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

[Daphne]

I would heavily disagree with your characterization. Despite them being variant rules for simplicity, feats and multiclassing being on the table is the default assumption for all forums

Most D&D players are "casuals", they don't talk about RPGs in random forums with strangers.

[Fable Wright]

If by 'most' you mean less than half.

Adventurer's League rules allow feats and multiclass builds. Given that AL is a game that anyone can join and acts as a baseline for most open tables, it's going to be WAY WAY WAY more than half of all games that allow multiclass.

EDIT:

In our last survey, we asked you which areas of D&D you thought needed expansion, and solicited feedback for the latest revision of the mystic character class and new rules for psionics.

In terms of overall content, feats were far and away the most requested new element. Over 70 percent of you want more feats for your game. Feats also had the least opposition to their expansion.*

At least 70% of players want more feats, which is incongruous with the assertion that fewer than 50% of tables use them. That would be about 25% of players saying "I can't use this, but I want more of it!"

[RickAllison]

Most D&D players are "casuals", they don't talk about RPGs in random forums with strangers.

I would love to see your statistics for that. Purely armchair math here, but "casuals" don't tend to invest deep into it and continue playing. Plus while they aren't likely to hang around discussing on forums, it doesn't mean they won't come across them while doing a Google search for an easy build. Google is almost a reflex at this point, and I would bet that a fair amount of casuals essentially just copy/paste something or look at a guide to just paint by the dots rather than going through the book and making everything him or herself.

But if you have statistics otherwise, I'd love to hear them. Otherwise "universal" seems an accurate descriptor for most games that will ever matter for this conversation.

[Reevh]

"Above the curve" is an understatement. Assuming you keep your ability scores up, trigger their bonus damage, and are only using a d8 weapon, the weapon cantrips match Eldritch Blast + Agonizing Blast in terms of expected damage. That's before any optimization you do of the actual melee weapon attack they're attached to. It's just kinda goofy.

I don't think that's a safe assumption. Moreover, it's melee only, unlike EB-AB.

But I agree with your general premise that it's well above the curve, especially when paired with classes that don't rely on extra attack for their melee attacks, like Rogue and Cleric.

[GlenSmash!]

Big issue was that Wotc core team didn't write the content for Scag.

Oh yeah!

I forgot that this was when they were outsourcing books.

[Waazraath]

I think back then WotC were so afraid of power creep that the SCAG subclasses all came out nerfed.

That's a bit exagerated, ain't it? I mean, yeah, Battlerager, Banneret and Undying are far below average... and Crown pally is a bit on the weak side (but no more than that).

On the other hand, Bladesinger wizard, Storm Sorcerer, Mastermind and Swashbuckler Rogue, Long Death and Sun Soul monk, and Arcana cleric are somewhere between average up to very strong.

[Chaos Jackal]

That's a bit exagerated, ain't it? I mean, yeah, Battlerager, Banneret and Undying are far below average... and Crown pally is a bit on the weak side (but no more than that).

On the other hand, Bladesinger wizard, Storm Sorcerer, Mastermind and Swashbuckler Rogue, Long Death and Sun Soul monk, and Arcana cleric are somewhere between average up to very strong.

Storm, Mastermind, Swashbuckler and Sun Soul are XGtE archetypes, not SCAG. Moreover, Storm, Long Death and Sun Soul are pretty weak archetypes, and Mastermind is definitely not above average outside of a social campaign.

Bladesinger is a promising wizard archetype which, unfortunately, suffers from a number of issues (namely MAD and its core feature having very limited uses) if you wanna play them as a full-on gish. Not bad by any means, and can be pretty strong, but strange in its implementation.

Arcana cleric I'd say is the only clearly above-average archetype from those you mentioned.

[Evaar]

Intelligence

Literally nothing spellwise targets both you and an ally at the same time.

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.

[GlenSmash!]

Storm, Mastermind, Swashbuckler and Sun Soul are XGtE archetypes, not SCAG.

These were actually published first in SCAG, then again in XGtE. Some had minor tweaks I believe.

[Waazraath]

These were actually published first in SCAG, then again in XGtE. Some had minor tweaks I believe.

This.

Of all the SCAG subclasses, Arcana, Bladesinger and Swashbuckler are good in my book.

[Chaos Jackal]

These were actually published first in SCAG, then again in XGtE. Some had minor tweaks I believe.

True, I forgot. Point about most of them being subpar still stands.

This.

Of all the SCAG subclasses, Arcana, Bladesinger and Swashbuckler are good in my book.

Pretty much.

[GlenSmash!]

That's a bit exagerated, ain't it? I mean, yeah, Battlerager, Banneret and Undying are far below average... and Crown pally is a bit on the weak side (but no more than that).

