The Order of the Stick: Utterly Dwarfed
The Order of the Stick: Utterly Dwarfed - Coming in December and available for pre-order now
Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 61 to 90 of 112
  1. - Top - End - #61
    Barbarian in the Playground
     
    Yunru's Avatar

    Join Date
    Feb 2019

    Default Re: A Defense of the Banneret: A Mechanical Guide to a Supporting Fighter

    Quote Originally Posted by SpawnOfMorbo View Post
    Side note, my wife does stats and psych for a Ph.D and she saw the surveys for WotC D&D and said they were trash at actually giving anyone useful data, mostly because there's too many variables for the "why" and so WotC aleays goes off faulty information.

    Basically, we both could give the same answer for two oposite reasons.

    Just thought I would throw that out there.
    And it's also not a competitive hobby like MtG is, so there's no "top 10" or so to look at and see if they need to add variance either.

  2. - Top - End - #62
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    Flumph

    Join Date
    Dec 2014

    Default Re: A Defense of the Banneret: A Mechanical Guide to a Supporting Fighter

    Quote Originally Posted by Fable Wright View Post
    We do not, in the end, have the full details on how the survey was carried out. It was the big 2018 survey that was carried out by the same company that makes Magic: The Gathering, which annually generates around $1 billion in revenue and has biennial surveys in much the same manner. No survey is perfect, but at the moment it is the most authoritative one, and its stated goal was to get the most complete picture of D&D that the company could get.

    It's a more complete data point than a possibly misinterpreted comment that one guy heard one developer say that one time late at night. If you have a better source for D&D stats, I'd love to hear about it! I have so many questions about the big data of the game.
    But the one you linked to was posted in 2016.

    Then, a couple years later, I believe after the big survey was done (where they received 3 times their target number of responses and had to close it early), we have Mearls saying that less than half of all tables use feats.

    Quote Originally Posted by RickAllison View Post
    That stat was based off data extracted from D&D Beyond and the characters that were created using the site, which skews us in several ways.
    Mearls never said it was from Beyond.

    They have surveys of a ton of players, way more than who play Beyond.

    I trust Mearls' data over those publicly available D&D Beyond demographics that we've seen which I am skeptical of as you are.

    Quote Originally Posted by SpawnOfMorbo View Post
    Side note, my wife does stats and psych for a Ph.D and she saw the surveys for WotC D&D and said they were trash at actually giving anyone useful data, mostly because there's too many variables for the "why" and so WotC aleays goes off faulty information.

    Basically, we both could give the same answer for two oposite reasons.

    Just thought I would throw that out there.
    But what if they're taking broad demographic data and don't care about the 'why'.

    I'm sure your wife does a good job, but I also bet that WotC have also hired stats professionals to write surveys for them which will give them the data that they want.
    Last edited by ad_hoc; 2019-09-16 at 08:56 PM.
    If you are trying to abuse the game; Don't. And you're probably wrong anyway.

  3. - Top - End - #63
    Ettin in the Playground
     
    PirateWench

    Join Date
    Oct 2015

    Default Re: A Defense of the Banneret: A Mechanical Guide to a Supporting Fighter

    Quote Originally Posted by ad_hoc View Post
    But the one you linked to was posted in 2016.

    Then, a couple years later, I believe after the big survey was done (where they received 3 times their target number of responses and had to close it early), we have Mearls saying that less than half of all tables use feats.



    Mearls never said it was from Beyond.

    They have surveys of a ton of players, way more than who play Beyond.

    I trust Mearls' data over those publicly available D&D Beyond demographics that we've seen which I am skeptical of as you are.



    But what if they're taking broad demographic data and don't care about the 'why'.

    I'm sure your wife does a good job, but I also bet that WotC have also hired stats professionals to write surveys for them which will give them the data that they want.
    Could you just quote whatever podcast this was? Because so far all you have offered is saying that Mearls said it once, but the only other record I can find of him saying this is you stating this same thing on the ENWorld forums
    Quote Originally Posted by krugaan
    All it takes is once:

    "Grandpa, tells us that story about the Ricalison the Great again!"

    Hours later...

    "... and that, kids, is how he conquered the world with dancing lights."

