D&D General Is the SCAG Still Useful?

[Horwath]

It's the perfect example of the community getting what they wish for when the monkey paw finger curls.

well, I don't think that we wished for a waste of ink in a book.
no one will play this subclass and that is sad,

same can be said about the feats in this book, but that is another topic.

 

[Remathilis]

well, I don't think that we wished for a waste of ink in a book.
no one will play this subclass and that is sad,

same can be said about the feats in this book, but that is another topic.

It was a total rejection of the subclass. People didn't want name, the lore and/or the features. So they took what already existed, gave it the generic name and tweaked a few things.

 

[Zardnaar]

It was a total rejection of the subclass. People didn't want name, the lore and/or the features. So they took what already existed, gave it the generic name and tweaked a few things.

Some clueless designer being cute.

PDKs are something else.

 

[Horwath]

It was a total rejection of the subclass. People didn't want name, the lore and/or the features. So they took what already existed, gave it the generic name and tweaked a few things.

we already have dragonrider subclass.
no need for two of them
also PDK were not dragonriders.

they had the chance to make universal subclasses for 5E last year, they chickened out.
if they hadn't we could have dragonrider subclass for any character class.

 

[DrJawaPhD]

It was a total rejection of the subclass. People didn't want name, the lore and/or the features. So they took what already existed, gave it the generic name and tweaked a few things.

All of that was totally fine, and I think the correct move. Where they flubbed was not playtesting the tweaks and getting feedback that this version of Banneret has a great theme going but is just way too weak to ever be useful.

Taking what already existed and tweaking a few things was the correct move but they just needed to turn the Power knob higher