D&D General Thoughts about Purple Dragon Knights


log in or register to remove this ad


Sometimes I'm really disappointed by the literal-mindedness of the D&D designers, and really reductive ideas about creating color and themes. Purple Dragon Knights are military order, not a bunch of fighters with pet dragons. This reminds me of when in 3e they took away Heironeous's association with the battle axe and gave him a longsword, because he was associated with paladins and paladins often... use longswords? Or in 4e when they made driders just another drow type, and not outcasts cursed by Lolth to create fear in her people.

I'm not saying the game can't change or there is anything sacred about any given piece of lore, but every time you change something completely, you throw out all the work done up to that point. I don't see a fair trade when you give up the PDK classic archetype in order to introduce a subclass that is weird and kind of doesn't work.
 


Another point to ponder --- how many actual Purple Dragon Knights are there? It's really a question of how many amethyst dragons are signed up. More specifically, I think this must be something almost exclusively limited to Wrymlings (Medium, and able to carry Small riders) and Young dragons (Large, so they can carry Medium riders). Adult dragons are probably ready to do something else. For a Young dragon, a decade or three with the PDKs is just a cool broadening experience, like a gap year doing volunteer work.
 

Another point to ponder --- how many actual Purple Dragon Knights are there? It's really a question of how many amethyst dragons are signed up. More specifically, I think this must be something almost exclusively limited to Wrymlings (Medium, and able to carry Small riders) and Young dragons (Large, so they can carry Medium riders). Adult dragons are probably ready to do something else. For a Young dragon, a decade or three with the PDKs is just a cool broadening experience, like a gap year doing volunteer work.

In older material thousands.

They're basically the army.

This town has 700, that castle 1100 sort of thing.
 

In older material thousands.

They're basically the army.

This town has 700, that castle 1100 sort of thing.
I guess my head canon is that "Purple Dragons" or "Purple Dragon Knights" are acceptable terms for the organization as a whole, but only the ones who have paired up with dragons are "Knights" per se. Pendragon sometimes uses the title "Esquire At Arms" for someone who is a former squire and now a professional warrior but isn't a full knight for whatever reason. I think some of the Crusades era knightly orders used the term "sergeant" for a non-knight warrior of the order.

So true Knights . . . I dunno, fifty? And maybe only ten or so within Cormyr proper at any given time, while the rest are knights errant? Ten knights on Young amethyst dragons is a pretty solid line of defense, I would think.
 


The dragonrider fantasy is focused on the rider, not having an all powerful "I win button" as a pet. The important thing is having a scally pet that you can ride through the air on. It doesn't need to be powerful - indeed it needs not to be.

That doesn't match my fantasy of a dragonrider. It's not about the "I win" button, either. It's about having a FRICKIN DRAGON as a friend that fights next to you. Not just any "scaly pet." It's about the size, it's about the scope, it's about the intelligence and ancient knowledge, it's about the breath weapon, it's about thematic magic, about color coordination, about imagining the booming bass in the dragon's voice, about feeling chosen by a powerful creature.

No subclass has the power budget for that, especially at 3rd level.

And riding an off-brand Temu version of a dragon that is appropriately small and dependent and dungeon-friendly and entirely boring is not fulfilling that core fantasy.

No it isn't. Dragons are designed as monsters for a single fight. That's why they use "recharge on a..." abilities rather than "per rest" abilities. They don't mix with PCs over an adventuring day.

This doesn't make it impossible, it's just something to take into consideration. It's something the designers could advise on and give guidelines for. They could even do it in a way that applies to more than just dragons, just in case my party wants to be friends with a beholder or ride a griffon or tame the Terrasque or pal around with a pixie.

Heck, in a game that anticipated things like calling upon a deva to help you in a fight against the Nine Hells, some of your monsters could be designed as allies for multiple fights, since you know tables will want to use them that way. That ship's sailed a bit, but it'd still be a much better solution than trying to fit "dragonrider" vibes into something you can be as an archetype that must be delivered on at low levels instead of as something you can become over the course of the campaign.
 

Sometimes I'm really disappointed by the literal-mindedness of the D&D designers, and really reductive ideas about creating color and themes. Purple Dragon Knights are military order, not a bunch of fighters with pet dragons. This reminds me of when in 3e they took away Heironeous's association with the battle axe and gave him a longsword, because he was associated with paladins and paladins often... use longswords? Or in 4e when they made driders just another drow type, and not outcasts cursed by Lolth to create fear in her people.

I'm not saying the game can't change or there is anything sacred about any given piece of lore, but every time you change something completely, you throw out all the work done up to that point. I don't see a fair trade when you give up the PDK classic archetype in order to introduce a subclass that is weird and kind of doesn't work.
All the old lore is still valid. The dragon stuff has only occurred in-universe in the last few years. I'm sure there are plenty of PDK classic still around.
 

Remove ads

Top