D&D 5E Purple Dragon Knight = Warlord?

[Sadras]

Not all the options needed, not yet...

Fair enough.

I do consider the language I'm using. I think it's sadly necessary language at the moment. I look forward to the day when it won't be. (snip) Why then, do you feel the need to badger me for wanting the Warlord? Why not support it in that spirit of inclusion?

Let me clarify: I like the concept of the Warlord. I would very much like to see a "Warlord" character in 5e, whatever the new name, if any, might be. (I have not looked at the PDK as yet). The only time I became involved in this forum thread was due to the hard-line language you utilised.

I mean, so many of us Enworlders took issue with hard-liners who said they wouldn't buy into 5e if it included DOAM, or tieflings/dragonborn, pew-pew magic or anything else that wasn't their preference. I ask you earnestly, why should we make the exception for you when you use the same hard-line language for something that wasn't included?

I think your cause is valiant and if I could assist I would. I believe there are many here that would like to see a 5e Warlord. Can we design one now amongst us with the tools WotC has provided? Sure and many have. We might bicker and disagree about class/subclass, name, balance...etc
What detracts from your position is the language utilised. You feel it is necessary. I don't. We might just have to disagree on this.

Remathilis even stated that there is only one person in this sub-forum that is truly opposing your request for a Warlord. That means everyone else, being 5e players, is only discussing how best to design one within the current framework or indeed supports you. So using hard-language is only going to have everyone turn their backs up.

 

[Flamestrike]

My main issue with that is that your using daily resources.

If you had warlock spell slots recharging per short rest, it would be close. Though i'd still prefer some good at-will abilities.

Barring spells, smites and indomitable: Champions Challenge, Turn the Tide, Rallying Cry (and second wind), Inspiring surge (and action surge), Inspiring leader, Manouvering strike, and Commanders strike are all 1/ short rest abilities.

Royal Envoy, Protection (use his reaction to impose disadvantage on an oppnents attack v ally) and dueling F/S, Aura of protection, Position of priveledge are at will or always on.

What I personally dislike is that you cant take Martial Adept more than once by RAW, and you cant combine two different archetypes. I house-rule martual adept to allow 2 dice per short rest.

Perhaps a Spell-less ranger and PDK combo would fit your idea of a martial Warlord to a tee?

 

[mellored]

Perhaps a Spell-less ranger and PDK combo would fit your idea of a martial Warlord to a tee?

It's close-ish.


Personally, i think the playtest fighter/rogue/monk with the martial dice would be the best baseline.

You got 1-6d6 dice each turn (no multi-attack), and could spend them on maneuvers or damage.
http://zaffudo.com/012813 DnD Next Playtest Packet/012813 Classes.pdf

and there was plenty of maneuvers to choose from.
http://zaffudo.com/012813 DnD Next Playtest Packet/121712 Maneuvers.pdf


It would be really easy to add warlord ones along with fighter ones.

 

[Flamestrike]

It's close-ish.


Personally, i think the playtest fighter/rogue/monk with the martial dice would be the best baseline.

You got 1-6d6 dice each turn (no multi-attack), and could spend them on maneuvers or damage.
http://zaffudo.com/012813 DnD Next Playtest Packet/012813 Classes.pdf

and there was plenty of maneuvers to choose from.
http://zaffudo.com/012813 DnD Next Playtest Packet/121712 Maneuvers.pdf


It would be really easy to add warlord ones along with fighter ones.

Simpy combining manouvers with the PDK fits the bill to a tee for mine. Sadly, there is no offical way to get more than one manouver for your PDK per rest.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Personally, i think the playtest fighter/rogue/monk with the martial dice would be the best baseline.

You got 1-6d6 dice each turn (no multi-attack), and could spend them on maneuvers or damage.
http://zaffudo.com/012813 DnD Next Playtest Packet/012813 Classes.pdf

and there was plenty of maneuvers to choose from.
http://zaffudo.com/012813 DnD Next Playtest Packet/121712 Maneuvers.pdf


It would be really easy to add warlord ones along with fighter ones.

"Maneuvers" are certainly a good starting point, they're at very least a much better name than 'exploit.' Playtest MDDs had an issue in being so highly available that it was difficult to justify them doing much. 5e CS dice are much less available, but still don't do a whole lot. Both MDDs and CS dice have an issue with being damage-focused, and CS dice with being a damage-focused mechanic of an extremely damage-focused class.

