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

[MechaPilot]

Two different classes. If you want rogue level damage be a rogue and not a support class. Note I have no objections to warlords dealing lots of damage just not at will much like a spell buffed cleric who needs spells to deal fighter level damage. A warlord ability that grants an action surge to a party that's good right?

Your argument presumes a warlord offers an equal level of support to a cleric. Unless your idea of a warlord is capable of raising the dead, removing curses, chatting up the gods and their servants for info, etc. this is just not the case.

 

[Zardnaar]

Your argument presumes a warlord offers an equal level of support to a cleric. Unless your idea of a warlord is capable of raising the dead, removing curses, chatting up the gods and their servants for info, etc. this is just not the case.

All usefull stuff sure but not damage dealing. To put things in perspective a at will bonus action 1d6 bonus damage is OP as it's better than say hex and hunters quarry as it's unlimited and can't be interrupted.

Some powerful wl abilities would have to be designed probably short rest type stuff fighter level ASIs some sort of scaling damage or multiple attacks.

 

[MechaPilot]

All usefull stuff sure but not damage dealing.

So support only counts as support in combat or if it deals or heals damage? Nope. That's dishonest. Raising the dead is the ultimate healing act.

To put things in perspective a at will bonus action 1d6 bonus damage is OP as it's better than say hex and hunters quarry as it's unlimited and can't be interrupted.

Bonus action attacks already exist, they're certainly not OP. Also, who says things can't be interrupted? A lot of people reasonably concede that a warlord should be able to communicate with the character to whom she's granting a benefit. A reaction that tries to silence the warlord, deafen the target or dispel any magic allowing the warlord and the target to understand each other (like comprehend languages) would clearly interrupt the ability. And being hit by the Shocking Grasp cantrip would prevent you from benefiting from the warlord's attack granting power altogether.

Some powerful wl abilities would have to be designed probably short rest type stuff fighter level ASIs some sort of scaling damage or multiple attacks.

I agree that some things should be powerful enough to have them refresh on a short rest, or even long rest, but attack granting isn't that thing.

 

[mellored]

Advantage is fun, rerolling damage just feels meh, to me. YMMV.

I was thinking more along the lines of rerolling attacks. Specifically "When an enemy misses with an attack, you can use your reaction to let them reroll it".

Though "allies can reroll 1's on their damage rolls against the target", works with both swords and spells, unlike crits.

Yeah, but specifically only usable in a specific set of ways

Seem easier to just use the already-made reaction.

Just add "at the end of a creature's turn, you can use your reaction to...".
The only other reaction is OA's.

 

[mellored]

Bless is not at will daily effect. One of my warlord gets it as a short rest ability.

What's do you think the difference is between "enough to cast it every battle" and "at-will"?

 

[Zardnaar]

What's do you think the difference is between "enough to cast it every battle" and "at-will"?

Healing come from the same spell slots though so there is resource trade off.

A warlord bless effect could funtion like the knight npc in the MM.

If you get at will attack granting what are you gonna trade off? Other types of powers may as well forget about healing. At will attack granting mechanically would be better off on a rogue then it's a fair trade off.

 

[FrogReaver]

A single attack that, if attack-granting is an ability that costs an action, consumes your ability to take an attack action and thus precludes your benefiting from the extra attack feature, or from taking bonus action attacks that require you to have taken the attack action. In other words, if granting an attack costs an action, you do so at the cost of all the attacks you'd ordinarily be able to make on your own turn, and the ally who makes it should likely have to spend a reaction to act off-turn. So you're getting one sneak attack enabled attack at the cost of all the attacks you could make and any other reactions your ally could make.

