D&D 5E Purple Dragon Knight = Warlord?

mellored

Legend
I haven't seen it, but apparently it has "Party buffs/heals. Would be a good party leader out of combat as well."
The original had party buffs and inspirational THP, not healing, so it might be incorrect.


Overall i feel it will fall into the same category as a battlemaster and be warlord-lite.
 
Last edited:

log in or register to remove this ad

EzekielRaiden

Follower of the Way
I haven't seen it, but apparently it has "Party buffs/heals. Would be a good party leader out of combat as well."
The original had party buffs and inspirational THP, not healing, so it might be incorrect.


Overall i feel it will fall into the same category as a battlemaster and be warlord-lite.

It's certainly possible. Not being able to see the actual mechanics myself, I cannot really speak as to whether it is or is not.

I think the far more important question is: Does the Purple Dragon Knight have martial healing?

Because people have spoken extremely stridently against martial healing, to the point of "if they added this, I would abandon 5e completely and never look back." (I like to call this kind of argument "hostage design," personally.) So what are the vehemently, strenuously anti-"martial healing" types going to do if the devs independently created it, apparently without the influence of the pro-Warlord crowd?

And, given the phrasing of the statement, what of those who consider the entire archetype badwrongfun because it "bosses people around"? That's another major argument made against the Warlord, but the PDK sounds like it might (I emphasize, *might,* since I can't see the text) trample all over that...
 

Aldarc

Legend
Seems too early to say until we get more concrete details. For all we know, the PDK's abilities could be considered 'magical.'
 

ChrisCarlson

First Post
I can't wait to see the PDK. I always liked those guys.

Because people have spoken extremely stridently against martial healing, to the point of "if they added this, I would abandon 5e completely and never look back." (I like to call this kind of argument "hostage design," personally.) So what are the vehemently, strenuously anti-"martial healing" types going to do if the devs independently created it, apparently without the influence of the pro-Warlord crowd?
"People"? How many "people"? Maybe 1 or 2 extremists? Okay. Because I think you are casting undue negative light on a bunch of other people who just do not feel a 4e-style warlord is a good idea for 5e. What are your thoughts on the equally hyperbolic folks around here who have stated that the absence of a warlord class is a direct insult to them and that it must be added by WotC in order to appease a large contingent of slighted players of a certain edition?

And, given the phrasing of the statement, what of those who consider the entire archetype badwrongfun because it "bosses people around"? That's another major argument made against the Warlord, but the PDK sounds like it might (I emphasize, *might,* since I can't see the text) trample all over that...
This feels a little like a preemptive "neener-neener-neener"? Edgy.

I'm sure, at some point, a "boss other PCs around" commander-y feature (more than already present) will invariably be added to the game. But when it's still not enough for the hardliners here, I look forward to seeing how you reaction to their cries for more.
 

mellored

Legend
I'm sure, at some point, a "boss other PCs around" commander-y feature (more than already present) will invariably be added to the game. But when it's still not enough for the hardliners here, I look forward to seeing how you reaction to their cries for more.
I havn't seen anyone clamor for a "boss other PCs around" feature.

I'll just repeat that you could always refuse the warlords "commands". Ally = willing target.
 

mellored

Legend
Oh, and whoever said 4e's "commander's strike" was errated because it forced allies to attack was wrong. It was always an willing target.

It was errated because it was actually unusable as written. Though they took the opportunity to make it more clear that it was optional.

Suffice to say 4e didn't have the best editing.
 



Imaro

Legend
How is it difficult or costly? Limited sure, but i don't see any trade-off, besides the subclass.

You heal 3 creatures (and yourself) as a bonus action. 1/short rest.

I think it may be because it can only be used when you use your own second wind... which is great if everything lines up correctly... but difficult if say they need healing now and you don't or vice versa... of course I could be totally off base with that answer.
 

Imaro

Legend
FYI- Purple Dragon mechanics...

Main feature - 2nd wind also heals 3 allies fighter level each
- pesuasion expertise
- action surge also gives additional attack to ally
- indomitable for allies

My thoughts...
-I like the indomitable for allies since I think this is one area where the "warlord" could give advice, holler a warning out, etc. and it doesn't step on the toes of him doing the character's job better than them...

-The healing is a small amount, curious to see how they fluffed it but I never had a problem with the martial healing aspect

-It's still a subclass and part of a larger archetype which is exactly what I feel the 5e "warlord" should be... (nearly all heroes inspire, give advice, help, etc... their comrades at some point in time when this trope is used) so I'm cool there as well.


The real question is will this be enough for the 4e die-hards and extreme proponents for a 5e warlord...
 

Remove ads

Top