D&D 5E Purple Dragon Knight = Warlord?

[ZzarkLinux]

Depends what you want out of your warlord...
The pdk is also one page of 160. What you think of the other 159 pages should determine your buy/skip.

This is a warlord subforum, and the other 159 pages are lacking in Warlords They don't help the circular dance that is "warlord discussions".

Now to continue that dance ...

I doubt it. I am not (satisfied).

IMO, "See" is an unnecessary restriction.

I agree, the see/hear is not consistent with their definition of hitpoints. You can drop to 0hp and then rest 8hours and be full again. They aren't serious wounds if you can sleep them off, definitely not serious enough block sight/sound. How does a slash across the chest stop me from listening to the PDK's rousing speech ?

So I guess the Players Handbook has a typo:
"an unconscious ally is unaware of their surroundings"
should read as
"a dead ally is unaware of their surroundings".

Perfectly reasonable, right? ;-)

Edit: I'm not top-posting. I just got to lunch, and writing from a phone. I literally am struggling to keep up with this fast-paced thread.

 

[Remathilis]

"Hear" should absolutely be a requirement though. However, I disagree that an unconscious character can't hear. Unconscious characters are "Unaware"; but the subconscious mind is by definition "Unaware", yet still "hears."

Unconscious still doesn't equal Deaf, something it's strangely necessary to point out repeatedly in these threads.

Fascinating. Tell me more about how sleeping and unconscious characters can make Wisdom (Perception) checks.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Fascinating. Tell me more about how sleeping and unconscious characters can make Wisdom (Perception) checks.

Well, if the DM tells you to make a check, you roll it. 3.5, IIRC, had an explicit rule for it, you made a Listen check at -10. 5e doesn't generally go into that kind of detail, leaving such things to DM rulings.

If, for instance, you had two thugs who had just beaten down a PC mention the location of their organization's lair, you might have the PC make that Listen check at -10 in 3.5, and abide by the results. In 5e, you could call for a check to recall that information when the PC awoke, or just give it to him. You have a lot more flexibility.

Similarly, you can rule however you want about PC abilities. "Inspiring Word only works on conscious, sighted, hearing, enthusiastic allies who understand the language you're speaking, and if they have & spend inspiration it heals double." "Healing Word only works on sincere worshipers of your deity, who have undergone a specific rite within the last 7 days, and heals double on Sundays." Either would be legit, regardless of what the 'RAW' or 'RAI' have to say according to the local rules lawyer. Wherever you want to go with it - though it's always a good idea to keep the players' fun in mind - that's the great strength of 5e that makes so many of the concerns we whinge over on the boards moot in actual play.

 

[mellored]

I doubt it. I am not.

IMO, "See" is an unnecessary restriction. The ability to see is not a factor - or even mentioned - in any narrative of inspirational recovery I've seen or read. I can however, imagine inspiration purely by voice, even in complete darkness.

"Hear" should absolutely be a requirement though. However, I disagree that an unconscious character can't hear. Unconscious characters are "Unaware"; but the subconscious mind is by definition "Unaware", yet still "hears."

See OR hear works.

Appeasing people to the point that the class is no longer a Warlord renders the entire endeavor useless.

Not entirely.

You want to make a warlord that makes warlord fans happy. But you also want to let them play it at as many tables as possible. It's not that good if it's banned.

A game that had the possibility of petrification in it is most likely not a non-magical game.

Fair point.

Also, it doesn't seem those effects are that to be that common. The one time an all marshal party fights a medusa's petrifaction gaze would be like the one time the all magic party fights a beholder with anti-magic gaze.

 

[El Mahdi]

Fascinating. Tell me more about how sleeping and unconscious characters can make Wisdom (Perception) checks.

Obviously, unconscious characters, as per the rules, can't make perception checks - but this has nothing to do with inspirational recovery. (...so I'm not sure what your point is here?)

