D&D 5E Unearthed Arcana: Drakewarden and Way of the Ascendant Dragon

We have a new UA available today, this time showcasing new monk and ranger dragon-themed subclasses, in the Way of the Ascendant Dragon and the Drakewarden, respectively.

Interesting to note that these are both dragon adjacent subclasses. Is this foreshadowing for an upcoming product? Or just coincidence?

 

[Chaosmancer]

I'm really liking how they designed the Way of the Ascendant Dragon, especially how they did the Breath of the Dragon feature to be part of the regular Attack action (replacing one attack) so that you don't lose your bonus action martial arts attacks (or Flurry of Blows) and you can double up on it by using it twice in a row if you have the attacks to do so. (By the wording I think they don't intend to allow it to be used as part of the bonus action attacks, but I'd probably allow it if you want to burn the uses) Plus, you get X uses and add on more with Ki points.

All in all it's a nice rider, essentially giving the monk an AoE attack without having to do the mental calculations to see if giving up their entire attack sequence for a single AoE is worth it while also keeping in line with a monkish feel of rapid fire attacks.

One thing that I can see as a risk with allowing them to use it with the flurry, is by 17th level they could stack 4 of them for four instances of ping burn damage. Which, yes, is the majority of their daily uses but is also just a sizable amount of damage over a large group over time.

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

One thing that I can see as a risk with allowing them to use it with the flurry, is by 17th level they could stack 4 of them for four instances of ping burn damage. Which, yes, is the majority of their daily uses but is also just a sizable amount of damage over a large group over time.

It only works during the attack action. It could work if you multiclassed into fighter for Action Surge and Extra Attack 3, then you could do 4 in one turn, or 6 if you're fine not getting the burn damage.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

They look fine to me. I'm actually not all that into dragons (ironic for a D&D player, I suppose... ) but they look interesting and seem fine mechanically.

I'm the same. Dragons are like steak. Used sparingly, they're fantastic. Thrown around all over the place, and they rapidly stop being special.

 

[Chaosmancer]

It only works during the attack action. It could work if you multiclassed into fighter for Action Surge and Extra Attack 3, then you could do 4 in one turn, or 6 if you're fine not getting the burn damage.

And I was responding to Kannik musing about letting it work with Flurry of Blows, which would not require Action Surge or Fighter levels at all, but DM Fiat to alter the rules.

Which was the context I was responding to.

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

And I was responding to Kannik musing about letting it work with Flurry of Blows, which would not require Action Surge or Fighter levels at all, but DM Fiat to alter the rules.

Which was the context I was responding to.

Ah, sorry. Nevermind, then.

 

[Bacon Bits]

It's not even necessarily Drizz't but the fact the since 2e, two-weapon fighting has been one of the things rangers were known for along with archery. Things like the bonus action to redirect the pet and even hunter's mark's bonus action work against it.

1e, too, although it was mostly indirect there. The bonus damage when fighting "giant class" creatures -- a premiere benefit in 1e -- applied to all your attacks. Also, in 1e/2e your reaction adjustment applied to the -2/-4 TWF penalties, and even though rangers weren't Dex-based in 1e, in my experience they virtually always had high Dex. That was because bows were kind of busted in AD&D, and any positive reaction adjustment meant they were effectively immune to surprise. The benefits of a ranger having high Dex and using TWF in 1e were significant.

2e's introduction of "free" TWF for rangers really just sat on the back of what optimizers were doing in 1e.

 

[Bacon Bits]

They should just call the Drakewarden a Dragoon.

I think that would make nobody happy, I think. The JRPG crowd would demand spear specialization and ambush attack features, while the history crowd would complain that the ranger isn't the class for heavy mounted infantry, especially when there's no blunderbuss!

 

[Urriak Uruk]

Fun! As someone else mentioned, it's interesting that the gem dragons release was delayed, possibly because they expanded that project to something larger.

It would make a lot of sense for this to be tied to a Dragonomicon (or another titled monster book). Other than that, it could be Dragonlance, but that's probably less likely with what we know about all the W&H shenanigans.

 

[Marandahir]

I think that would make nobody happy, I think. The JRPG crowd would demand spear specialization and ambush attack features, while the history crowd would complain that the ranger isn't the class for heavy mounted infantry, especially when there's no blunderbuss!

Dragoon was historically light mounted infantry. You're thinking of Heavy Dragoons or Dragoon Guards (which developed because of the arrival of Hussars into western European cavalry forces, pushing the "Dragoons" away from their original lighter roles in those cavalries). It's like polearms, there are a lot of variations that mean different things and they're easy to confuse.

Blunderbuss is very easy to use if you're using the DM's Guide's firearms rules. Ranger is perfectly fine as mounted infantry and can excel with ranged weapons; you just don't get a horse as part of your class features (gotta buy one or get assigned one by the military).

That said, the meaning of it was "this ranged cavalry with fire blasting from mount reminds us of dragons." I think the Drakewarden does a good job at giving a similar feeling, but the name is as silly as Battlemind or Runepriest or Noun-Verber. If there's a simpler, more elegant name for the subclass, I'd prefer it.

 

[Weiley31]

I think that would make nobody happy, I think. The JRPG crowd would demand spear specialization and ambush attack features, while the history crowd would complain that the ranger isn't the class for heavy mounted infantry, especially when there's no blunderbuss!

Mercer's Gunslinger pdf has the Blunderbuss in it.