On the other hand, Bladesinger wizard, Storm Sorcerer, Mastermind and Swashbuckler Rogue, Long Death and Sun Soul monk, and Arcana cleric are somewhere between average up to very strong.

I know Storm Sorcerer had its expanded spell list from its UA version removed. I don't know if it's still good or not though, I am admittedly not the type to play full casters. I do whoever think that Sun Soul is on the weak side when it was published I struggled to think what it could do that a Longbow wielding Wood Elf PHB subclass monk could not, besides spend KI on burning hands.

The other options I do think are average, beisdes Bladesinger being a great defensive Wizard option Arcana Cleric being the real stand out.

[RickAllison]

That's a bit exagerated, ain't it? I mean, yeah, Battlerager, Banneret and Undying are far below average... and Crown pally is a bit on the weak side (but no more than that).

On the other hand, Bladesinger wizard, Storm Sorcerer, Mastermind and Swashbuckler Rogue, Long Death and Sun Soul monk, and Arcana cleric are somewhere between average up to very strong.

Bladesinger: This one is on par with the other disciplines, but I think it failed at what it was trying to do. It was supposed to make a weapon-using wizard, but it ends up being far more effective as just a wizard who has some serious defensive buffs, especially until you get the offense buffs at higher levels. Like an Abjurationist with the SCAG cantrips is about on par as a bladesinger while still getting their wizardly stuff.

Storm Sorcerer: This also fits in the weaker subclasses. It has some neat tricks and could combo well with the right things, but taken on its own it is a superbly squishy class that is encouraged to be in the worst of things, which is a very bad idea.

Mastermind: Also weaker. It's a class built around social stuff and enabling other party members when it is part of the class that should be the one being enabled. That being said, a social/intrigue game could see it being put to good use, and if Unearthed Arcana is allowed then the Historian feat combos extremely well. But in most games, you'd be better off with a familiar to do this job instead.

Swashbuckler: This one is good. It does what it is supposed to, does it well enough to matter, and isn't busted.

Long Death: Same as Swashbuckler.

Sun Soul: Weaker. It's an interesting gimmick and it works enough to get interest, but it is definitely underpowered. It does have the unique qualifier of being the only truly at-will ranged AoE with its Masenko-Ha before like the Wizard's L18 feature. Even the Hunter's AoE at least requires arrows (although a magic item could get around that).

Arcana Cleric: This is good.

I'd say we have the trinity of Swashbuckler, Long Death, and Arcana that at least meet the average capabilities with what they were doing. Bladesinger is also good, but not at what it is supposed to do well. The rest are either weak or their strengths are too niche for most games.

[Waazraath]

I know Storm Sorcerer had its expanded spell list from its UA version removed. I don't know if it's still good or not though, I am admittedly not the type to play full casters. I do whoever think that Sun Soul is on the weak side when it was published I struggled to think what it could do that a Longbow wielding Wood Elf PHB subclass monk could not, besides spend KI on burning hands.

The other options I do think are average, beisdes Bladesinger being a great defensive Wizard option Arcana Cleric being the real stand out.

Storm's average as far as I'm concerned... compared with the PHB subclasses, a bit weaker than Draconic, but I'd prefer it above Wild Magic. The free disengage (without having to spend an action), elemental resistances, extra damage: it's nice enough. Sun Soul is indeed a tad weaker than Shadow and Open Hand (though I'd prefer it above 4e), while Long Death is on par with Shadow and Open Hand afaic.

It could have been a tad stronger, I agree though, and I feel with the sentiment that the 3 subclasses that are seriously left behind are a bit of a pity, since their concepts are cool. Oh well.

[ad_hoc]

I would heavily disagree with your characterization. Despite them being variant rules for simplicity, feats and multiclassing being on the table is the default assumption for all forums (you have to specify "No feats" or "No multiclassing" or dips and feats will come up), and there are no statistics out there I know of to corroborate either way for tables, but I'm inclined to think that most groups run with the full rules.

Mearls has stated that less than half of all tables use feats.

While I haven't seen Mearls or Crawford give an exact number for multiclassing I have gotten the feeling that it is similar or even lower (anecdotally I have seen feats more common than multiclassing too).

The full rules does not include feats and multiclassing. They are optional modules that can be added to the game. They aren't 'taken away'.

Adventurer's League rules allow feats and multiclass builds. Given that AL is a game that anyone can join and acts as a baseline for most open tables, it's going to be WAY WAY WAY more than half of all games that allow multiclass.

Right but AL probably comprises 1% or so of all 5e tables so it is essentially meaningless for this discussion.

I bet the vast majority of tables both don't care about AL and have no idea what the rules are.

[Fable Wright]

Right but AL probably comprises 1% or so of all 5e tables so it is essentially meaningless for this discussion.

I bet the vast majority of tables both don't care about AL and have no idea what the rules are.