  4. - Top - End - #64
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    Flumph

    Join Date
    Dec 2014

    Default Re: A Defense of the Banneret: A Mechanical Guide to a Supporting Fighter

    Quote Originally Posted by RickAllison View Post
    Could you just quote whatever podcast this was? Because so far all you have offered is saying that Mearls said it once, but the only other record I can find of him saying this is you stating this same thing on the ENWorld forums
    He talked about it in a Happy Fun Hour.

    I'm fine with you not believing me.

    Really though, it shouldn't be hard to believe that less than half of tables use an optional rules module. That's just common sense to me.
    If you are trying to abuse the game; Don't. And you're probably wrong anyway.

  5. - Top - End - #65
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    Lizardfolk

    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    Saint Louis
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: A Defense of the Banneret: A Mechanical Guide to a Supporting Fighter

    Quote Originally Posted by ad_hoc View Post
    But what if they're taking broad demographic data and don't care about the 'why'.
    When you ask "is this class better than this other class", everyone could say yes but mean completely oposite things.

    Maybe people like that class A is strong than class B. Maybe people don't like non-casters and class B is a non-caster. Maybe some people's optimization levels are different for the classes? What if a bunch of people are all saying "yes" but yes is good to a lot and yes is bad to others?

    Essentially, their questions were always so vague that it looks just like the type of servey someone will put out if they don't know how to collect data from a servey OR if they just want to give the perception of collecting data (plenty companies do this when they want to show productivity and they already have a solution).

    The only things those serveys really told WotC is that "x number of people like Y" but everything comparing one thing to another was trash. Especially the balanced questions, even I was like "you learn nothing from these".

  6. - Top - End - #66
    Ettin in the Playground
     
    PirateWench

    Join Date
    Oct 2015

    Default Re: A Defense of the Banneret: A Mechanical Guide to a Supporting Fighter

    Quote Originally Posted by ad_hoc View Post
    He talked about it in a Happy Fun Hour.

    I'm fine with you not believing me.

    Really though, it shouldn't be hard to believe that less than half of tables use an optional rules module. That's just common sense to me.
    Less so when it is a rules module that was in the core book, has a history of being a key part of character customization, and that surveys from multiple sources have reported more than majority support of people using them. Try to see it from the perspective that there are multiple data packets being shown supporting the prolific nature of feats, while the only support we have against that is hearsay. Like, even doing a search, all I found about your hearsay was you talking about it on a different forum. And even knowing the name of the podcast, what I'm finding instead is Mearls talking about doing an episode devoted to feat design, which does not exactly support your claim.
    Quote Originally Posted by krugaan
    All it takes is once:

    "Grandpa, tells us that story about the Ricalison the Great again!"

    Hours later...

    "... and that, kids, is how he conquered the world with dancing lights."

  7. - Top - End - #67
    Firbolg in the Playground
     
    Fable Wright's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: A Defense of the Banneret: A Mechanical Guide to a Supporting Fighter

    Quote Originally Posted by ad_hoc View Post
    He talked about it in a Happy Fun Hour.

    I'm fine with you not believing me.

    Really though, it shouldn't be hard to believe that less than half of tables use an optional rules module. That's just common sense to me.
    Strictly speaking, all maps of all kinds are purely optional for D&D. I've still yet to see a group that never broke out a sheet of paper to draw out a basic grid at some point or other for positioning.

    Strictly speaking, all magic items are entirely optional. I've still yet to see a table where no one in the party has one after level 8.

    If someone told me that Mike Mearls once said on an uncited video that fewer than half of all tables used magic items, or that more than 50% of all groups went purely theater of the mind, I'd tell them that they were nuts and probably wildly misconstruing the statement.

    Likewise, I will disbelieve that fewer than half of all tables are using feats at all, no matter how reputable that video of that guy you know that you just can't find right now sounded at the time.
    Used to be DMofDarkness
    Old avatar by Elagune.
    Spoiler: Collection of Signature Quotes
    Show

  8. - Top - End - #68
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    OrcBarbarianGuy

    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    Location
    Vinland
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: A Defense of the Banneret: A Mechanical Guide to a Supporting Fighter

    Quote Originally Posted by MaxWilson View Post
    "Most PCs don't take feats" != "most tables don't allow feats", especially considering how much play takes place at low levels when you have only 0 or 1 ASIs.
    Very true. my own table is evidence of that.

