Purple Dragon Knight Retooled as Banneret in D&D's Heroes of Faerun Book

The much-maligned Purple Dragon Knight Fighter subclass is being retooled towards its original support origins in the upcoming Heroes of Faerun book. Coming out of GenCon, an image of a premade character sheet of a Banneret is making its way around the Internet. The classic support-based Fighter subclass appears to have replaced the Purple Dragon Knight subclass, which received a ton of criticism for not resembling the Purple Dragon Knight's traditional lore.

The Banneret's abilities includes a Level 3 "Knightly Envoy" ability that allows it to cast Comprehend Language as a ritual and gain proficiency in either Intimidation, Insight, Performance, or Persuasion (this appears unchanged from the Purple Dragon Knight UA), plus a Group Recovery ability that allows those within 30 feet of the Banneret to regain 1d4 Hit Points plus the Banneret's Fighter Level when the Banneret uses its Second Wind ability. Scrapped is the Purple Dragon companion that the UA version of the subclass had, which grew in power as the Purple Dragon Knight leveled up.

The Banneret was the generic name for the Purple Dragon Knight in the Sword Coast Adventurer's Guide. The Banneret/Purple Dragon Knight was originally more of a support class that could provide the benefits of its abilities to its allies instead of or in addition to benefitting from them directly. For instance, a Banneret's Action Surge could be used to allow a nearby ally to make an attack, and Indomitable could allow an ally to reroll a failed saving throw in addition to the Banneret.

 

[pukunui]

Except the Dragons in the area are not Amethyst Dragons and what do the Dragons get out of it. They would have no interest in said arms race.

Yes, I know. I was being sarcastic.

Let's also be clear that according to the UA subclass they were not allies, but more servants of the PDKs bred and raised from eggs (you could even say slaves of the PDKs)

That's really an unfortunate side effect of the way the game mechanics work. Since you can't give a level 3 PC an adult dragon as a mount, the dragon has to start off small ...

Since dragons are sentient beings who consider themselves to be superior to humanoids, I personally would prefer to have "dragon rider" be a (most likely) high-level thing that is under DM purview rather than a "grows up with you" pet baked into PC mechanics. Either that or make it so dragons aren't sentient creatures but are more bestial, like in Dragon Age - that way they're not really any different to having a wolf or a tiger or a horse as your pet.

The drakewarden ranger subclass from Fizban's is interesting because it involves a summoned "draconic spirit" that has taken the corporeal form of a drake. I guess it is sentient and can speak because it is a spirit and not a "real" drake. But if the drake was a real creature and couldn't speak, that would be fine too.

I guess if they copied this format for a "dragon rider" fighter subclass, that would be more palatable to me. So you're a fighter, rather than a ranger, who has summoned a "draconic spirit" that takes the form of whatever color dragon you like and it grows in power as you grow in power until it eventually becomes big enough for you to ride while it flies through the air. Hooray!

Getting to ride an actual sentient dragon should be a big deal and should be something that happens through gameplay, not something that is granted automatically via game mechanics.

 

[Charlaquin]

People who know the lore explained it in this thread. I did not know it and have no personal attachment to it.

Still, it’s perfectly reasonable to my eyes that FR fans would like the class in the FR-book to build off FR lore. I don’t understand why others are so against this elementary principle.

What I’m against is the idea that because it has changed (and again, it seems like it has changed, the purple dragon knights are Amethyst dragon riders now, we just aren’t getting a subclass about it), it is inherently disrespectful of canon. I have no real attachment to the Purple Dragon Knights one way or the other, I just think the playtest version of the subclass looked a lot more interesting, and I find the insistence that new developments in the lore means disrespecting canon objectionable.

 

[Charlaquin]

We are talking about a subclass specifically for the Forgotten Realms coming out in a Forgotten Realms themed book. IMO that makes the Lore pretty important.