Also, you said 11d6+5. Presumably that's 10d6 from sneak attack, 1d6 from the weapon, and +5 from the rogue's ability modifier. In order for the rogue to have 10d6 sneak attack she must be like 19th level. Assuming the whole party is the same level, or within a level of each other, a warlord who gets extra attacks at the rate the fighter does would have 3 attacks per action by then. If the warlord were only interested in damage, let's say she picks a 2d6 damage weapon. So, that's 6d6+15 damage (three attacks each at 2d6+5). Using average die rolls (3.5 for each d6) that's only an 8 point difference, and that's without assuming GWM, Martial Adept or any other feats. It also assumes the conditions are right for the sneak attack class feature to apply to attacks against the target.

You have 2 extremes for attack granting. Either A) you grant individual attacks or B) you grant attack actions.

You are proposing to not do A. That's fine. However B has just as many problems.

With B the problem is all about multiple attacks and buffs (a little harder to pull off but likely much more powerful). Normally a character gets about 4 actions in a given combat. If they spend the first turn buffing they only have 3 actions to make up the 1 action the buff cost. If the warlord can double any 1 characters number of actions in a combat then every buff becomes twice as effective.

Not to mention you have the question of what level you are going to allow the warlord to do at will action granting which easily becomes an issue with multilassing. It'd be like eldritch blast and multiclassing all over again except better and more effective.

 

[MechaPilot]

You have 2 extremes for attack granting. Either A) you grant individual attacks or B) you grant attack actions.

You are proposing to not do A.

That's not quite accurate. My proposal is that the warlord can grant an ally the ability to do one of a few select things as a reaction (when they, presumably, otherwise would not be able to do so). Exactly what those options are would determine how much of the warlord's action potential is consumed.

For example, I could easily see a warlord who hits an enemy while using her attack action being allowed to spend a bonus action to let another ally engaged in melee combat with that same foe use a reaction to disengage. This would let the warlord come in and help an injured ally retreat from harm without provoking an OA.

For attack granting, I can see more than one model, and neither of them are mutually exclusive features. A warlord could have one feature that grants a single attack, while also having another feature that grants an attack action. Presumably, the warlord would not be able to use both of those features in the same turn.

That's fine. However B has just as many problems.

With B the problem is all about multiple attacks and buffs (a little harder to pull off but likely much more powerful). Normally a character gets about 4 actions in a given combat. If they spend the first turn buffing they only have 3 actions to make up the 1 action the buff cost. If the warlord can double any 1 characters number of actions in a combat then every buff becomes twice as effective.

The warlord makes buffing more efficient (efficient, not effective), effectively allowing the buff to affect one additional target, but not really because it doesn't let the buffed character act in two different places on the battlefield at once, or create a second bag of HPs for enemies to whittle down. Of course, this assumes the buff isn't already affecting multiple targets. If a cleric has blessed the whole party, warlord included, there is no increased efficiency of buffs.

Not to mention you have the question of what level you are going to allow the warlord to do at will action granting which easily becomes an issue with multilassing. It'd be like eldritch blast and multiclassing all over again except better and more effective.

What level it should be offered is a valid question. However, as I mentioned, I'm proposing more than one granting feature. Granting a whole attack action in exchange for your action and your ally's reaction could easily be delayed to 3rd level, meanwhile lesser granting abilities like the disengage I mentioned above could be had at first level.

 

[FrogReaver]

....

What level it should be offered is a valid question. However, as I mentioned, I'm proposing more than one granting feature. Granting a whole attack action in exchange for your action and your ally's reaction could easily be delayed to 3rd level, meanwhile lesser granting abilities like the disengage I mentioned above could be had at first level.

I only quoted the last part because it tells me all I need to know. You haven't thought this through. People already complain about a 2 level warlock dip for eldritch blast. Eldritch blast is nothing compared to what's in bold.

 

[MechaPilot]

I only quoted the last part because it tells me all I need to know. You haven't thought this through. People already complain about a 2 level warlock dip for eldritch blast. Eldritch blast is nothing compared to what's in bold.

I have thought this through. And three character levels is a pretty significant investment, so far as multiclassing goes.