    Quote Originally Posted by MaxWilson View Post
    WotC data indicates that most PCs do not have a feat, but this doesn't say much about table rules. FWIW, my very first campaign in 5E as a player back in 2015 allowed feats, but I think only one person took one (Shield Master) because nobody else was sure if they were really worth it compared to boosting your prime stats. It wouldn't shock me if that sort of thing explained WotC's survey results.
    It's possible. Probably even. I almost always like a feat that offers more bonus action options, as I don't really player casters or rogues and I tend to have limited options for those. I find my characters get more out of improved action economy than +2 to main stat. But our Warlock, Druid and Rogue haven't taken any feats and probably won't since our campaign is likely to end before 12.

    I am aware that I am a statistical outlier.


    Quote Originally Posted by SpawnOfMorbo View Post
    Side note, my wife does stats and psych for a Ph.D and she saw the surveys for WotC D&D and said they were trash at actually giving anyone useful data, mostly because there's too many variables for the "why" and so WotC aleays goes off faulty information.

    Basically, we both could give the same answer for two oposite reasons.

    Just thought I would throw that out there.
    I've also found several of the surveys to be a bit lackluster. I'll type out my reasons in the text box they usually have at the end, but I very much doubt anyone is sifting through those beyond a few keyword checks.

    Far easier to aggregate the multiple choice options.

  9. - Top - End - #69
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    OrcBarbarianGuy

    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    Location
    Vinland
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: A Defense of the Banneret: A Mechanical Guide to a Supporting Fighter

    Quote Originally Posted by RickAllison View Post
    I'm finding instead is Mearls talking about doing an episode devoted to feat design, which does not exactly support your claim.
    Probably because it was Crawford, not Mearls https://twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/...20122177331200

    Again though he says players not using feats and doesn't say tables not allowing feats.

  10. - Top - End - #70
    Troll in the Playground
     
    MindFlayer

    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Location
    Los Angeles

    Default Re: A Defense of the Banneret: A Mechanical Guide to a Supporting Fighter

    Yeesh. I was writing a comment about the Banneret, but somehow I get the sense that this thread isn't about that anymore.

  11. - Top - End - #71
    Titan in the Playground
    Join Date
    Oct 2014

    Default Re: A Defense of the Banneret: A Mechanical Guide to a Supporting Fighter

    Quote Originally Posted by SpawnOfMorbo View Post
    Essentially, their questions were always so vague that it looks just like the type of servey someone will put out if they don't know how to collect data from a servey OR if they just want to give the perception of collecting data (plenty companies do this when they want to show productivity and they already have a solution).
    Another reason for putting out surveys is to increase brand loyalty: studies show that if I ask you to e.g. rate my camera on a scale of 1-5 for its various qualities (all of which are good), it will increase your chances of buying that camera EVEN IF other cameras are even better. Surveys can focus attention where the corporation wants it focused. (Source: Robert Cialdini's book Pre-Suasion, highly recommended.)

    I totally believe you that WotC's surveys are of low analytical value. The UA surveys that I've seen sure haven't been impressive. WotC doesn't give the impression they even know what they want to measure.

    Quote Originally Posted by GlenSmash! View Post
    It's possible. Probably even. I almost always like a feat that offers more bonus action options, as I don't really player casters or rogues and I tend to have limited options for those. I find my characters get more out of improved action economy than +2 to main stat. But our Warlock, Druid and Rogue haven't taken any feats and probably won't since our campaign is likely to end before 12.

    I am aware that I am a statistical outlier.
    I agree! Now that I know more about 5E, both the rules and the typical stats of monsters, I can see that a good bonus action like a Crossbow Expert attack is worth far more than an extra +1 to your prime stat, especially at low levels. But to a new player who barely even knows what a "bonus action" is, and maybe isn't aware yet that you can't have more than one bonus action per turn... there's a lot of uncertainty to feats, and you don't know whether it's a good deal or not. Risk aversion might explain the low feat prevalence at low levels: giving up a sure, small gain for an uncertain benefit is something that we know typical human beings are psychologically unlikely to do.
    Last edited by MaxWilson; 2019-09-17 at 02:05 PM.

