D&D 5E Purple Dragon Knight

[GarrettKP]

The genericized fluff, not the Cormyr-specific stuff.

There's no requirement a Warlord be a Knight, for one thing, nor did Warlord builds necessarily lead in the literal sense (that's not what the 'Leader' Role meant), while a Bannerette is just like any other archaic military rank in having some formal authority.

What exactly in the Cormyr-specific fluff cannot be applied to the PDK as presented in the SCAG?

Yes, a Warlord doesn't need to be a knight. Which is why the stuff in the SCAG doesn't preclude a Warlord option later on. But a Bennerette is amilitary rank yes, but one given specifically to Knights who were given the right to lead men. In that way a Bennerette and a PDK (Who were commanders in the Cormyrian army) fit together perfectly IMO.

 

[GarrettKP]

I would never make a sub-class for something this specific. Just handle it through role playing. Rogues don't need a sub-class for joining a Thieve's Guild.

I think this is why they include the option of calling it a Banneret as an optional name for the subclass. The reason it is this specific is because it was presented in a Realms Splat Book. If it was introduced anywhere else it would be called Banneret from the outset.

 

[Tony Vargas]

The reason it is this specific is because it was presented in a Realms Splat Book. If it was introduced anywhere else it would be called Banneret from the outset.

Agreed.

As 'Bannerette' the sub-class is passable (like most fighter sub-classes it suffers from having so much design space sunk in DPR already). But a PrC could have made a more flavorful, more interesting to introduce and flexible option in a SC,FR campaign.

 

[Erik Westmarch]

I think this is why they include the option of calling it a Banneret as an optional name for the subclass. The reason it is this specific is because it was presented in a Realms Splat Book. If it was introduced anywhere else it would be called Banneret from the outset.

It doesn't matter what you call it. The concept is just too thin to justify a class. It's a social title. If the DM plays it right it's main benefit is to provide plot hooks ("Your Suzerain has called you for a special mission!").

 

[GarrettKP]

Agreed.

As 'Bannerette' the sub-class is passable (like most fighter sub-classes it suffers from having so much design space sunk in DPR already). But a PrC could have made a more flavorful, more interesting to introduce and flexible option in a SC,FR campaign.

Eh, I guess we will just have to agree to disagree on this point. Tho I agree with your points on the rest.

 

[GarrettKP]

It doesn't matter what you call it. The concept is just too thin to justify a class. It's a social title. If the DM plays it right it's main benefit is to provide plot hooks ("Your Suzerain has called you for a special mission!").

The concept is a battlefield commander. I don't see how that is to thin to justify it's own subclass. By that reasoning Swashbuckler is to thin for a rogue subclass because it's just a title to identify a flashy fighter.

PDK's in the setting aren't a social title, it's a military rank given to commanders who were able to lead in war. That concept has plenty of meat to make a player option out of.