By my estimate, 29% of DMs wear green hats on Fridays, 3% of tables are actually playing Ogres and Oubliettes, and 12% of players started their first campaign in a tavern.

See how meaningless statements are even if you attach a made up number to them?

There is one source of hard numbers, though. The company with the most skin in the race, who went to exhaustive effort to get the most statistically valid set of data about their player base.

Not to beat a dead horse, but here's what they said:

In terms of overall content, feats were far and away the most requested new element. Over 70 percent of you want more feats for your game. Feats also had the least opposition to their expansion.*

Mearls is saying things that directly contradict the survey. I don't believe him.

[Emongnome777]

By my estimate, 29% of DMs wear green hats on Fridays, 3% of tables are actually playing Ogres and Oubliettes, and 12% of players started their first campaign in a tavern.

See how meaningless statements are even if you attach a made up number to them?

There is one source of hard numbers, though. The company with the most skin in the race, who went to exhaustive effort to get the most statistically valid set of data about their player base.

Not to beat a dead horse, but here's what they said:



Mearls is saying things that directly contradict the survey. I don't believe him.

How was this survey done? How do we know those that participated in the survey represent the whole gaming population? You reference this survey, but it doesn’t mean much if the surveyed group is only a specific subset. If it was taken from the website for instance, I’d say that isn’t representative of the gaming population as a whole. Just my opinion.

[GlenSmash!]

There is still a difference between players that answered a survey and all players. So while >70% of players who answer this survey would like more feats (me among them) WotC has still stated most players still don't use them. While they have never said how they got this data it's likely that at least some of it is gathered through D&D Beyond.

My own take is that my players can barely be bothered to crack open a book, and at least 2 of them would ask "What's a feat?" even though I allow feats.

[MaxWilson]

There is still a difference between players that answered a survey and all players. So while >70% of players who answer this survey would like more feats (me among them) WotC has still stated most players still don't use them.

"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.

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.

[Fable Wright]

How was this survey done? How do we know those that participated in the survey represent the whole gaming population? You reference this survey, but it doesn’t mean much if the surveyed group is only a specific subset. If it was taken from the website for instance, I’d say that isn’t representative of the gaming population as a whole. Just my opinion.

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.

[MaxWilson]

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.

Here are some interesting stats from D&D Beyond: https://www.enworld.org/threads/here...e-pack.666137/

At low levels, 4% of D&D Beyond PCs have feats. At high levels, 57-58% of D&D Beyond PCs have feats.

[Yunru]

It wouldn't shock me if that sort of thing explained WotC's survey results.

Especially given how much the number of characters with feats spiked from level 12 onwards.

[RickAllison]

Mearls has stated that less than half of all tables use feats.

While I haven't seen Mearls or Crawford give an exact number for multiclassing I have gotten the feeling that it is similar or even lower (anecdotally I have seen feats more common than multiclassing too).

The full rules does not include feats and multiclassing. They are optional modules that can be added to the game. They aren't 'taken away'.



Right but AL probably comprises 1% or so of all 5e tables so it is essentially meaningless for this discussion.

I bet the vast majority of tables both don't care about AL and have no idea what the rules are.

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. It tells literally nothing about the tables playing D&D. I don't mean that as an exaggeration, these stats are about the characters, not the tables. So it is not that less than half of all tables use feats, it is that less than half of the characters used feats. Which isn't hard when 90% of said characters are below level 10 and that is heavily leaning toward the lower levels, which are the levels with the lowest probability of having feats.

First, that includes all the level 1-3 characters which, if they aren't variant humans (which, as of a more recent sampling, comprised 4% of characters), can't take feats yet, and so all of the characters at those levels hold no significance in terms of determining whether feats are allowed. Because, I can't stress this enough, anyone who doesn't make a variant human can't. I'm also going to guess that these numbers aren't very representative because there are likely a number of people who tried DDB out, decided they didn't want to do it, and so they have basic characters which are just hanging around, bringing down the average.

Second, there is the nature of choosing ASIs vs feats, which is especially important before your primary stat is maxed out. There are very few casters who are going to take War Caster, Spell Sniper, or Resilient (Con) before their casting stat is maxed. Weapon characters are generally in a similar place unless their fighting style relies on a feat. Assuming point-buy or rolls that are roughly in line with that, very few people are going to take a feat at level 4 either because they are going to be boosting their primary stat. At levels 6 (fighter ASI) and 8, we get a more general curving out as we approach maximum for the primary stat. Exceptions to the general rule are probably going to be PAM, Sharpshooter, Shield Master, GWM, and other build-defining feats, as well as half-feats which bring a stat to even. The stats even reflect this! Levels 4-7, we see a raise in characters with feats up to 34%, which is actually higher than I would have expected. Once we get to level 8, the gap lessens even more to 49%; at this level, a non-fighter point-buy with a favorable race (+2 bonus) can have a maxed stat and also a half-feat, fighters have had three ASIs and certainly have maxed their stat, and now will be looking for feats unless they really need more Con. At 12+ it is a majority, as would be expected once everyone, even the races which have no bonus for your primary stat, have maxed it.