  12. - Top - End - #72
    Ogre in the Playground
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Location
    SD
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: A Defense of the Banneret: A Mechanical Guide to a Supporting Fighter

    Quote Originally Posted by LudicSavant View Post
    Yeesh. I was writing a comment about the Banneret, but somehow I get the sense that this thread isn't about that anymore.
    Idk of you have found a case where it isn't bad I'd like to hear it ☺️
    what is the point of living if you can't deadlift?

  13. - Top - End - #73
    Titan in the Playground
    Join Date
    Oct 2014

    Default Re: A Defense of the Banneret: A Mechanical Guide to a Supporting Fighter

    Quote Originally Posted by stoutstien View Post
    Idk of you have found a case where it isn't bad I'd like to hear it ☺️
    Depends what you mean by "bad". Purple Dragon Knight/Banneret makes a nice, simple fighter, less fiddly than the Champion and with better social skills, and you can run a one-shot with three Knights of the Round Table (PDKs) and Merlin (Land Druid) and they will still have a blast beating up monsters and healing each other (and solving riddles and negotiating with monsters). In that scenario it isn't bad at all.

    The baseline Fighter chassis is strong enough that PDKs are still fun. It's just that mechanically you'd get more raw power out of any subclass that isn't the Champion or Arcane Archer. Don't play PDK if your goal is to make the game as mechanically easy as possible for yourself.

  14. - Top - End - #74
    Troll in the Playground
     
    MindFlayer

    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Location
    Los Angeles

    Default Re: A Defense of the Banneret: A Mechanical Guide to a Supporting Fighter

    Quote Originally Posted by stoutstien View Post
    Idk of you have found a case where it isn't bad I'd like to hear it ☺️
    Alas, I was just going to break down why I think it's a turkey with examples of how to outperform it at its own game. You know, stuff like how the Samurai can actually make a better party face than it (since they get their bonus proficiency 4 levels earlier, and their Persuasion-boosting ability can actually stack with Expertise, and they're basically a feat ahead of schedule for combat relevance thanks to their Wisdom save proficiency and therefore can afford to take Prodigy or something if they're so inclined). Or how Battle Master or Eldritch Knight can provide more support.

    Like Max says the PDK is still going to be playable because the Fighter core is decent enough, but saying a class is playable is like saying food is edible. This ain't the mechanical equivalent of a 3 Michelin star restaurant, is all I'm sayin'.

  15. - Top - End - #75
    Titan in the Playground
    Join Date
    Oct 2014

    Default Re: A Defense of the Banneret: A Mechanical Guide to a Supporting Fighter

    Quote Originally Posted by LudicSavant View Post
    Alas, I was just going to break down why I think it's a turkey with examples of how to outperform it at its own game. You know, stuff like how the Samurai can actually make a better party face than it (since they get their bonus proficiency 3 levels earlier, and their Persuasion-boosting ability can actually stack with Expertise, and they're basically a feat ahead of schedule for combat relevance thanks to their Wisdom save proficiency and therefore can afford to take Prodigy or something if they're so inclined). Or how Battle Master or Eldritch Knight can provide more support.

    Like Max says the PDK is still going to be playable because the Fighter core is decent enough, but saying a class is playable is like saying food is edible. This ain't the mechanical equivalent of a 3 Michelin star restaurant, is all I'm sayin'.
    You're not wrong, but I have more to say so I will.

    I'd rate it highly for simplicity. There's nothing you can do with a Battlemaster that will make it simpler than a PDK. You'll always be fiddling with your maneuver dice and optimal maneuvers to learn (Riposte, Precision Strike, Commander's Strike?) and which dice to spend on what maneuvers. The PDK can give you a pretty good experience out of the box, and you still get to heal your buddies and give people extra attacks at roughly the same efficiency as an equivalent Battlemaster. (Plus, you can help people pass some extra saves, which I don't think the Battlemaster can do at all.)

    It might not be a 5-star restaurant or custom-tailored suit, but it's a pretty decent off-the-rack suit that you can buy if you want to look nice and don't know or care much about custom tailoring.
    Last edited by MaxWilson; 2019-09-17 at 03:31 PM.

  16. - Top - End - #76
    Barbarian in the Playground
     
    NecromancerGuy

    Join Date
    Nov 2018

    Default Re: A Defense of the Banneret: A Mechanical Guide to a Supporting Fighter

    So I know tier 4 doesn't matter (which begs the question: why are people mentioning pre tier 4 sam?)

