not exactly support your claim.

Probably because it was Crawford, not Mearls https://twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/969020122177331200

Again though he says players not using feats and doesn't say tables not allowing feats.

[LudicSavant]

Yeesh. I was writing a comment about the Banneret, but somehow I get the sense that this thread isn't about that anymore. :smallconfused:

[MaxWilson]

Essentially, their questions were always so vague that it looks just like the type of servey someone will put out if they don't know how to collect data from a servey OR if they just want to give the perception of collecting data (plenty companies do this when they want to show productivity and they already have a solution).

Another reason for putting out surveys is to increase brand loyalty: studies show that if I ask you to e.g. rate my camera on a scale of 1-5 for its various qualities (all of which are good), it will increase your chances of buying that camera EVEN IF other cameras are even better. Surveys can focus attention where the corporation wants it focused. (Source: Robert Cialdini's book Pre-Suasion, highly recommended.)

I totally believe you that WotC's surveys are of low analytical value. The UA surveys that I've seen sure haven't been impressive. WotC doesn't give the impression they even know what they want to measure.


It's possible. Probably even. I almost always like a feat that offers more bonus action options, as I don't really player casters or rogues and I tend to have limited options for those. I find my characters get more out of improved action economy than +2 to main stat. But our Warlock, Druid and Rogue haven't taken any feats and probably won't since our campaign is likely to end before 12.

I am aware that I am a statistical outlier.

I agree! Now that I know more about 5E, both the rules and the typical stats of monsters, I can see that a good bonus action like a Crossbow Expert attack is worth far more than an extra +1 to your prime stat, especially at low levels. But to a new player who barely even knows what a "bonus action" is, and maybe isn't aware yet that you can't have more than one bonus action per turn... there's a lot of uncertainty to feats, and you don't know whether it's a good deal or not. Risk aversion might explain the low feat prevalence at low levels: giving up a sure, small gain for an uncertain benefit is something that we know typical human beings are psychologically unlikely to do.

[stoutstien]

Yeesh. I was writing a comment about the Banneret, but somehow I get the sense that this thread isn't about that anymore. :smallconfused:
Idk of you have found a case where it isn't bad I'd like to hear it ☺️

[MaxWilson]

Idk of you have found a case where it isn't bad I'd like to hear it ☺️

Depends what you mean by "bad". Purple Dragon Knight/Banneret makes a nice, simple fighter, less fiddly than the Champion and with better social skills, and you can run a one-shot with three Knights of the Round Table (PDKs) and Merlin (Land Druid) and they will still have a blast beating up monsters and healing each other (and solving riddles and negotiating with monsters). In that scenario it isn't bad at all.

The baseline Fighter chassis is strong enough that PDKs are still fun. It's just that mechanically you'd get more raw power out of any subclass that isn't the Champion or Arcane Archer. Don't play PDK if your goal is to make the game as mechanically easy as possible for yourself.

[LudicSavant]

Idk of you have found a case where it isn't bad I'd like to hear it ☺️

Alas, I was just going to break down why I think it's a turkey with examples of how to outperform it at its own game. You know, stuff like how the Samurai can actually make a better party face than it (since they get their bonus proficiency 4 levels earlier, and their Persuasion-boosting ability can actually stack with Expertise, and they're basically a feat ahead of schedule for combat relevance thanks to their Wisdom save proficiency and therefore can afford to take Prodigy or something if they're so inclined). Or how Battle Master or Eldritch Knight can provide more support.

Like Max says the PDK is still going to be playable because the Fighter core is decent enough, but saying a class is playable is like saying food is edible. This ain't the mechanical equivalent of a 3 Michelin star restaurant, is all I'm sayin'. :smalltongue:

[MaxWilson]

Alas, I was just going to break down why I think it's a turkey with examples of how to outperform it at its own game. You know, stuff like how the Samurai can actually make a better party face than it (since they get their bonus proficiency 3 levels earlier, and their Persuasion-boosting ability can actually stack with Expertise, and they're basically a feat ahead of schedule for combat relevance thanks to their Wisdom save proficiency and therefore can afford to take Prodigy or something if they're so inclined). Or how Battle Master or Eldritch Knight can provide more support.