Third, there is a difference between a player not choosing to use feats or multiclassing for their character, and being at a table where it's not allowed. Multiclassing in general is a bit of a rarity even when permitted because most of the time it is better to just stay in your class. Multiclasses tend to be for specific purposes that a single-class character can't adequately fit. And for feats, not everyone needs them. A Paladin or Monk have two stats they will be running off of, while various subclasses and combat styles of other classes will have a secondary ability score they will want to raise second. Even when feats are allowed, a sword-and-board Eldritch Knight or an Arcane Trickster may not take a feat because they spend other ASIs on the casting stat until much higher levels.

Fourth, this is restricted to people using D&D Beyond for their character sheets. D&D Beyond. So by default, you are restricted to Firearms Specialist (Critical Role?), Grappler (and who is taking that???), and Svirnefblin Magic which is restricted to one race. Forgive me if I doubt the reliability of stats coming from a severe minority of players who would rather create their sheets on that website after having to pay for content they likely already own.

As for multiclassing, we do have some stats from Beyond for that too. 11% of active characters of level 2+ were multiclassed, with exact compositions ranging from 32-33% for fighters and rogues down to 8% for druids. And again, this doesn't count level 1 characters for obvious reasons.

[Zuras]

Level 3 is when the Fighter gets their core subclass ability.

And the Banneret's is terrible compared to what other subclasses get.

It isn't Mass Healing Word - it can't revive a character from 0.

I wouldn't call level 7 an 'earlier' level either for the Persuasion Expertise. 7 is the last level that I care about when looking at what a character will get. Everything after that I'm both not playing long enough to use much and have played too much already to have counted on.

The fact that it only works if they can hear you is what makes PDK terrible. The healing is a tiny amount, as well. Compared to what the other Fighter Subclasses get, it’s abysmal. My son tried one in Adventurers’ League, where you are allowed to rebuild your character between sessions up to 5th level.

He tried PDK for one session, and Rallying Cry did absolutely nothing for him. Tried Battle Master next week and killed a Goblin with a riposte in his first round of combat.

Inspiring Surge should have been the 3rd level ability for the PDK to be competitive at all.

[RickAllison]

The fact that it only works if they can hear you is what makes PDK terrible. The healing is a tiny amount, as well. Compared to what the other Fighter Subclasses get, it’s abysmal. My son tried one in Adventurers’ League, where you are allowed to rebuild your character between sessions up to 5th level.

He tried PDK for one session, and Rallying Cry did absolutely nothing for him. Tried Battle Master next week and killed a Goblin with a riposte in his first round of combat.

Inspiring Surge should have been the 3rd level ability for the PDK to be competitive at all.

See or hear you, but the point is moot. It loses the biggest utility of healing, which is to get people up, and which is really the main way that the ability could be worth it. Frankly, it's beaten out by any other fighter packing Inspiring Leader.

[Yunru]

See or hear you, but the point is moot. It loses the biggest utility of healing, which is to get people up, and which is really the main way that the ability could be worth it. Frankly, it's beaten out by any other fighter packing Inspiring Leader.

Even if it could pick people up, it risks overflow if you use it on someone near full health unlike Inspiring Leader, and risks the downed person missing their turn, unlike Inspiring Leader.

Now if Second Wind and it were both changed to be THP, it might be better (although even then Inspiring Leader would affect more of the party).

[Zuras]

Mastermind: Also weaker. It's a class built around social stuff and enabling other party members when it is part of the class that should be the one being enabled. That being said, a social/intrigue game could see it being put to good use, and if Unearthed Arcana is allowed then the Historian feat combos extremely well. But in most games, you'd be better off with a familiar to do this job instead.

You can take Magic Initiate, get a Familiar, and give out Advantage twice a round. I have a rogue that does that and it’s quite effective, at least in Tier 1 play.

[Yunru]

Mastermind: Also weaker. It's a class built around social stuff and enabling other party members when it is part of the class that should be the one being enabled. That being said, a social/intrigue game could see it being put to good use, and if Unearthed Arcana is allowed then the Historian feat combos extremely well. But in most games, you'd be better off with a familiar to do this job instead.

No no no, they always come in pairs: The mastermind and the apprenticemind :P
But for real, two Masterminds get a lot more out of it than just one does.

[RickAllison]

No no no, they always come in pairs: The mastermind and the apprenticemind :P
But for real, two Masterminds get a lot more out of it than just one does.

Oh god, dual Masterminds, just passing each other advantage for days XD

[SpawnOfMorbo]

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.

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.