D&D 5E Purple Dragon Knight = Warlord?

[ZzarkLinux]

It's an odd word choice for being buried in the text of that minor class feature instead of the actual flavor description at the beginning of the Fighter section. (...) I am almost inclined to believe that it was a Freudian slip, suggesting, "Hey, this is your warlord class replacement!" but not wanting to come out and advertise it too openly.

There is always that vibe that they are hiding it. They know it's in demand, but the way they present it ... seems like they are giving it to you begrudgingly.

They're trying to give us Warlords, but they only deliver ScornLords.

 

[mellored]

There is always that vibe that they are hiding it. They know it's in demand, but the way they present it ... seems like they are giving it to you begrudgingly.

They're trying to give us Warlords, but they only deliver ScornLords.

IMO: It's begrudging because they want to keep the number of classes to a minimum. Nothing against the warlord idea itself, just that they want to restrict class bloat.

At one point merls said they didn't want to make any new classes. I'm sure they tried to put the psion in as a sub-class plenty of ways before they decided to test the mystic.


Though, i could possibly see reflavoring the ardent as a warlord. You have tactical discipline that give aura's to allies, the same as a marshal, then use psionic command points to grant buffs.

 

[jayoungr]

Though, i could possibly see reflavoring the ardent as a warlord. You have tactical discipline that give aura's to allies, the same as a marshal, then use psionic command points to grant buffs.

What a fascinating idea. I'd love to see someone do a full work-up of that.

 

[mellored]

What a fascinating idea. I'd love to see someone do a full work-up of that.

Well one big issue is the mystic (as of the last write up) is still a daily class. Which (IMO) we have enough of already.

Otherwise... it might look like...

Discipline of Cooperative Assault:
Concentration: While concentrating on this discipline, all allies within 30' can see though each others eyes. No creature has cover or can hide if any ally has a clear view of them.
Inspired Movement (1): An ally can use a reaction to move upto 1/2 it's speed.
Focused Assault (2): All allies gain advantage on attacks until the start of your next turn.
Inspired Assault (2): An ally can use a reaction to make an attack.

Disciple of the Phalanx
Concentration: While concentrating on this discipline, all allies within 30' gain +1 AC.
Inspired Movement (1): An ally can use a reaction to move upto 1/2 it's speed.
Focused Defense (2): Attacks against all allies have disadvantage for a turn.
Inspired Defense (2): As a reaction, you cause an attack against an ally to miss.

(not sure if the PP cost is appropriate).

 

[Snof]

The PDK seems nice enough warlord substitute for me. At least in the feel and style. Only problem I have with it, is that it seems a bit lacking in power, when compared to plain old battlemaster. However it does get really good at higher levels. It is in some sense, the complete opposite of a battlemaster. I mean; A battlemaster gets all its goodies to begin with, and then just some minor increases. A PDK however starts kinda lacking, but get some damn good burst at level 17, when two allies attack as a reaction, when you use action surge, and you can use action surge 2/short rest. If only it had gotten another cool feature at level 7, then it would get the warlordy feel in playstyle early on too.

This is at least my initial impression.

 

[the Jester]

Hyperbole aside, this seems very much like a bone thrown to the warlord fans.

It's not much of a bone if you're not into the Realms. I'm pretty firmly in the "warlord lover" and "Realms hater" camps, and the SCAG has waaaay too much Realmslore for the amount of generic info for me to buy it. So I won't even have access to the PDK, which is a shame, because I like the looks of it.

But beside that, it's still not a full warlord, because it's still tied to the guy who is a mainline fighter and you can't really be nearly as effective in a support role. If I homebrew a warlord (and I probably will eventually), it will have an explicit "lazylord" subclass (the princess who shouts warnings from behind the lines). You simply can't do that with a fighter.

The fighter subclass could have been anything else. A cavalier with a mounted combat style...

I have been totally waiting for that one.

 

[Tony Vargas]

There is always that vibe that they are hiding it. They know it's in demand, but the way they present it ... seems like they are giving it to you begrudgingly.

They're trying to give us Warlords, but they only deliver ScornLords.

You could see everything that has had some 4e serial numbers filed off (and that's more than just a few odds and ends, even if it doesn't really add up to much), or you could see it as they're trying not stir up any embers of the edition war.

Though, i could possibly see reflavoring the ardent as a warlord. You have tactical discipline that give aura's to allies, the same as a marshal, then use psionic command points to grant buffs.

The Ardent is darn near an Inspiring Warlord who just inspires you telepathically. ;P

 

[Remathilis]

So I got to look at the pdk at my local game store (my copy comes in two weeks) and I saw that the rally ability only works on allies who can see and hear you, something an unconscious creature cannot. Ergo, no healing from 0.

Which makes sense for me, but will further annoy the warlord fans.

 

[UnadvisedGoose445]

So I got to look at the pdk at my local game store (my copy comes in two weeks) and I saw that the rally ability only works on allies who can see and hear you, something an unconscious creature cannot. Ergo, no healing from 0.

Which makes sense for me, but will further annoy the warlord fans.

Actually, according to many of the fans that I've discussed this with, it shouldn't be a problem. The lore explanation that I received was that one still hears while unconscious, like being roused back to consciousness. So technically this shouldn't be an issue if so many others would agree with that interpretation of how things would work.

 

[I'm A Banana]

So I got to look at the pdk at my local game store (my copy comes in two weeks) and I saw that the rally ability only works on allies who can see and hear you, something an unconscious creature cannot. Ergo, no healing from 0.

Which makes sense for me, but will further annoy the warlord fans.

That's a distinction that, for me, turns this from "blecch" to "Ah! Great!"

PDK's are A-OK for me!

Actually, according to many of the fans that I've discussed this with, it shouldn't be a problem. The lore explanation that I received was that one still hears while unconscious, like being roused back to consciousness. So technically this shouldn't be an issue if so many others would agree with that interpretation of how things would work.

The strictest RAW would imply that doesn't happen (unconscious condition explicitly mentions that the creature "is unaware of its surroundings"), but I'm cool with that being a little fungible from table to table. Someone else saying you can hear a PDK shout when you're dying doesn't stop me from ruling that you can't.