Like Max says the PDK is still going to be playable because the Fighter core is decent enough, but saying a class is playable is like saying food is edible. This ain't the mechanical equivalent of a 3 Michelin star restaurant, is all I'm sayin'. :smalltongue:

You're not wrong, but I have more to say so I will.

I'd rate it highly for simplicity. There's nothing you can do with a Battlemaster that will make it simpler than a PDK. You'll always be fiddling with your maneuver dice and optimal maneuvers to learn (Riposte, Precision Strike, Commander's Strike?) and which dice to spend on what maneuvers. The PDK can give you a pretty good experience out of the box, and you still get to heal your buddies and give people extra attacks at roughly the same efficiency as an equivalent Battlemaster. (Plus, you can help people pass some extra saves, which I don't think the Battlemaster can do at all.)

It might not be a 5-star restaurant or custom-tailored suit, but it's a pretty decent off-the-rack suit that you can buy if you want to look nice and don't know or care much about custom tailoring.

[Nhorianscum]

So I know tier 4 doesn't matter (which begs the question: why are people mentioning pre tier 4 sam?)

That said. PDK gets to toss out a nice 100+ damage with no personal action cost 2/SR in tier 4 when supporting a pair of AT's . It's definitely decent.

Edit: The big complaint for PDK isn't that it has a bad tier 2, 3, or 4. It's tier 1. In tier 1 we pretty much get only second wind+ which is... actually pretty great. Every time I've used this skill to self heal it has pushed at least one party member out of ORKO range at 0 action cost. As I prefer to play in wide magic or AL settings the low number of "buttons" on the sub is... irrelevant. Magic items give better bang for my buck power and action economy wise anywho.

TL:DR The main selling point of PDK is that its features cost nothing. Nada. Zip. Zilch in terms of the defining optimization mechanic. Is it the best sub? No. EK exists. That said it's not significantly worse than non-EK fighters in published books and it has some qualities that are somewhat unique in terms of char OP space. I'd give it a try before slamming it.

Edit again: In terms of 1-20 simple playability and the class delivering what it promises I'll agree that PDK is low key... just really stellar game design.

[Monster Manuel]

I'd rate it highly for simplicity. There's nothing you can do with a Battlemaster that will make it simpler than a PDK.

You know, that is an excellent point.

I was about to post a Battlemaster build with the Rally and Commander's Strike maneuvers, and the Prodigy feat, and argue that you've got about 9/10ths of what the Banneret can do, on top of the rest of your Battlebaster abilities. But, looking at it from MaxWilson's perspective, it's also true that if you WANTED a battlemaster with those abilities, but didn't want to have to be fiddly about building one, here, have a PDN. It'll get you 9/10ths of the way there, with no hassle.

Compared to the Champion fighter, which was meant as a kind of plug-and-play insta-character for people with other things to do besides chargen, I think you could make that argument for the PDN/Banneret as well. Want to play a courtly knight who leads his troops in glorious battle? Human, PDN, noble background. Standard array stats, Str > Con > Cha > whatever. Take starting equipment, done. You've got a perfectly playable character that checks all your boxes.

I think this is the strongest defense you can make for this guy, not that he's really as strong as the other options, but that he does what he needs to do well enough without the complexity of the other options.

[LudicSavant]

You're not wrong, but I have more to say so I will.

I'd rate it highly for simplicity. There's nothing you can do with a Battlemaster that will make it simpler than a PDK. You'll always be fiddling with your maneuver dice and optimal maneuvers to learn (Riposte, Precision Strike, Commander's Strike?) and which dice to spend on what maneuvers. The PDK can give you a pretty good experience out of the box, and you still get to heal your buddies and give people extra attacks at roughly the same efficiency as an equivalent Battlemaster. (Plus, you can help people pass some extra saves, which I don't think the Battlemaster can do at all.)

It might not be a 5-star restaurant or custom-tailored suit, but it's a pretty decent off-the-rack suit that you can buy if you want to look nice and don't know or care much about custom tailoring.

