D&D (2024) Wargamer Takes Shot At WotC for Not Respecting Forgotten Realms Canon.

[Valetudo]

Don't get me wrong, I want a full warlord class. But we will never get it.

 

[occam]

It is not published.

Exactly. Neither the new version of the subclass, nor the associated fiction, has been published yet. How can you claim the subclass isn't supported by new fiction when the book in which it will appear hasn't come out?

 

[Sorcerers Apprentice]

To be clear it is the Purple Dragons that were part of the lore, not the Purple Dragon Knight.

If it is not important then why did they name a subclass out of it? What you are suggesting is they picked something obscure from the corners of the Forgotten Realms and decided to misuse the name for something they wanted to build. Wouldn't it be easier to just come up with a new name?

This is even more true when you consider the purple color and how it drives you to a certain type of Dragon that is itself obscure, both in the Forgotten Realms and in the broader D&D community?

It feels like maybe the reason they chose the name Purple Dragon Knight for the new dragonrider subclass was that they want to make the worst designed subclass in 5e2014 obsolete forever.

 

[ECMO3]

Exactly. Neither the new version of the subclass, nor the associated fiction, has been published yet. How can you claim the subclass isn't supported by new fiction when the book in which it will appear hasn't come out?

I said it is not supported by the current fiction and I don't believe new fiction will be published.

Who knows. Maybe I am wrong.

 

[Azzy]

I said it is not supported by the current fiction and I don't believe new fiction will be published.

Who knows. Maybe I am wrong.

Why wouldn't the book that includes that subclass not have fiction associated with that subclass?

 

[pemerton]

It is not published.

My understanding is that it is published in an Unearthed Arcana document.

I said it is not supported by the current fiction and I don't believe new fiction will be published.

The subclass is - or, if you prefer, will be - the repository of the new fiction.

Other new fiction might be published too, for all I know.

 

[Parmandur]

My understanding is that it is published in an Unearthed Arcana document.

The subclass is - or, if you prefer, will be - the repository of the new fiction.

Other new fiction might be published too, for all I know.

The details on Cormyr and what may have happened with the Purple Dragon Knights are coming in the Fall campaign book: not sure why anyone would assume there won't be an explanation for the new dragon riders there. But it wasn't part of the mechanics playtest packet.

 

[Demetrios1453]

2. It is an Amethyst Dragon, something only the most ardent players are going to even identify with. Gem Dragons themselves are kind of D&D adjacent with how they are presented and used and not very central to the game. The Dragon themed WOTC adventures SODQ and Rise of Tiamat don't even have Gem Dragons. The new monster Manual does not have them. It would be much more appealing if it was a Gold Dragon I think.

They were in Fizban's, so it's not like they were dropped completely from 5e. Moreover, that book only came out a few years ago and is still available at various bookstores/FLGS I've been to recently. And beyond that, as far as we know, the gem dragons, or at least the amethyst dragons in particular given this subclass, might have their stats reprinted, or even revised to the 2024 standard, in the bestiary of this book (and that there will be a bestiary in it has already been confirmed). Thinking even further on it, I'd actually be more surprised than not if at least the amethyst dragon's stats don't appear in this book, given the normal standard of re-printing stat blocks of a monster in the book itself if the monster isn't in the MM....

 

[Mistwell]

I think you misquoted me.

The relevant quote from you was, "they are making it a bad mount subclass. If you want to make a mount subclass, use the cavalier."

I am saying it is a great mount subclass. What misquote?

That said, aside from the name, there are two big problems with the class as written.

1. The Dragon can die and unlike other pet and familiar classes, you can't just resummon another one. Letting you use second wind to revive it is ok ... as long as you did not use all your second wind uses (which saving one for this is a penalty itself considering how much more powerful second wind is). But if you are out of second wind and it does die, that is the end of it.

This is incorrect. "Otherwise, you can perform a 1-hour ceremony to resurrect the dragon; this ceremony can be performed as part of a Short or Long Rest. "

At 10th level your dragon gets killed with disintegrate and that is it, most of your subclass abilities no longer work ... permanently.

See above. This is wrong.

2. It is an Amethyst Dragon, something only the most ardent players are going to even identify with. Gem Dragons themselves are kind of D&D adjacent with how they are presented and used and not very central to the game.

This is the publication which, I assume, will fill in details to get people to identify with it. Regardless, that doesn't make it a "bad mount class" as this is a flavor issue.

The Dragon themed WOTC adventures SODQ and Rise of Tiamat don't even have Gem Dragons. The new monster Manual does not have them. It would be much more appealing if it was a Gold Dragon I think.

Again, that's a flavor issue and we have yet to see whatever flavor will be in this new Realms supplement. But that doesn't make this UA a bad Mount subclass. Mechanically it's pretty good for that concept.

 

[ECMO3]

The relevant quote from you was, "they are making it a bad mount subclass. If you want to make a mount subclass, use the cavalier."

I don't think that is my quote. I don't think I said that.

This is incorrect. "Otherwise, you can perform a 1-hour ceremony to resurrect the dragon; this ceremony can be performed as part of a Short or Long Rest. "

Ok I missed that. good catch.