As to sleeping, nothing in the description of the unconscious condition mentions it at all, and I see nothing in the rules that says a sleeping character can't be allowed a perception check.

In real-life, consciousness is not a binary state; there are levels of consciousness, levels of awareness. Of course though, D&D doesn't get into that kind of granularity - that's what DM's are for.

If you want to view consciousness as a binary state, and rule that sleeping characters can't make perception checks in your games, that's entirely your prerogative and not contrary to the rules.

When I do allow a perception check for sleeping characters (albeit with a penalty/disadvantage, modeling that "levels of consciousness" thing), that's entirely my prerogative and also not contrary to the rules.


So, to make a long post short, what point are you trying to make? What does your post have to do with inspirational recovery, Warlords, or Purple Dragon Knights?

 

[El Mahdi]

I did want to point out, the abilities in question say "see OR hear" not "and". Which makes sense to me...

That makes much more sense to me too.

 

[El Mahdi]

Unconscious still doesn't equal Deaf, something it's strangely necessary to point out repeatedly in these threads.

Too true.

The arbitrary range in ft is consistent with 5e design.

They do seem arbitrary, don't they... I hate that, but it does seem a design aspect that can't be ignored. In my games I'll ignore the majority of them, but when designing something to be official/semi-official, I guess it can't be.

Anything you might recover from on your own is something that you might recover from more readily or temporarily throw off the effects of with a little added inspiration. That could well include diseases and toxins, but not so much petrification or death.

Good point.

 

[Tony Vargas]

You want to make a warlord that makes warlord fans happy. But you also want to let them play it at as many tables as possible. It's not that good if it's banned.

I'd rather know up front that it's banned and play something/where else, than play the class with a DM who's barely-tolerating it and likely to rule negatively every chance he gets. Banning is forthright.

They do seem arbitrary, don't they... I hate that, but it does seem a design aspect that can't be ignored. In my games I'll ignore the majority of them, but when designing something to be official/semi-official, I guess it can't be.

60' - like 3/day - is just so familiar from 1e, though. ;P Sort of like a default range if you don't have any reason to have a specific range. Works for 5e, because that's the 5e vibe.

In real-life, consciousness is not a binary state; there are levels of consciousness, levels of awareness. Of course though, D&D doesn't get into that kind of granularity - that's what DM's are for.

If you want to view consciousness as a binary state, and rule that sleeping characters can't make perception checks in your games, that's entirely your prerogative and not contrary to the rules.

When I do allow a perception check for sleeping characters (albeit with a penalty/disadvantage, modeling that "levels of consciousness" thing), that's entirely my prerogative and also not contrary to the rules.

Of course, perception checks don't explicitly figure into the mechanic in question, anyway. But 5e lets you rule however you want on any mechanic, so no worries, there, either way.

 

[Zardnaar]

I would just try and make a balanced warlord. If a DM is that hard core on banning it I don't think it will matter to much what the class is actually about. I would ban it 1st on power levels followed by theme.

 

[Remathilis]

So, to make a long post short, what point are you trying to make? What does your post have to do with inspirational recovery, Warlords, or Purple Dragon Knights?

I question the level of "consciousness" needed by someone to hear an ally up 60 feet away who is saying SOMETHING and processing it fully enough to warrant "inspiration" from it. Inspiration, to me, implies a certain amount of understanding; you have to be aware of what the person is saying enough to be "inspired" by them. If a character at 0 hp is conscious enough to be aware of his ally speaking, understand what is being said, AND become inspired by it, that implies a high level of awareness, enough that I must ask if he is aware enough to perceive, say, two people speaking (in a non-combat situation) and recall the conversation, or recall anything that happened (perhaps with the eidetic memory from Keen Intellect) while he was unconscious.

Now, if you want to say that an unconscious PC is completely capable of hearing a buddy give him a shout of encouragement from across the room, then that's fine. It just smacks as defeating the "unaware" portion of unconsciousness to me. YMMV and all that good stuff.