It's an interesting point to discuss. I can appreciate the niche of offering something that is simple and "plug'n'play," yet doesn't offer the most optimized experience. However, I think the PDK could stand to have some improvement in terms of that kind of design, too.

Let me paint you a picture of a player who wanted something simple and supporty in their Fighter. Someone rather unlike me (I'm more the sort to prefer the 'custom-tailored suit' as you put it, though I can appreciate the appeal of things like Champion to others). They play a PDK, and have an experience like this: "Well, I failed my save, but maybe I should save my Indomitable until I can use Bulwark. I'll just suffer through this failed save. And this one. And this one. Gotta think of supporting my allies, after all. Oh, okay, now we're both getting targeted with saves and we both failed! Oh wait, it wasn't mental, okay. Okay, now the DM is feeling bad and is explicitly trying to give me a chance to shine and had the enemy target me and an ally with an AoE mental save! And my ally failed the save! Time to save them! Wait... what do you mean I made the save, so I can't make my ally reroll it?"

This sort of thing continues. They end the adventure having never actually used their Bulwark to successfully change an outcome. Let's just say they are not very happy with the experience.

I feel like the devs may not have even registered that "you can reroll an ally's save a number of times per day equal to your Indomitable uses" and "you can reroll an ally's save when you use Indomitable on a save you failed" are quite different in value.

Also, if the design goal was really friendly plug and play design, a few of the design choices don't seem quite on the mark to me. For example, a player with Rallying Cry has to think about whether they want to use their Second Wind in situations where a Fighter would normally use it, or hold off until everyone else has taken some damage too (or vice versa, where everyone's taken a little damage but they wouldn't get much out of the larger self heal). And if they use it early, they might feel a sense of loss aversion (similar to the player who didn't want to use Indomitable when they couldn't benefit from Bulwark). The Champion intentionally has no such decision points.

I also get the sense that a lot of things players expect or want to work... don't work, and that this leads to disappointing experiences for those players as their expectations or desires are dashed. For example, the Banneret inspiring the fallen man to get back up on his feet doesn't work. Why the heck not? That seems like a rather iconic part of the banneret fantasy, a trope we've seen over and over, and it wouldn't add any complexity or anything.

[Guy Lombard-O]

Enchanter casting Feeblemind and twinning it would do it. Not exactly something you'll run into frequently and it would be questionable to target the Fighter as part of that twin, but you wrote "literally nothing" so I had to think of a counter-example.

For a more straightforward example: Synaptic Static.

[MaxWilson]

It's an interesting point to discuss. I can appreciate the niche of offering something that is simple and "plug'n'play," yet doesn't offer the most optimized experience. However, I think the PDK could stand to have some improvement in terms of that kind of design, too.

Let me paint you a picture of a player who wanted something simple and supporty in their Fighter. Someone rather unlike me (I'm more the sort to prefer the 'custom-tailored suit' as you put it, though I can appreciate the appeal of things like Champion to others). They play a PDK, and have an experience like this: "Well, I failed my save, but maybe I should save my Indomitable until I can use Bulwark. I'll just suffer through this failed save. And this one. And this one. Gotta think of supporting my allies, after all. Oh, okay, now we're both getting targeted with saves and we both failed! Oh wait, it wasn't mental, okay. Okay, now the DM is feeling bad and is explicitly trying to give me a chance to shine and had the enemy target me and an ally with an AoE mental save! And my ally failed the save! Time to save them! Wait... what do you mean I made the save, so I can't make my ally reroll it?"

This sort of thing continues. They end the adventure having never actually used their Bulwark to successfully change an outcome. Let's just say they are not very happy with the experience.

I feel like the devs may not have even registered that "you can reroll an ally's save a number of times per day equal to your Indomitable uses" and "you can reroll an ally's save when you use Indomitable on a save you failed" are quite different in value.

You're arguing that the fighter could be made simpler? Oh, I 100% agree there. If it were up to me the base Fighter chassis wouldn't even have Second Wind or Indomitable on it--Action Surge is all the resource management I want a player to have to deal with, when he's looking for a non-fiddly experience. Instead of Indomitable, just give +3 bonus to all saves.