    That said. PDK gets to toss out a nice 100+ damage with no personal action cost 2/SR in tier 4 when supporting a pair of AT's . It's definitely decent.

    Edit: The big complaint for PDK isn't that it has a bad tier 2, 3, or 4. It's tier 1. In tier 1 we pretty much get only second wind+ which is... actually pretty great. Every time I've used this skill to self heal it has pushed at least one party member out of ORKO range at 0 action cost. As I prefer to play in wide magic or AL settings the low number of "buttons" on the sub is... irrelevant. Magic items give better bang for my buck power and action economy wise anywho.

    TL:DR The main selling point of PDK is that its features cost nothing. Nada. Zip. Zilch in terms of the defining optimization mechanic. Is it the best sub? No. EK exists. That said it's not significantly worse than non-EK fighters in published books and it has some qualities that are somewhat unique in terms of char OP space. I'd give it a try before slamming it.

    Edit again: In terms of 1-20 simple playability and the class delivering what it promises I'll agree that PDK is low key... just really stellar game design.
    Last edited by Nhorianscum; 2019-09-17 at 04:45 PM.

  17. - Top - End - #77
    Dwarf in the Playground
     
    Daemon

    Join Date
    Jan 2018

    Default Re: A Defense of the Banneret: A Mechanical Guide to a Supporting Fighter

    Quote Originally Posted by MaxWilson View Post
    I'd rate it highly for simplicity. There's nothing you can do with a Battlemaster that will make it simpler than a PDK.
    You know, that is an excellent point.

    I was about to post a Battlemaster build with the Rally and Commander's Strike maneuvers, and the Prodigy feat, and argue that you've got about 9/10ths of what the Banneret can do, on top of the rest of your Battlebaster abilities. But, looking at it from MaxWilson's perspective, it's also true that if you WANTED a battlemaster with those abilities, but didn't want to have to be fiddly about building one, here, have a PDN. It'll get you 9/10ths of the way there, with no hassle.

    Compared to the Champion fighter, which was meant as a kind of plug-and-play insta-character for people with other things to do besides chargen, I think you could make that argument for the PDN/Banneret as well. Want to play a courtly knight who leads his troops in glorious battle? Human, PDN, noble background. Standard array stats, Str > Con > Cha > whatever. Take starting equipment, done. You've got a perfectly playable character that checks all your boxes.

    I think this is the strongest defense you can make for this guy, not that he's really as strong as the other options, but that he does what he needs to do well enough without the complexity of the other options.

  18. - Top - End - #78
    Troll in the Playground
     
    MindFlayer

    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Location
    Los Angeles

    Default Re: A Defense of the Banneret: A Mechanical Guide to a Supporting Fighter

    Quote Originally Posted by MaxWilson View Post
    You're not wrong, but I have more to say so I will.

    I'd rate it highly for simplicity. There's nothing you can do with a Battlemaster that will make it simpler than a PDK. You'll always be fiddling with your maneuver dice and optimal maneuvers to learn (Riposte, Precision Strike, Commander's Strike?) and which dice to spend on what maneuvers. The PDK can give you a pretty good experience out of the box, and you still get to heal your buddies and give people extra attacks at roughly the same efficiency as an equivalent Battlemaster. (Plus, you can help people pass some extra saves, which I don't think the Battlemaster can do at all.)

    It might not be a 5-star restaurant or custom-tailored suit, but it's a pretty decent off-the-rack suit that you can buy if you want to look nice and don't know or care much about custom tailoring.
    It's an interesting point to discuss. I can appreciate the niche of offering something that is simple and "plug'n'play," yet doesn't offer the most optimized experience. However, I think the PDK could stand to have some improvement in terms of that kind of design, too.

    Let me paint you a picture of a player who wanted something simple and supporty in their Fighter. Someone rather unlike me (I'm more the sort to prefer the 'custom-tailored suit' as you put it, though I can appreciate the appeal of things like Champion to others). They play a PDK, and have an experience like this: "Well, I failed my save, but maybe I should save my Indomitable until I can use Bulwark. I'll just suffer through this failed save. And this one. And this one. Gotta think of supporting my allies, after all. Oh, okay, now we're both getting targeted with saves and we both failed! Oh wait, it wasn't mental, okay. Okay, now the DM is feeling bad and is explicitly trying to give me a chance to shine and had the enemy target me and an ally with an AoE mental save! And my ally failed the save! Time to save them! Wait... what do you mean I made the save, so I can't make my ally reroll it?"