Some sort of broader, more flexible maneuver system, of which CS dice are one limited sub-set, might provide a bases for the Warlord, and, perhaps, for other less simplistic/more versatile/interesting martial classes and/or sub-classes.

 

[El Mahdi]

...CS dice have an issue with being damage-focused, and CS dice with being a damage-focused mechanic of an extremely damage-focused class.

True; highlighting how the Battle Master archetype - even divorced from its parent class - is too DPR focused for many Warlord concepts.

Some sort of broader, more flexible maneuver system, of which CS dice are one limited sub-set, might provide a bases for the Warlord, and, perhaps, for other less simplistic/more versatile/interesting martial classes and/or sub-classes.

My thoughts exactly.

 

[mellored]

"Maneuvers" are certainly a good starting point, they're at very least a much better name than 'exploit.' Playtest MDDs had an issue in being so highly available that it was difficult to justify them doing much. 5e CS dice are much less available, but still don't do a whole lot. Both MDDs and CS dice have an issue with being damage-focused, and CS dice with being a damage-focused mechanic of an extremely damage-focused class.

Some sort of broader, more flexible maneuver system, of which CS dice are one limited sub-set, might provide a bases for the Warlord, and, perhaps, for other less simplistic/more versatile/interesting martial classes and/or sub-classes.

True.

MDD does allows for the class to be more then a warlord. For instance, you could have gladiator maneuvers, skirmisher maneuvers, throwing weapon maneuvers, improvised weapon maneuvers, judo maneuvers, defender maneuvers, controller maneuvers, in addition to all the warlord support maneuvers.

Personally i'd go 1d4 -> 5d12 (42). With some more advanced maneuvers taking extra dice.
There would still be room for plenty of other features, like sub-classes.

Compare a rogue who ends up with 10d6 (43.5), or a warlock's eldrich blast (42), or 4 attacks from a sword & board duelist (46). All which get many other features.

 

[jayoungr]

I don't know how many people here listen to the Tome Show, but episode 258 had a belated review and discussion of the Sword Coast Adventurer's Guide plus an interview with Steve Kenson, one of the main people who worked on that book. It included an interesting bit of discussion which I've transcribed below. The quoted bit below starts at about 1 hour, 13 minutes, 2 seconds.

Jeff Greiner: Explain to me why the Purple Dragon Knight is in a Sword Coast book, because they're from Cormyr, and Cormyr is not in the Sword Coast.

Steve Kenson: Right. Well, the Purple Dragon Knight was an editorial decision on Wizards' part, so it was something that was designed in-house by Wizards, and they included it in the book. So I can't speak to the reason for the editorial decision; you'd have to ask them.

JG: Have to ask them, sure.

SK: But I imagine that a great deal of it had to do with wanting to include a, essentially a martial character type that addressed a lot of desire to see something akin to the Warlord class from Fourth Edition in Fifth Edition, and certainly the Purple Dragon Knight is a step in that direction.

JG: Okay, yeah, I can see that.

 

[Jester David]

I don't know how many people here listen to the Tome Show, but episode 258 had a belated review and discussion of the Sword Coast Adventurer's Guide plus an interview with Steve Kenson, one of the main people who worked on that book. It included an interesting bit of discussion which I've transcribed below. The quoted bit below starts at about 1 hour, 13 minutes, 2 seconds.

Jeff Greiner: Explain to me why the Purple Dragon Knight is in a Sword Coast book, because they're from Cormyr, and Cormyr is not in the Sword Coast.

Steve Kenson: Right. Well, the Purple Dragon Knight was an editorial decision on Wizards' part, so it was something that was designed in-house by Wizards, and they included it in the book. So I can't speak to the reason for the editorial decision; you'd have to ask them.

JG: Have to ask them, sure.

SK: But I imagine that a great deal of it had to do with wanting to include a, essentially a martial character type that addressed a lot of desire to see something akin to the Warlord class from Fourth Edition in Fifth Edition, and certainly the Purple Dragon Knight is a step in that direction.

JG: Okay, yeah, I can see that.

That book actually had a lot of nods to 4e, both in the Realms content (dragonborn, common tieflings) and some other stuff. Like the storm sorcerer, which was only really a thing in 4e following Arcane Power.

 

[Remathilis]

Heh. Called it.