Also, if the design goal was really friendly plug and play design, a few of the design choices don't seem quite on the mark to me. For example, a player with Rallying Cry has to think about whether they want to use their Second Wind in situations where a Fighter would normally use it, or hold off until everyone else has taken some damage too (or vice versa, where everyone's taken a little damage but they wouldn't get much out of the larger self heal). And if they use it early, they might feel a sense of loss aversion (similar to the player who didn't want to use Indomitable when they couldn't benefit from Bulwark). The Champion intentionally has no such decision points.

I also get the sense that a lot of things players expect or want to work... don't work, and that this leads to disappointing experiences for those players as their expectations or desires are dashed. For example, the Banneret inspiring the fallen man to get back up on his feet doesn't work. Why the heck not? That seems like a rather iconic part of the banneret fantasy, a trope we've seen over and over, and it wouldn't add any complexity or anything.

RE: this part, the Healer feat theoretically would work really well with PDKs. Healer: healing kit action to bring them back to 1 HP, then a bonus action Second Wind to boost them up to 11ish HP.

However, from a fluff point of view I don't think it's a problem that you can't shout someone back to consciousness. You call it an "iconic part of banneret fantasy, a trope we've seen over and over" but if you're referring to war movies and stuff, I have never seen this trope happen to an unconscious person, only to a discouraged person. It might be more iconic for Bannerets to get to end Fear on one target as a bonus action (no resource cost), which is something I actually do see in movies.

What would really be iconic though is the ability to boost NPC morale, but 5E unlike AD&D has no Morale stat for monsters or NPCs and barely has Morale rules (optional rules in the DMG for Wisdom save-based morale checks), and for whatever reason the PDK chose not to interact with those rules.

[Yunru]

You're arguing that the fighter could be made simpler? Oh, I 100% agree there. If it were up to me the base Fighter chassis wouldn't even have Second Wind or Indomitable on it--Action Surge is all the resource management I want a player to have to deal with, when he's looking for a non-fiddly experience. Instead of Indomitable, just give +3 bonus to all saves.

You quote an entire paragraph talking solely about PDK features, and then respond in reference to the base Fighter? O.o

[MaxWilson]

You quote an entire paragraph talking solely about PDK features, and then respond in reference to the base Fighter? O.o

By "features" you mean "a feature," right? Bulwark.

I quoted stuff that I agreed with, and said so. LudicSavant: I agree, the PDK's rules are needlessly complex and often counterintuitive, and Bulwark is the worst of the lot.

P.S. As a DM I'd say that not letting a fighter use Indomitable (therefore Bulwark) on a successful save, if he wants to, would be a jerk move.

[GlenSmash!]

the PDK's rules are needlessly complex and often counterintuitive.

Should just multi-class it with the Beastmaster then.

[SpawnOfMorbo]

Y'all inspired me to make my own Purple Dragon Knight subclass.

http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?598316-Purple-Dragon-Knight-Revised&p=24153349#post24153349

It's not the best but I threw it together rather fast.

Edit: Aparently I forgot that fighters get a subclass feature at 15 lol

[RickAllison]

Chatting with Jeremy Crawford right now on a livestream where he's answering questions on the UA.

Being unconscious doesn't deafen you.
Seriously.

Therefore, Undeniable Logic can grant Advantage on a Death Save.

This was for the most recent UA dealing with giving Bardic Inspiration to an unconscious creature, but this actually buffs the Banneret! Since Rallying Cry only needs them to see or hear you and apparently an unconscious creature can still hear, you can pull the classic Call of Duty scene of the Banneret sergeant yelling at the PC not to die yet.

[MaxWilson]

This was for the most recent UA dealing with giving Bardic Inspiration to an unconscious creature, but this actually buffs the Banneret! Since Rallying Cry only needs them to see or hear you and apparently an unconscious creature can still hear, you can pull the classic Call of Duty scene of the Banneret sergeant yelling at the PC not to die yet.

Sure, if Jeremy Crawford is DMing.

[RickAllison]

Sure, if Jeremy Crawford is DMing.

It's something at least. Maybe that can get to an actual Sage Advice at some point. It would give the Banneret a much-needed buff.