    This sort of thing continues. They end the adventure having never actually used their Bulwark to successfully change an outcome. Let's just say they are not very happy with the experience.

    I feel like the devs may not have even registered that "you can reroll an ally's save a number of times per day equal to your Indomitable uses" and "you can reroll an ally's save when you use Indomitable on a save you failed" are quite different in value.

    Also, if the design goal was really friendly plug and play design, a few of the design choices don't seem quite on the mark to me. For example, a player with Rallying Cry has to think about whether they want to use their Second Wind in situations where a Fighter would normally use it, or hold off until everyone else has taken some damage too (or vice versa, where everyone's taken a little damage but they wouldn't get much out of the larger self heal). And if they use it early, they might feel a sense of loss aversion (similar to the player who didn't want to use Indomitable when they couldn't benefit from Bulwark). The Champion intentionally has no such decision points.

    I also get the sense that a lot of things players expect or want to work... don't work, and that this leads to disappointing experiences for those players as their expectations or desires are dashed. For example, the Banneret inspiring the fallen man to get back up on his feet doesn't work. Why the heck not? That seems like a rather iconic part of the banneret fantasy, a trope we've seen over and over, and it wouldn't add any complexity or anything.
    Last edited by LudicSavant; 2019-09-17 at 05:29 PM. Reason: Elaborated a bit

  19. - Top - End - #79
    Orc in the Playground
     
    Lizardfolk

    Join Date
    Oct 2018

    Default Re: A Defense of the Banneret: A Mechanical Guide to a Supporting Fighter

    Quote Originally Posted by Evaar View Post
    Enchanter casting Feeblemind and twinning it would do it. Not exactly something you'll run into frequently and it would be questionable to target the Fighter as part of that twin, but you wrote "literally nothing" so I had to think of a counter-example.
    For a more straightforward example: Synaptic Static.

  20. - Top - End - #80
    Titan in the Playground
    Join Date
    Oct 2014

    Default Re: A Defense of the Banneret: A Mechanical Guide to a Supporting Fighter

    Quote Originally Posted by LudicSavant View Post
    It's an interesting point to discuss. I can appreciate the niche of offering something that is simple and "plug'n'play," yet doesn't offer the most optimized experience. However, I think the PDK could stand to have some improvement in terms of that kind of design, too.

    Let me paint you a picture of a player who wanted something simple and supporty in their Fighter. Someone rather unlike me (I'm more the sort to prefer the 'custom-tailored suit' as you put it, though I can appreciate the appeal of things like Champion to others). They play a PDK, and have an experience like this: "Well, I failed my save, but maybe I should save my Indomitable until I can use Bulwark. I'll just suffer through this failed save. And this one. And this one. Gotta think of supporting my allies, after all. Oh, okay, now we're both getting targeted with saves and we both failed! Oh wait, it wasn't mental, okay. Okay, now the DM is feeling bad and is explicitly trying to give me a chance to shine and had the enemy target me and an ally with an AoE mental save! And my ally failed the save! Time to save them! Wait... what do you mean I made the save, so I can't make my ally reroll it?"

    This sort of thing continues. They end the adventure having never actually used their Bulwark to successfully change an outcome. Let's just say they are not very happy with the experience.

    I feel like the devs may not have even registered that "you can reroll an ally's save a number of times per day equal to your Indomitable uses" and "you can reroll an ally's save when you use Indomitable on a save you failed" are quite different in value.
    You're arguing that the fighter could be made simpler? Oh, I 100% agree there. If it were up to me the base Fighter chassis wouldn't even have Second Wind or Indomitable on it--Action Surge is all the resource management I want a player to have to deal with, when he's looking for a non-fiddly experience. Instead of Indomitable, just give +3 bonus to all saves.

