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.

 

[TwoSix]

I mean, why do we need the reanimator artificer, grave cleric, and undeath warlock, shadow sorcerer and oathbreaker paladin when the necromancer wizard already exists?

Why do we need cleric, druid, bard, warlock and sorcerer when wizard already exists?

 

[DEFCON 1]

You are all proving a very good and important point.

Subclasses aren't merely about getting new mechanics. They are about story. Who your character is. And a Grave Cleric's story is different than a Necromancer Wizard... a Celestial Warlock's story is different than a Divine Soul Sorcerer... a Glamour Bard's story is different than a Fey Wanderer Ranger... etc. etc. etc. The thematic idea might be similar... but the stories of who these characters are and why they are involved with this theme are different. And WotC wants to make sure that there is a story difference between a fighter that cast spells and a spellcaster that fights. Because they are both from two different classes and thus are focused in two different narrative ways.

And this is why I believe there has never been a push in the design for "universal" subclasses. Because the story of a 'Pirate' Barbarian (just pulling the theme of 'Pirate' out as an example) would be different than a 'Pirate' Druid would be different than a 'Pirate' Monk would be different than a 'Pirate' Rogue. They all would have different ideas and foci and stories around the thematic idea of piracy and thus would all have different subclasses. Because they are all meant to be different characters.

 

[UngainlyTitan]

Why do we need cleric, druid, bard, warlock and sorcerer when wizard already exists?

Mostly because Gary solved the problem of "I want to play a character like X in fiction" by creating a class to implement X rather than creating a kit for one of the base classes to morph it to an X style.
Then he published his house rules.

 

[Twiggly the Gnome]

You mean like the divine soul sorceror and celestial warlock?

I don't really consider those the same theme, but I draw a thicker line between gods and celestials than a lot of people here seem to.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Mod Note:

My peeps, this thread is racking up an oversized amount of reports, usually for excessive snark, stirring the pot, and other uncivil behavior. MOST of it hasn’t risen to the level of requiring moderation. But we have to investigate every report.

Which means that it takes time and effort, even if we decide not to act. So even a thread that isn’t drawing mod actions galore can still be shut down if it generates reports at problematic levels.

Understood?

 

[MostlyHarmless42]

Liking a leader-y Fighter more than another milquetoast attempt at a pet subclass is not primarily about being scared of change (for me, at least), it's about wanting a different sort of change.

I understand what you are trying to say, and I'll agree to disagree that a dragon rider subclass is problematic or weird (it has just as much game history as the bladesinger wizard, if not more so), though even if we are accepting that the addition of the dragon pet to the PDK/banneret wasn't great there is still one fundamental issue: they didn't preview the kneejerk reversion to the public for feedback. I get that book deadlines are a thing and all, but I've read the "new" version. IT STILL SUCKS.

The previous banneret was considered one of the WORST designed subclasses in all of 5e, except for perhaps maybe the 4 elements monk. It was consistently spoken of by the community as complete garbage, if it was even remembered to exist at all.

This new iteration solves NONE of the issues of the previous suclass (primarily that all of it's features rely on using base features to have any effect at all). Yes, the changes to second wind and indomitable do help some, as does the subclass actually needing charisma now (though the optimizers will moan about it here, if they even bother to talk about the subclass at all), but the limitation of once per short rest is laughable and this entire subclass just screams "our leaders who actually made this edition quit wotc and now we've no clue what to do now".

And I've have historically been one of the biggest defenders of playing a Charisma fighter over a Paladin in the past on these forums. Fortunately, at least Daggerheart now exists. Now I just have to figure out how to force encourage my players to play it.