I don't think anyone had a problem with a cool Dragon riding subclass and you could even do that in the Forgotten Realms by tying it to some Gith-themed class. But it is just way wrong for a Purple Dragon Knight.

I think any mount for a PDK is not in line with the lore, but if the PDKs must get have flying mounts, those mounts should be hippogriffs, not Dragons, and certainly not Amethyst Dragons which are unheard of in the Forgtten Realms. I can't think of any literature with an Amethyst Dragon. Even the Purple Dragon himself was actually a Black Dragon.

Well, bad news, it looks like the purple dragon knights are going to be riding amethyst dragons anyway. The subclass we’re getting in the book is just not going to be ties specifically to the purple dragon knights.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

I mean knights originally named Purple Dragon Knights because they killed a purple dragon starting to ride purple dragons is objectively stupid even by Forgotten Realms standards. It sounds exactly like a writer got confused about why they were called that.

 

[Charlaquin]

I get this argument, but we are talking about the Forgotten Realms specifically. This is a Forgotten Realms book, not a generic D&D splatbook and while that may be the mental image for someone not familiar with the Lore it is not the image for anyone who is familiar with the Lore.

Also while people find the idea of riding a dragon to be cool, I think far less find an Amethyst Dragon specifically to be cool.

I think Amethyst was chosen just to match the name of the order.

They could call it "Red Dragon Knight" make it a Red Dragon and have it in a generic splatbook or a spelljammer book and it would be way cooler from every angle without any Lore problems.

Again, there is no incongruity with the existing lore. They’re still an order of Cormyrean knights who slew an oddly purple-looking black dragon. At some point since then, they also became allies with a group of Amethist dragons and now ride them. That lore seems to be going into the book regardless. But now instead of a subclass tied specifically into that new lore, we’ll be getting a generic chivalrous knight subclass and presumably a note saying this would be suitable for a character who’s a member of the amethyst dragon riding purple dragon knights.

If you think that’s the worst of both worlds, I agree with you.

 

[Charlaquin]

Sure, but why would it be Amethyst Dragons? That makes no sense

Cause of the purple in the name.

 

[Charlaquin]

I mean knights originally named Purple Dragon Knights because they killed a purple dragon starting to ride purple dragons is objectively stupid even by Forgotten Realms standards. It sounds exactly like a writer got confused about why they were called that.

Well, too bad. That seems to be what’s happening.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Well, too bad. That seems to be what’s happening.

I mean I don't really care, beyond making me doubt the competence of the writers even more than I already did. I was not going to touch the FR with an eleven feet pole regardless.

 

[pukunui]

I suspect that one reason people reacted so badly towards it is that the UA didn't provide any context, so it came across like a retcon (e.g. "They're called the Purple Dragon Knights because they ride purple dragons.")

Hopefully, the entry on the Purple Dragon Knight faction will explain that, while they got their name from an ancient black dragon whose scales were more violet than black, in 14XX DR they made a deal with some amethyst dragons and since then they've expanded across the Realms and are renowned as being knights who ride amethyst dragons, etc etc.

If that's the case, then fine. But if it is a total retcon -- e.g. they're called Purple Dragon Knights because they've always ridden purple dragons -- then I won't be a happy camper.

I just went back and checked the UA, and I note that it says "most" Purple Dragon Knights partner with adult amethyst dragons but Purple Dragon Knight PCs are special because they've psionically bonded with an amethyst dragon wyrmling that grows up with them. It seems like they've dropped the latter but maybe are keeping the former, which is more in line with my preferences as I explained in my previous post.

 

[Pauln6]

There are already a few different Int based fighter subclasses. Having a single Cha based one is fine.

Also, need a good bit more than a heal to be a true warlord.

I'm not familiar with any intelligence based fighter subclasses that aren't also spell-casters. I would love more variation in martial classes. Back in 1e, half the group would be martial, largely due to variations of fighters anf fighter thieves, although rangers also started out as martial. I miss that design space.