    Also, if the design goal was really friendly plug and play design, a few of the design choices don't seem quite on the mark to me. For example, a player with Rallying Cry has to think about whether they want to use their Second Wind in situations where a Fighter would normally use it, or hold off until everyone else has taken some damage too (or vice versa, where everyone's taken a little damage but they wouldn't get much out of the larger self heal). And if they use it early, they might feel a sense of loss aversion (similar to the player who didn't want to use Indomitable when they couldn't benefit from Bulwark). The Champion intentionally has no such decision points.

    I also get the sense that a lot of things players expect or want to work... don't work, and that this leads to disappointing experiences for those players as their expectations or desires are dashed. For example, the Banneret inspiring the fallen man to get back up on his feet doesn't work. Why the heck not? That seems like a rather iconic part of the banneret fantasy, a trope we've seen over and over, and it wouldn't add any complexity or anything.
    RE: this part, the Healer feat theoretically would work really well with PDKs. Healer: healing kit action to bring them back to 1 HP, then a bonus action Second Wind to boost them up to 11ish HP.

    However, from a fluff point of view I don't think it's a problem that you can't shout someone back to consciousness. You call it an "iconic part of banneret fantasy, a trope we've seen over and over" but if you're referring to war movies and stuff, I have never seen this trope happen to an unconscious person, only to a discouraged person. It might be more iconic for Bannerets to get to end Fear on one target as a bonus action (no resource cost), which is something I actually do see in movies.

    What would really be iconic though is the ability to boost NPC morale, but 5E unlike AD&D has no Morale stat for monsters or NPCs and barely has Morale rules (optional rules in the DMG for Wisdom save-based morale checks), and for whatever reason the PDK chose not to interact with those rules.

  21. - Top - End - #81
    Barbarian in the Playground
     
    Yunru's Avatar

    Join Date
    Feb 2019

    Default Re: A Defense of the Banneret: A Mechanical Guide to a Supporting Fighter

    Quote Originally Posted by MaxWilson View Post
    You're arguing that the fighter could be made simpler? Oh, I 100% agree there. If it were up to me the base Fighter chassis wouldn't even have Second Wind or Indomitable on it--Action Surge is all the resource management I want a player to have to deal with, when he's looking for a non-fiddly experience. Instead of Indomitable, just give +3 bonus to all saves.
    You quote an entire paragraph talking solely about PDK features, and then respond in reference to the base Fighter? O.o

  22. - Top - End - #82
    Titan in the Playground
    Join Date
    Oct 2014

    Default Re: A Defense of the Banneret: A Mechanical Guide to a Supporting Fighter

    Quote Originally Posted by Yunru View Post
    You quote an entire paragraph talking solely about PDK features, and then respond in reference to the base Fighter? O.o
    By "features" you mean "a feature," right? Bulwark.

    I quoted stuff that I agreed with, and said so. LudicSavant: I agree, the PDK's rules are needlessly complex and often counterintuitive, and Bulwark is the worst of the lot.

    P.S. As a DM I'd say that not letting a fighter use Indomitable (therefore Bulwark) on a successful save, if he wants to, would be a jerk move.
    Last edited by MaxWilson; 2019-09-17 at 08:37 PM.

  23. - Top - End - #83
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    OrcBarbarianGuy

    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    Location
    Vinland
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: A Defense of the Banneret: A Mechanical Guide to a Supporting Fighter

    Quote Originally Posted by MaxWilson View Post
    the PDK's rules are needlessly complex and often counterintuitive.
    Should just multi-class it with the Beastmaster then.

  24. - Top - End - #84
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    Lizardfolk

    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    Saint Louis
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: A Defense of the Banneret: A Mechanical Guide to a Supporting Fighter

    Y'all inspired me to make my own Purple Dragon Knight subclass.

    http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showt...9#post24153349

    It's not the best but I threw it together rather fast.

    Edit: Aparently I forgot that fighters get a subclass feature at 15 lol

  25. - Top - End - #85
    Ettin in the Playground
     
    PirateWench

    Join Date
    Oct 2015

    Default Re: A Defense of the Banneret: A Mechanical Guide to a Supporting Fighter

    Quote Originally Posted by jaappleton View Post
    Chatting with Jeremy Crawford right now on a livestream where he's answering questions on the UA.

    Being unconscious doesn't deafen you.
    Seriously.