[KorvinStarmast]

I'd have preferred to see this thread go into how to get the most out of the PDK, rather than the series of posts slamming that archetype. If one is trying to optimize a given sub class, it isn't necessary to go on and on about how a different class is better, etc.

Can we get back to that?

How to get the most out of the PDK?

[SpawnOfMorbo]

How to get the most out of the PDK?

Simple.

By not taking the subclass.

[KorvinStarmast]

By not taking the subclass. You seem to have missed the point I was trying to make.
It doesn't matter that a given sub class isn't perfect or as "awesome" as some other class and / or sub class. The point is that "getting the most out of this sub class" is a form of optimization. I'd suggest that there is enough brain power in the Playground to tackle that challenge instead of dismissing the OP's intent.

[Amechra]

I'd have preferred to see this thread go into how to get the most out of the PDK, rather than the series of posts slamming that archetype. If one is trying to optimize a given sub class, it isn't necessary to go on and on about how a different class is better, etc.

Can we get back to that?

How to get the most out of the PDK?

Thing is? There really isn't anything to optimize here, other than "make a Fighter the way you would normally". Unless you count "beg at least one other player to play a class that gets strong weapon attacks, like a Rogue or Paladin". Other than a very situational heal (which solely scales with your Fighter level, so no tricks there) and "expertise in a single specific skill", you don't get anything that could be potentially fiddled around with until 10th level.

There's nothing to work with here.

[LudicSavant]

It's something at least. Maybe that can get to an actual Sage Advice at some point. It would give the Banneret a much-needed buff.

Unfortunately if JC said that you can hear while unconscious, he's contradicting what his rulebook says.

Per pg292, being unconscious makes you unaware of your surroundings. In English, the word hear means to become aware of by hearing. (https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/hear) More generally, the definition of perceive requires awareness, too (https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/perceive).

I would love to see the Banneret get such a buff, but as long as it's just some random comment in an interview it's like Max said. :smallfrown:

[RickAllison]

One possible optimization point is that with a two-level dip in Warlock for Tome (or Hexblade), you could have a primarily Charisma-leaning Fighter that is a good face.

[Fable Wright]

There's nothing to work with here.

Quoted for truth. With Champion, you at least have racial options and weapon choices to work around with your expanded crit range and fast healing below half. This? None of your abilities interact with anything on your character sheet, except the expertise. How do you optimize variables you can't touch?

EDIT:


One possible optimization point is that with a two-level dip in Warlock for Tome (or Hexblade), you could have a primarily Charisma-leaning Fighter that is a good face.

Three levels for Tome, OR you could do Hexblade 1/Rogue 1 (for the same Expertise PDK could give you)/Battlemaster 18.

Just as good of a face. But a much better Fighter.

[MaxWilson]

BTW, does the name "Purple Dragon Knight" remind anyone else here of Basil Broketail? Every time I hear it I think of the big, wild Purple Green dragon who fights in the dragon legion. He's almost literally a Purple Dragon Knight.


It's something at least. Maybe that can get to an actual Sage Advice at some point. It would give the Banneret a much-needed buff.

I think you'd need to actually revise the PHB text for the Unconscious condition. Frankly, unless Green Ronin says otherwise, I will continue suspect that the "see or hear" requirement on Rallying Cry was added specifically because to prevent PDKs from shouting PCs back into consciousness. Remember that Crawford didn't write the PDK rules.


Thing is? There really isn't anything to optimize here, other than "make a Fighter the way you would normally". Unless you count "beg at least one other player to play a class that gets strong weapon attacks, like a Rogue or Paladin". Other than a very situational heal (which solely scales with your Fighter level, so no tricks there) and "expertise in a single specific skill", you don't get anything that could be potentially fiddled around with until 10th level.

There's nothing to work with here.

I think there is something to work with. As mentioned upthread, there's a nice synergy between the Healer feat (go from 0 HP to 1 HP with an action, an unlimited number of times) and Second Wind (heal [fighter level] HP as a bonus action once per short rest, if able to see or hear). There's also a nice synergy between Inspiring Surge and big-weapon-damage attacks.

Therefore, a PDK is more appropriate than usual in a party where:

(1) You have at least one PC with the Healer feat, possibly the PDK themself;
(2) You have a ranged Rogue in the party, or a melee Rogue who is for some reason not using his reaction on Uncanny Dodge;
(3) You have somebody who likes to Polymorph PCs into gigantic creatures with huge attacks, like Brontosaurs or Giant Apes;
(4) You have an Eldritch Smite Bladelock, a smite-oriented Paladin, or a GWM/Sharpshooter in the party;
(5) You have a relatively high-AC party where 5-15 HP worth of healing goes farther than usual.

especially with some combination of the above.

Things an PDK can potentially do which synergize well with these kinds of parties:

(1) Take the Healer feat;
(2) Learn how to grapple/prone (e.g. Prodigy (Athletics)) so that those allies will have advantage on their big attacks, including the bonus attacks that you grant them;
(3) Play very aggressively and paint a big target on your armor so that enemies are motivated to attack you instead of your buddies.

...that's all I got, but it's not nothing.

[SpawnOfMorbo]

One possible optimization point is that with a two-level dip in Warlock for Tome (or Hexblade), you could have a primarily Charisma-leaning Fighter that is a good face.

So, you have the warlock doing a brunt of the work with support from the main class fighter while the build is being dragged down by the fighter subclass?

Optimizing the PDK means focusing on it, you aren't focusing on the PDK and with this MC, the PDK goes by the wayside and is still terriblr.

[Nhorianscum]

Healer has nothing on (Greater) Dragonmarks in terms of interaction with Rally/Surge

Ebberon Bannerettes are actually pretty good.

[Kane0]

Discreetly change the wording of your features when the DM isn't looking.

Rallying Cry: When you take the Attack action, you can forego your attack to allow one ally within 30 feet that can see and hear you to make one weapon attack. If you are able to make multiple attacks with the Attack action, this attack replaces one of them.

Inspiring Surge: When you use your Second Wind, Action Surge or Indomitable feature you can choose to also grant the same benefits of the feature to one ally within 30 feet that can see and hear you. Once you use this feature you cannot do so again until you finish a short or long rest.

Bulwark: As a bonus action you can rally up to three allied creatures within 60 feet that can see and hear you. These creatures can use their reaction to spend a number of hit die up to your Charisma modifier (minimum 1) and move up to half their speed. This movement does not provoke opportunity attacks. Once you use this feature you cannot do so again until you finish a short or long rest.

Bonus points if you can change the names too!

[Composer99]

BTW, does the name "Purple Dragon Knight" remind anyone else here of Basil Broketail? Every time I hear it I think of the big, wild Purple Green dragon who fights in the dragon legion. He's almost literally a Purple Dragon Knight.


I haven't read those books, but based on the majority of comments (... er, well, the ones that actually discussed the subclass instead of the near-derail over WoTC surveys), it seems like the PDK subclass ends up more like this purple dragon:

https://derpicdn.net/img/2016/8/27/1235027/large.png

[Jerrykhor]

Things an PDK can potentially do which synergize well with these kinds of parties:

(1) Take the Healer feat;
(2) Learn how to grapple/prone (e.g. Prodigy (Athletics)) so that those allies will have advantage on their big attacks, including the bonus attacks that you grant them;
(3) Play very aggressively and paint a big target on your armor so that enemies are motivated to attack you instead of your buddies.

...that's all I got, but it's not nothing.

It says a lot of how bad the Banneret is when the Battlemaster can literally do everything it can do and more at level 3.
1) BM can take Healer feat too
2) Trip attack
3) Goading attack
4) Have a rogue in your party? Commanders Strike and you get to keep your Action Surge. Win! Also, you don't have to wait til Lv10.

Or just play a Crown Paladin. Its the same fluff. Banneret is a nothing subclass. I dont enjoy bashing stuff but, it is what it is.

[Amechra]

I think there is something to work with. As mentioned upthread, there's a nice synergy between the Healer feat (go from 0 HP to 1 HP with an action, an unlimited number of times) and Second Wind (heal [fighter level] HP as a bonus action once per short rest, if able to see or hear). There's also a nice synergy between Inspiring Surge and big-weapon-damage attacks.

