Imaro
Legend
You realize the PDK can already grant attacks to his allies... Right?
D&D 5E Purple Dragon Knight = Warlord?
- Thread starter mellored
- Start date
You realize the PDK can already grant attacks to his allies... Right?
ZzarkLinux
First Post
I'm glad the PDK and the Battlemaster and Martial Adept exist.
But I am not a fan of multiclassing and feats, so it feels too much like a hack/workaround like:
- Combine race A with Class B. Pick subclass C or D.
- Then grab the feats on PageX and start multiclass into Y
- Dont forget splatbooks E, the feat buried in the appendix, and campaign handbook G !!
It's a Concept Tax.
I guess people opposed to Warlords want more concept taxes, and people who like warlords want less tax (e.g. fullblown class). So PDK and multiclass in a campaign setting book is too taxing for me. Note: I think digital tools are a tax too !
Personally, I want a staight martial-alternative to the cleric right out of a non-campaign book. But I understand & respect that many people (including the design team) do not consider it Core DnD. It's just unfortunate for warlord fans.
Edit: Make post more on-topic and less bait-y
Last edited:
Jester David
Hero
Honestly, I'm sure most players are. Like 80-90%. I have no delusions that both factions in the warlord debate comnbines are a ridiculously small percentage of the D&D fanbase. Let alone the percentage of D&D players including casual folk.
GMforPowergamers
Legend
no, is there a full list of the subclass?
nightspaladin
Explorer
The PDK grants allies attacks.. when he action surges, so once a short rest.... and only at 10th level or higher
EzekielRaiden
Follower of the Way
Correct--at least on the healing and granting attacks (at fairly high level, for the latter). I haven't seen anything that suggests buffing--but I haven't been paying close attention to the thread either. What feature does that?
At least in this specific thread, the general response from Warlord fans has been positive--or so it seems to me. Fully, absolutely, 100% satisifed? No, certainly not. But boiling it down to "happy: yes/no?" does a huge disservice to them (or perhaps I should say "us"?) I wouldn't expect them to be "happy" when one of the very core requests was, from the beginning, precisely what you said there, that it be a full class. It's not like it's a shifted goalpost--it's been the goalpost from the beginning. Maybe you didn't mean to, but this really sounds like painting "warlord fans" as petulant, which really can't help the conversation.
Actually, the responses I've seen have by-and-large been "wait and see," with a fair amount of optimism. From both sides, even. What gives you the impression that the critics are notably unhappy?
And I completely agree with you on that front. I had thought my previous post in this thread communicated precisely that. For example, when I said: "The PDK is a major step in the right direction, and (hopefully) both its mechanics and its thematics can help resolve deep disputes."
Sure. But looking at things from a purely mechanical lens is something 5e and its designers have intentionally avoided, right? It could just as easily be that they wanted to go for iconically FR, and specifically Sword Coast, stuff--and even though I don't think I've ever actually roleplayed in a tabletop FR game, I *have* heard of the Purple Dragon Knights before. So arguments based purely upon function don't strike me as very convincing, when it's not only possible but likely that the form came first and function followed well after. Of course, this doesn't at all indicate that your argument is wrong. Merely that it's not particularly compelling to me, when a plethora of equally-valid explanations exist.
My theory, in line with my "the Warlord accidentally slipped between the cracks of shifting mechanics over the playtest" argument, is that the PDK acted as a reasonable conjunction of opportunity, form, function, and simplicity. It's certainly possible (likely, even, given the recent tweets about the Storm bonus spells) that they're aware of the contentious issues, and furthermore the potential to reveal the community's response--but I think it casts WotC in an unfairly "mercenary" light to suggest that that is the causative reason for the PDK taking the form that it did.
Last edited:
And that is probably my biggest hang up with including 4E classes in 5E. It appears the developers have blinders on in reference to only including mechanical distinctions from 4E. And I understand the emphasis, because mechanically 4E is very simple in comparison to 5E; if you consider a 4E without all the bloat. Where I would like them to place mechanical considerations to the side, and just look at the feel for some of those classes like a warlord or shaman which can exist on their own. It does not mean we should ignore other editions. But you could take a warlord class and take all the related classes like cavalier, purple knight, marshall, etc. and have a class/subclass structure. The same could be stated for the Assasin, or Sword Mage.
Where new classes would keep the game simple and easy to learn, they are now stacking on subclasses onto existing classes.
Not sure how significant it is, but the writeup for the Purple Dragon Knight subclass actually uses the word "warlord." It says:
"Restriction: Knighthood
Purple Dragon knights are tied to a specific order of Cormyrean knighthood.
Banneret (emphasis original) serves as the generic name for this archetype if you use it in other campaign settings or to model warlords (emphasis mine) other than Purple Dragon Knights."
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. It implies a conceptual distinction between "warlords" and fighters in general, and implies that the distinction is great enough to be worth defining mechanically. 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.
"Restriction: Knighthood
Purple Dragon knights are tied to a specific order of Cormyrean knighthood.
Banneret (emphasis original) serves as the generic name for this archetype if you use it in other campaign settings or to model warlords (emphasis mine) other than Purple Dragon Knights."
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. It implies a conceptual distinction between "warlords" and fighters in general, and implies that the distinction is great enough to be worth defining mechanically. 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.
tuxgeo
Adventurer
As to "why not use UA?" -- I don't know. Putting such a thing into UA could work at least as well as putting it into SCAG for the purpose of "weather-ballooning," as you say. Maybe they'll tell us some day.
Aren't Purple Dragon Knights more land-based, and less maritime? I'm grasping at straws here to try to guess at their motives; honestly, your guess is as good as mine in that regard, and probably better.
BryonD
Hero
As a "martial healing hater", I'm on-board with this approach.
But here is why: It ties to another mechanic that is either accepted or replaced.
I was never happy with "second wind" by RAW for the same reason similar topics have been driven into the ground many times before.
I removed it and replace with "heroic vigor" which simply gives 1d10+level temp HP after a rest. Similar result with all the "healing" issue removed.
Having a PDK inspire others as well, providing temp HP to them is perfectly OK by me, so extending a house-rule works perfectly.
As with so many other points in 5E, the adaptability is a huge strength, but being willing to take on the task of adapting is critical to getting the most out of the game.