    Therefore, Undeniable Logic can grant Advantage on a Death Save.
    This was for the most recent UA dealing with giving Bardic Inspiration to an unconscious creature, but this actually buffs the Banneret! Since Rallying Cry only needs them to see or hear you and apparently an unconscious creature can still hear, you can pull the classic Call of Duty scene of the Banneret sergeant yelling at the PC not to die yet.
    Quote Originally Posted by krugaan
    All it takes is once:

    "Grandpa, tells us that story about the Ricalison the Great again!"

    Hours later...

    "... and that, kids, is how he conquered the world with dancing lights."

  26. - Top - End - #86
    Titan in the Playground
    Join Date
    Oct 2014

    Default Re: A Defense of the Banneret: A Mechanical Guide to a Supporting Fighter

    Quote Originally Posted by RickAllison View Post
    This was for the most recent UA dealing with giving Bardic Inspiration to an unconscious creature, but this actually buffs the Banneret! Since Rallying Cry only needs them to see or hear you and apparently an unconscious creature can still hear, you can pull the classic Call of Duty scene of the Banneret sergeant yelling at the PC not to die yet.
    Sure, if Jeremy Crawford is DMing.

  27. - Top - End - #87
    Ettin in the Playground
     
    PirateWench

    Join Date
    Oct 2015

    Default Re: A Defense of the Banneret: A Mechanical Guide to a Supporting Fighter

    Quote Originally Posted by MaxWilson View Post
    Sure, if Jeremy Crawford is DMing.
    It's something at least. Maybe that can get to an actual Sage Advice at some point. It would give the Banneret a much-needed buff.
    Quote Originally Posted by krugaan
    All it takes is once:

    "Grandpa, tells us that story about the Ricalison the Great again!"

    Hours later...

    "... and that, kids, is how he conquered the world with dancing lights."

  28. - Top - End - #88
    Ettin in the Playground
     
    ClericGirl

    Join Date
    May 2015
    Location
    Texas
    Gender
    Male

    Default A Defense of the Banneret: A Mechanical Guide to a Supporting Fighter

    I'd have preferred to see this thread go into how to get the most out of the PDK, rather than the series of posts slamming that archetype. If one is trying to optimize a given sub class, it isn't necessary to go on and on about how a different class is better, etc.

    Can we get back to that?

    How to get the most out of the PDK?
    Last edited by KorvinStarmast; 2019-09-18 at 04:42 PM.
    Quote Originally Posted by Malifice View Post
    (paraphrased) Rulings are not 'House Rules.' Rulings are a DM doing what DMs are supposed to do.
    Quote Originally Posted by greenstone View Post
    Agency means that they {players} control their character's actions; you control the world's reactions to the character's actions.
    Gosh, 2D8HP, you are so very correct (and also quite handsome) ... 2D8HP told me so
    Quote Originally Posted by HappyDaze
    Self-deception tends to have a low target number

  29. - Top - End - #89
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    Lizardfolk

    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    Saint Louis
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: A Defense of the Banneret: A Mechanical Guide to a Supporting Fighter

    Quote Originally Posted by KorvinStarmast View Post
    How to get the most out of the PDK?
    Simple.

    By not taking the subclass.

  30. - Top - End - #90
    Ettin in the Playground
     
    ClericGirl

    Join Date
    May 2015
    Location
    Texas
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: A Defense of the Banneret: A Mechanical Guide to a Supporting Fighter

    Quote Originally Posted by SpawnOfMorbo View Post
    By not taking the subclass.
    You seem to have missed the point I was trying to make.
    It doesn't matter that a given sub class isn't perfect or as "awesome" as some other class and / or sub class. The point is that "getting the most out of this sub class" is a form of optimization. I'd suggest that there is enough brain power in the Playground to tackle that challenge instead of dismissing the OP's intent.
    Last edited by KorvinStarmast; 2019-09-18 at 04:50 PM.
    Quote Originally Posted by Malifice View Post
    (paraphrased) Rulings are not 'House Rules.' Rulings are a DM doing what DMs are supposed to do.
    Quote Originally Posted by greenstone View Post
    Agency means that they {players} control their character's actions; you control the world's reactions to the character's actions.
    Gosh, 2D8HP, you are so very correct (and also quite handsome) ... 2D8HP told me so
    Quote Originally Posted by HappyDaze
    Self-deception tends to have a low target number

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •