D&D 5E The Problem With At Will Attack Granting

[CapnZapp]

A lot of assumptions. A lot.

"All the elements of a warlord exist already in 5E"​

So frakking what? Unless they all can be combined, that's utterly irrelevant.

"A Rogue sneak attacking more than once is broken"​

False. A Rogue needs to successfully sneak attack twice if she has any hope of being the Queen of DPR. What's wrong with character X getting this crown, when everybody is okay with character Y, Z having it? The Rogue is a lot squishier than the fighters, why the doom and gloom about finally granting the dpr class its dpr crown?!?

Besides, as soon as the party gets dissatisfied with this how about the warlord not granting Rogue X his extra actions anymore...? After all, playing the "warlord" means being the lord of war, meaning warlord = I'm the one getting to decide who gets the spotlight.

Even if one worded it in such a way that you can't combine it with a Rogue there are still other things in the game that would allow a potential at will granting warlord to be broken.
1. Sharpshooter feat
2. Great Weapon Master feat
3. Various class abilites (eg hunter ranger).
4. Various spells (hex, hunters quarry).

No. Just no. Who wants to play a Warlord that can only feebly mimic a real hero?!?!?!?!?

If I can't replicate a Sharpshooter attack, how about forgetting the warlord and building a real archer?

The same with points 2-4.

The point about being a Warlord is about being the excellent fifth wheel. Each round getting decide "we need a second ranger/warlock/fighter".

I have a much better suggestion. Create the class with no restrictions and then say "any player named Zardnaar gets to decide whether the class may be used in his game".

A support class like a cleric generally deals anemic levels of damage with weapons.​

Sure. But I'm not playing a Warlord to do anemic levels of damage. I'm playing a Warlord to have my friend deal awesome levels of damage. Otherwise I would have played somebody capable of dealing awesome damage.

The fact that I can skip dealing awesome levels of damage to instead take a modest support action, such as a heal (less than Life Cleric levels) is simply not broken in 5E.

1) In-combat healing is way overrated (maybe unless you're a Life Cleric)
2) Out-of-ocmbat healing is already cheap as f*uck (so why not allow the Warlord to do it too)

And that is why I believe a potential 5E warlord needs to give up at will attack granting.

Just cut off my legs while you're at it too, Zard.

You don't get it. At-will action granting is the core fun part of the class. Maybe I should set you a task instead.

If you were to finish off a class design that already has unrestricted at-will action granting, Zardnaar, how would that look like?​

Feel free to give it d4 hit dice or no armor or 20 ft Speed or whatever you feel is needed. Let's discuss anything but "don't give the Warlord the ONE thing it absolutely should have"!

 

[Zardnaar]

A lot of assumptions. A lot.

"All the elements of a warlord exist already in 5E"​

So frakking what? Unless they all can be combined, that's utterly irrelevant.

"A Rogue sneak attacking more than once is broken"​

False. A Rogue needs to successfully sneak attack twice if she has any hope of being the Queen of DPR. What's wrong with character X getting this crown, when everybody is okay with character Y, Z having it? The Rogue is a lot squishier than the fighters, why the doom and gloom about finally granting the dpr class its dpr crown?!?

Besides, as soon as the party gets dissatisfied with this how about the warlord not granting Rogue X his extra actions anymore...? After all, playing the "warlord" means being the lord of war, meaning warlord = I'm the one getting to decide who gets the spotlight.



No. Just no. Who wants to play a Warlord that can only feebly mimic a real hero?!?!?!?!?

If I can't replicate a Sharpshooter attack, how about forgetting the warlord and building a real archer?

The same with points 2-4.

The point about being a Warlord is about being the excellent fifth wheel. Each round getting decide "we need a second ranger/warlock/fighter".

I have a much better suggestion. Create the class with no restrictions and then say "any player named Zardnaar gets to decide whether the class may be used in his game".

A support class like a cleric generally deals anemic levels of damage with weapons.​

Sure. But I'm not playing a Warlord to do anemic levels of damage. I'm playing a Warlord to have my friend deal awesome levels of damage. Otherwise I would have played somebody capable of dealing awesome damage.

The fact that I can skip dealing awesome levels of damage to instead take a modest support action, such as a heal (less than Life Cleric levels) is simply not broken in 5E.

1) In-combat healing is way overrated (maybe unless you're a Life Cleric)
2) Out-of-ocmbat healing is already cheap as f*uck (so why not allow the Warlord to do it too)

And that is why I believe a potential 5E warlord needs to give up at will attack granting.

Just cut off my legs while you're at it too, Zard.

You don't get it. At-will action granting is the core fun part of the class. Maybe I should set you a task instead.

If you were to finish off a class design that already has unrestricted at-will action granting, Zardnaar, how would that look like?​

Feel free to give it d4 hit dice or no armor or 20 ft Speed or whatever you feel is needed. Let's discuss anything but "don't give the Warlord the ONE thing it absolutely should have"!

I would have to be something like a Mastermind Rogue that gives up its damage dealing features in order to enable someone else. Perhaps swap out its ability to use the help action as a bonus action and replace it with attack granting. If you give up one of the best attacks singular attacks in the game (sneak attack) to enable someone else to sneak attack that is fine. You would not get anything in terms of healing or other Warlord type things.

Several feats also come to mind so you could layer WL abilities onto various classes..

Other classes gave up tings that defined them such as weapon specialisation (1E-3E), replaced with other abilities that function differently (fighting styles, action surge etc, no DC 30+ spell DCs or lots of buffing).

YOu can go bitch and moan at Mearls if you like but he will ignore you more than I will, at least I would give you the warlord as an independent class.

 

[Guest 6801328]

Zaardnar: "Hmm...the forums have been quiet lately. Too quiet. And even worse, none of my clickbait threads have been on the 1st page lately.

I guess I'll start an anti-Warlord thread, without calling it that, and see what happens...."

EDIT: And the "problem" with at-will Action granting isn't the math, it's the narrative.

 

[rczarnec]

Sorcerers don't heal either plus you will want other abilities.

Divine Soul can heal.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

It's still a lot more damage than other support classes.

Some classes do more actual damage than other classes.

How is that a problem? You have failed, as yet, to demonstrate any way in which it is.

You keep talking about how this is basically a system problem, but in order to support that, you need to really demonstrate it, not just say it, and you need to assume that most parties will not optimize around a Warlord, unless you are assuming all parties optimize around whatever other options are competing (which they don't, in the real world).

The killer point for you, which you have yet to address, is that Warlords will not be full casters. They will probably not be casters at all. Whereas all other support classes, now, including Bards, are full casters, all of whom have access to a wide variety of spells which will boost the party, screws the enemy over, straight up kill the enemy, or some combination of the three.

So you can't compare Warlords to say, Clerics who don't cast spells or only cast a spell once every so often (because that would be equivalent to a Warlord irregularly and randomly granting attacks). You have to compare Warlords to Clerics or Bards who use all their spells and use them well. At that point, I think it's going to be a great deal more complex as a picture. Yes, the Warlord may be able to attribute more direct rolling of damage-dice to his use of actions (albeit not to him directly), but the sheer amount of buffing and CC the others will put out may well mean their overall contribution to victory is more. I mean, do we count every point of damage to a target under Hold Person as belonging to whoever cast that spell? By your logic we should, or at least some large proportion of it.

All this said though, I think a "limited number of extra attacks per short rest" model would probably be fine in practice, so long as the limit was high enough. Again though this is competing with FULL spellcasting, so you'd need a TON of other stuff.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

What are you saying? That 5e Rules don't allow a direct conversion of the 4e Warlord class?

Sounds full of win to me!

 

[Tales and Chronicles]

I think if we removed all class that has the potential of mechanically ''breaking'' something at high level with a whole bunch of feats, with the right party set-up, there wouldnt be a whole lot of classes left.

I do not like at-will attack granting that much, but many counters I've seen are based on so much white room theorycrafting that I tend to dismiss them. I get that a features that seems out of balance are frustrating to other party members when a players abuse it to his own advantage, but in this particular case, the feature unbalance the rigid action economy of 5e to the advantage of the party, which I can see being quite appreciated and fun at the table. I think the devs should focus more on fun at the table for the players than on perceive balance.

 

[Rossbert]

I think I prefer the Warlord to be the mirror image of the College of Swords bard. Take some the bard's main abilities and graft it onto the fighter.

The two big ones I see:

Someone mentioned how rerolling missed attacks is basically the same as granting extra. I would take it one step farther. Give the warlord a pool of dice that can be spent as a reaction for rerolling of saves or attacks. If you really NEED extra attacks to be a thing, maybe have them handed out like inspiration and the can be spent for a rerolling as a reaction or an extra attack as part of an attack action.

The other issue is some sort of longevity prolonging in a non-magical way and going alchemy is a poor fit. Hey, let's take those dice mentioned earlier and have them hand out temporary hit points when used. It keeps a motivational feel and gives them a different feel than just another healer.

Obviously power levels and what the exact circumstances the warlord can change would need harder thought but it gives a different perspective. It does not satisfy the people who want a whole new chassis though.

 

[FrogReaver]

A question for all. How much did the strength of the lazy warlord mechanics in 4e factor into your like of the class?

 

[TwoSix]

While I do think Warlords should gain full action grant eventually, it's also something that would need to be progressed to. I don't think it's a good idea for the the optimal Warlord build to be Warlord 1/Wizard X.