Therefore, a PDK is more appropriate than usual in a party where:

(1) You have at least one PC with the Healer feat, possibly the PDK themself;
(2) You have a ranged Rogue in the party, or a melee Rogue who is for some reason not using his reaction on Uncanny Dodge;
(3) You have somebody who likes to Polymorph PCs into gigantic creatures with huge attacks, like Brontosaurs or Giant Apes;
(4) You have an Eldritch Smite Bladelock, a smite-oriented Paladin, or a GWM/Sharpshooter in the party;
(5) You have a relatively high-AC party where 5-15 HP worth of healing goes farther than usual.

especially with some combination of the above.

Things an PDK can potentially do which synergize well with these kinds of parties:

(1) Take the Healer feat;
(2) Learn how to grapple/prone (e.g. Prodigy (Athletics)) so that those allies will have advantage on their big attacks, including the bonus attacks that you grant them;
(3) Play very aggressively and paint a big target on your armor so that enemies are motivated to attack you instead of your buddies.

...that's all I got, but it's not nothing.

Assuming Crawford is right about being able to use it on unconscious people (which, honestly, I disagree with, mostly because it feels really weird for unconscious people to still be able to hear), then Healer doesn't do anything extra for you. I will concede that I didn't notice that synergy, so I was wrong (or at least hyperbolic) when I said that there was nothing.

But the rest of it isn't meaningfully distinct from how you'd normally build a Fighter. Healer + Rallying Cry is really the only unique combo they've got - it's not like you have easy access to ways to improve other people's damage or anything. Honestly, 1/rest is just too seldom to really build around. Like, I'm legitimately surprised that Fighters don't get more uses of Second Wind.

[Nhorianscum]

It says a lot of how bad the Banneret is when the Battlemaster can literally do everything it can do and more at level 3.
1) BM can take Healer feat too
2) Trip attack
3) Goading attack
4) Have a rogue in your party? Commanders Strike and you get to keep your Action Surge. Win! Also, you don't have to wait til Lv10.

Or just play a Crown Paladin. Its the same fluff. Banneret is a nothing subclass. I dont enjoy bashing stuff but, it is what it is.

To address this.

1) Yeah. I'm also not sold on healer. For different reasons. (Just flipped through my notes on early modules/drop tables. We are in double digit healing potions tier1)
2) It's like a shove! Except we need to roll twice on an attack roll+Save instead of just shlapping with athletics. The extra die is nice? (It's great economy and a solid maneuver, it's just... not nearly as reliable as backhanding things)
3)(I actually like goading, confused why it's here)
4) Ok this is legit the worst of the "go hit a guy rouge" abilities as we're dropping 22 damage every time we use it. It comes earlier and is spamable but... yeah. We're just not using this before tier 3 for any productive reason. At level 11 we need to use this 3 times to deal more damage than one Surge+/Orders Demand and it is never a good Nova pick. It's not good. By the time Commanders becomes outright better than Surge+ we get to double tap. PDK has problems with being feature light but Surge+ and Second+ as stand alone ability's are honestly stellar.

(To defend Second+ it's adding a whopping 9 point heal at 3rd level on a BA. I see a lot of "optimal use" arguments against this ability. We're slapping 27ish hp down on the party a day. We can waste 12 points here and still be on par with aid. Who cares if we waste a bit. It also scales extremely well at 9 points/level. As for the whole "wake up" use... or not... who cares? Double digit healing pots tier 1. Non-Issue)

Assuming BM is to PDK as EK is to BM... yeah why are we talking about BM? EK can be built to yadda yadda replicate yadda yadda (but it's too busy swagteleporting and laughing because "get a maneuver that lets you fly scrub").

Assuming PDK is as bad as folks think (it's not) playing with bad-class-charOP is the true joy of charOP.

[RickAllison]

Assuming Crawford is right about being able to use it on unconscious people (which, honestly, I disagree with, mostly because it feels really weird for unconscious people to still be able to hear), then Healer doesn't do anything extra for you. I will concede that I didn't notice that synergy, so I was wrong (or at least hyperbolic) when I said that there was nothing.

