D&D 5E Todd Kendrick Interviews Jeremy Crawford: Fizban Dragon Subclasses and Dragonborn races

[Faolyn]

No, I didn't mean that. I meant that there were other options for Draconic Subclasses that would probably have been more popular/asked for than a Draconic Monk or Ranger.

I dunno, I can see a draconic ranger being very popular--having your own attack dragon that you can eventually ride? A dragon rider fighter feels like you wouldn't get the attack dragon part of it (yeah, there was probably some kit or prestige class that allowed it, but to me it doesn't have the right feel), but rangers and animal companions is already a thing. Allowing the animals to be monsters or dragons is a logical step.

Draconic monks, no, I don't get.

 

[Maxperson]

Ok that last bit was hyperbolic, but damn it was cathartic. I'm just really tired of seeing fun subclass ideas go strait into the bin because people want to "protect Sorcerers."

I'm tired of that sort of protection in general. So what if a new class or subclass steps on the toes of others. The individual table can opt not to play the two classes/subclasses together if it's an issue for them.

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

I dunno, I can see a draconic ranger being very popular--having your own attack dragon that you can eventually ride? A dragon rider fighter feels like you wouldn't get the attack dragon part of it (yeah, there was probably some kit or prestige class that allowed it, but to me it doesn't have the right feel), but rangers and animal companions is already a thing. Allowing the animals to be monsters or dragons is a logical step.

But why couldn't a Fighter have an attack-companion dragon, but a Ranger can? Quite a few classes can get Animal Companions now, including the Artificer (Any subclass, but especially Battle Smiths), Bard (College of Creation), Druids (Circle of Wildfire and anyone that uses their Wild Shape to summon a familiar), Paladins that take the Find (Greater) Steed spell(s), Beastmaster Rangers, Pact of the Chain Warlocks, and any Wizard with a Familiar (which should be every Wizard). Some are greater than others (Steel Defenders, Dancing Items, Wildfire Spirits, Beasts of Air/Water/Land), but animal companions are available to the majority of official classes.

Heck, one could argue that Echo Knights have an "animal companion" in their Echo, it's just very different from every other "companion" option in the game.

I get that the Drakewarden Ranger is popular, but Fighter is the most popular class in the game. I personally think that a Dragon Rider Fighter would be even more popular, and just as capable at being effective as the Drakewarden.

Draconic monks, no, I don't get.

I get dragon monks, in the sense of like a Chinese Dragon, but a D&D Dragon Monk? Nah. I don't get that.

 

[Faolyn]

But why couldn't a Fighter have an attack-companion dragon, but a Ranger can? Quite a few classes can get Animal Companions now, including the Artificer (Any subclass, but especially Battle Smiths), Bard (College of Creation), Druids (Circle of Wildfire and anyone that uses their Wild Shape to summon a familiar), Paladins that take the Find (Greater) Steed spell(s), Beastmaster Rangers, Pact of the Chain Warlocks, and any Wizard with a Familiar (which should be every Wizard). Some are greater than others (Steel Defenders, Dancing Items, Wildfire Spirits, Beasts of Air/Water/Land), but animal companions are available to the majority of official classes.

Heck, one could argue that Echo Knights have an "animal companion" in their Echo, it's just very different from every other "companion" option in the game.

I get that the Drakewarden Ranger is popular, but Fighter is the most popular class in the game. I personally think that a Dragon Rider Fighter would be even more popular, and just as capable at being effective as the Drakewarden.

I'm not saying Fighters can't have a dragon pet. There's plenty of room for a dragon knight, whether it's a fighter or a paladin. However, of all the classes that have pets that can actually attack (find familiar familiars can't), the ranger is the most visibly obvious. Fighters and paladins have mounts. It's not as thematic for them to have a pet and raise it over the course of its life, and it's even less thematic for them to have a pet that they have to give up a bonus action each turn to get it to fight.

Now, a dragon-riding fighter would be cool, but also powerful--unless, like with the drakewardens, they couldn't fly on their dragon until they were high level, which rather defeats the purpose. It honestly would make more sense for the fighter to take the cavalier archetype and belong to an order that rides wyverns or some other dragon-like creature. Because a dragon-rider fighter or paladin on a non-flying dragon feels less than cool to me. Obviously, this is all IMO.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

I love that one of the 'compromises' was Feats, which they made optional AND also something you have to pick between VS the raw, applicable power of a +2 to your stats.

yeah, just give a bonus feat at level 1 if you see the choice as that painful.

My group does that, and a +1 stat every ASI level if you take a feat, because I have players that would only take ASIs even though they would want feats, and this is just more fun.

Feats are an easy choice for me, and I still don’t really grok the mindset that always takes ASIs.

 

[Vaalingrade]

Feats are an easy choice for me, and I still don’t really grok the mindset that always takes ASIs.

Same honestly. I'd rather have no ASIs at all and a ton more feats to choose from.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

I love that one of the 'compromises' was Feats, which they made optional AND also something you have to pick between VS the raw, applicable power of a +2 to your stats.

yeah, just give a bonus feat at level 1 if you see the choice as that painful.

My group does that, and a +1 stat every ASI level if you take a feat, because I have players that would only take ASIs even though they would want feats, and this is just more fun.

Feats are an easy choice for me, and I still don’t really grok the mindset that always takes ASIs.

Same honestly. I'd rather have no ASIs at all and a ton more feats to choose from.

yeah tbh people overestimate the need for higher numbers in 5e.

 

[Bolares]

I like that feats got powered up, and I think it's a fun choice to make between feats and ASIs... But at the same time feats are a great way to personalize your character and wish we had more access to them. So what I generally do in my games is I give a free feat/dark git/that other option from theros at 1st level...

 

[Vaalingrade]

yeah tbh people overestimate the need for higher numbers in 5e.

More like futile. Most of your rolls are going to stink and they're going to stink forever unless you get the magic items that completely obviate putting ASIs into that stat.

Thanks, arithmophobia!

 

[Bolares]

yeah tbh people overestimate the need for higher numbers in 5e.

I think this is more of a feeling thing. Having a +3 on your main stat while everyone has a +4 feels bad. Even if the game effects are minor, the feeling of being behind is rough