D&D (2024) Do you like the Purple Dragon Knight Subclass?

[Parmandur]

Agreed. This survey is just a "vibe check". They don't want to know what we think. No option for me to say "Purple Dragon Knight is OK but change the name!"

For the spellfire sorcery one, I rated the initial feature yellow and then told them I wanted them to revisit spellfire as supernatural gifts rather than as a subclass since not all spellfire users are spellcasters (e.g. the OG spellfire user, Shandril)!

I mean, there are Feats coming in the book...having a dedicated Sorcerer Subclass might not be the only place it pops up?

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Doesn't hurt to ask! I mean, supernatural gifts are still part of the game

As an optional rule that few people use.

 

[pukunui]

I mean, there are Feats coming in the book...having a dedicated Sorcerer Subclass might not be the only place it pops up?

Feats could work too. I'm not a big fan of feat chains, but the supernatural gifts only had three levels - a starter, a whole bunch of second tier ones, and then a single one that required the starter plus one other.

As for the PDK - I think I rated it yellow? I don't dislike it in theory, but I'm not a fan of pet classes in general, and I think they should change the name.

As an optional rule that few people use.

They're not presented as optional in either version of the DMG, and they do make appearances in numerous adventures as rewards. A bunch of creatures can give out charms as a feature in their stat blocks! That hardly seems optional.

How do you know few people use them?

 

[Parmandur]

As an optional rule that few people use.

They are presented more prominently and coherently in the new books.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

They are presented more prominently and coherently in the new books.

But they are still quest rewards, as an alternative to magic items. Not something a player can choose to build their character round.

 

[pukunui]

But they are still quest rewards, as an alternative to magic items. Not something a player can choose to build their character round.

I think you could easily choose to build a character who seeks to be blessed by a god or receive a magical charm from a supernatural being!

 

[Paul Farquhar]

I think you could easily choose to build a character who seeks to be blessed by a god or receive a magical charm from a supernatural being!

Only if you had an extremely co-operative DM.

 

[Parmandur]

Only if you had an extremely co-operative DM.

To be fair, the new DMG does suggest being a co-operative DM.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

If it was like "Dragon Warrior" or something, like, NOT a specific FR thing that already exists and most importantly IS NOT THIS!!!, I'd be kind of okay with it, but come on WotC, just don't just entirely reconceptualize something in what you claim is the same edition and time period and so on.

Only if you had an extremely co-operative DM.

Yeah I think there are a few people here who really overestimate how cooperative and unsuspicious and kindly most DMs, even decent-to-good DMs are are. And the usual "Well if he doesn't agree he's probably a terrible DM you shouldn't be playing with!!!" clapback isn't great, imho.

 

[WanderingMystic]

When answering the feedback I told them that all I care about is for the pdk to be a mounted leader like character. The idea of a knight, to me at least, is of a mounted combatant. The dragon part feels forced but if they make it worthwhile and make it easy to swap out dragon types by changing the damage then what ever. Keep the ability to have action surge bennifits, let your short r at abilities affect your mount or help open it up and let it affect x number of creatures which could incle your mount but could also include other PCs.