But the rest of it isn't meaningfully distinct from how you'd normally build a Fighter. Healer + Rallying Cry is really the only unique combo they've got - it's not like you have easy access to ways to improve other people's damage or anything. Honestly, 1/rest is just too seldom to really build around. Like, I'm legitimately surprised that Fighters don't get more uses of Second Wind.

In defense of the hearing while unconscious, it's like when someone is woken up by a loud noise. You aren't aware in the sense that you can really process the information, but it can still wake you up.

[Skylivedk]

I think optimising this class is all about race choice and equipment. I've broken it down to a few steps

1) select Dragonborn
2) buy a warhorse, barding, armour, shield and a lance
3) buy a bucket of purple paint (might need some DM but in, or just rp the heck out of the persuasion. Otherwise, I think prestidigitation or swimmer OP asleep like that can help).
4) apply barding to horse, lance, shield and armour to yourself.
5) apply bucket of purple paint to yourself.
6) if you ran out of gold before you bought helmet, use bucket.

Result: you are now the Purplest Dragonest Knightest Fighter you can be. Triple helix optimisation!

If you have some weird other metric for specialisation, maybe take a glance at Inspiring Leader, Shield Master, Healer and Prodigy: Athletics. Thematically Glamour Bard is a good fit and would also give you Expertise. And more importantly you can be one while still being a very purple, very dragon, very knight, fighter.
(EDIT: typos... And forgot to add Healer to the list for the weird ones).

[Kane0]

And you're also a Dragonborn, one of the strongest races! Don't forget to take the Linguist feat to get maximum use of your Persuasion expertise...

[MaxWilson]

But the rest of it isn't meaningfully distinct from how you'd normally build a Fighter. Healer + Rallying Cry is really the only unique combo they've got - it's not like you have easy access to ways to improve other people's damage or anything. Honestly, 1/rest is just too seldom to really build around. Like, I'm legitimately surprised that Fighters don't get more uses of Second Wind.

Three remarks:

(1) Optimizing builds is one kind of optimization, but optimizing parties and optimizing tactics are other forms of optimization.

(2) A grappling specialization is in fact meaningfully distinct build from other kinds of fighters. It's not a Sharpshooter and it likely uses a shield at least some of the time instead of a greatsword with GWM or a halberd with GWM/PAM.

(3) The combo with rallying cry is 1/short rest, but Healer is not 1/short rest, it's unlimited, as long as you're only healing up to 1 HP. Every once in a while you can Healer + Rallying Cry to keep someone up for longer, but you do pop-up healing all day unless the DM has tweaked the rules to prevent it. (I think pop-up healing is stupid so I do in fact use negative HP, and this combo wouldn't work at my table.)

Does that make the PDK a mechanically archetype? Still no, but you're still optimizing something.

[GlenSmash!]

And you're also a Dragonborn, one of the strongest races! Don't forget to take the Linguist feat to get maximum use of your Persuasion expertise...

Don't we use blue text around here for stuff like this?

I hand to get to the "Linguist" part before I caught on.

[KorvinStarmast]

In defense of the hearing while unconscious, it's like when someone is woken up by a loud noise. You aren't aware in the sense that you can really process the information, but it can still wake you up. That's a nice way to look at this. I'll go with your defense of Crawford on this one.

[micahaphone]

Party-wide optimization of the banneret attempt:

Be a sword/shield frontliner with 2 rogue or paladin allies that attack in melee. The allies should be hill dwarves or take the Tough feat and/or have high Con so they have plenty of HP. Now you have allies that will stick in melee with you, can benefit from the healing you offer, and will nova off your action surge.

[Yunru]

with 2 rogue or paladin allies that attack in melee.

That's a weird way of saying Paladin 2/Arcane Trickster X :P

[Xihirli]

Ah yes. The DEX/CHA/INT/STR build.

[micahaphone]

Okay so convince your allies to spec heavily into massive burst damage, and be willing to use your heal at a mediocre situation, and you've got yourself a level 10 useful banneret