Lets design a Warlord for 5th edition

[mellored]

Now could someone please give a quick run-down, for the benefit of someone who can't recall much about how the 4e warlord played, just what sort of attack the warlord could grant a character compared to the sort of attack power that the character could use on their actual turn.

Everone in 4e had a basic attack. Which was a bit weaker than your at-will attack, like a TWF off-hand attacks. Or a cantrip. So a quick 5e comparison would be...

Set-up: All classes have firebolt.

Warlord At-will: As an action one creature can cast firebolt.
Warlord Heal: Twice per encounter you can use your bonus action to let someone spend some hit dice, maximizing their roll.
Warlord Encounter: Once per battle, when you hit with an attack, another creature can cast firebolt at the target.
Warlord Daily: Once per day you can use your action to let the entire party cast firebolt.


Of course, everyone in 5e doesn't have a firebolt equivalent. Some have eldrich blast. Some have sneak attack.

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

Everone in 4e had a basic attack. Which was a bit weaker than your at-will attack, like a TWF off-hand attacks. Or a cantrip. So a quick 5e comparison would be...

Set-up: All classes have firebolt.

Warlord At-will: As an action one creature can cast firebolt.
Warlord Heal: Twice per encounter you can use your bonus action to let someone spend some hit dice, maximizing their roll.
Warlord Encounter: Once per battle, when you hit with an attack, another creature can cast firebolt at the target.
Warlord Daily: Once per day you can use your action to let the entire party cast firebolt.


Of course, everyone in 5e doesn't have a firebolt equivalent. Some have eldrich blast. Some have sneak attack.

So the basic attack the warlord granted didn't get to add ability bonus, feat or style benefits, or other riders like sneak attack? It was just equivalent of basic weapon die?

That would make the 5e battlemaster maneuver considerably more powerful than the 4th ed warlord equivalent. Although the BM is burning short-rest resources so more like the warlord using an encounter power?

I may readjust my warlord maneuvers on this basis. Thank you for the information!

 

[Hussar]

Thing to remember though, is that the warlord rarely had to forego an attack in order to trigger another attack. More often, the warlord made an attack, and then someone else got to do something - attack, move, whatever. So, it wasn't like you were replacing actions, you were adding.

To be fair, the at-will power was a replacement - you gave up your attack to have someone else make a basic attack with damage bonuses, but, there were several encounter (meaning typically used 1/encounter) and daily powers which granted actions as well.

 

[mellored]

So the basic attack the warlord granted didn't get to add ability bonus, feat or style benefits, or other riders like sneak attack? It was just equivalent of basic weapon die?

Effectivly, yes.

But 4e scaled a lot differently, and it was much more standardized in what each character could do.
Most of the powers, for all classes, where damage + effect. Basic attack was just damage.

For example
A fighter's basic attack did weapon+str.
A fighter's at-will grappling strike weapon+str+grab.
A wizards basic attack did 1d8+Int.
A wizard's at-will cloud of daggers did 1d6+int automatically.
A cleric's basic attack did weapon+str.
A cleric's at-will recovery strike did weapon+str+heal the next person to hit the target.
ect...


A big complaint about 4e was the number of things to track, since everyone had a special effect or 3 going on, and it often changed every round.
The other was how much they inflated all the numbers.

Although the BM is burning short-rest resources so more like the warlord using an encounter power?

Yes. In fact, I believe there was a warlord encounter power that let someone use an at-will.

 

[Jester David]

Popping back in for important reminders:

One thing to remember is that just because you can grant the rogue a free attack at-will does notmean the rogue can Sneak Attack at-will. They still need to fulfil the requirements of Sneak Attack.
In white room theorycrafting, of course the rogue is always going to be by an ally and the warlord is always going to be by the rogue, but in actual play the battlefield will be chaotic and people will move or be moved or blocked by terrain or run out of movement.
This is where playtesting would come in. How often in actual play does granting the rogue an extra attack on the warlord's turn result in a second Sneak Attack. And what is the actual increase to the party's damage like?

There's also lots of ways you could balance a free At-Will attack. It could use the other character's reaction (my preference). It could be made with disadvantage. It could deal minimum damage.


Plus, in the podcast, Mearls discusses at length how they purposely do NOT design with the best case combination in mind. Using this as an example. They design for the build two or three steps below, and balance with that in mind. That way, people don't NEED to optimise to have assumed baseline effectiveness and people who do want to optimise can find that cool combo.

 

[TwoSix]

I think we all agree that rogue sneak attack is best left out of attack granting abilities? Can we at least mark that down as a point of agreement?

Theoretically, you could make the warlord spend their action to give the other player an action on their own turn, like the haste action. Then you don't have as much of an issue with rogue off-turn second sneak attack.

I mean they can ready with their main action, sure, but it's not like methods of getting reaction attacks for a second sneak attack don't already exist.

 

[TwoSix]

Plus, in the podcast, Mearls discusses at length how they purposely do NOT design with the best case combination in mind. Using this as an example. They design for the build two or three steps below, and balance with that in mind. That way, people don't NEED to optimise to have assumed baseline effectiveness and people who do want to optimise can find that cool combo.

Solid point...obviously a warlord looks pretty awesome with a rogue, sorlock, and a cleric and wizard with no overlap in spell preparation in the party. If the party is a monk, moon druid, and ranger, all of a sudden the warlord isn't as big of a deal.

 

[mellored]

I'll just point out that there are already ways to get enemies to provoke OA's, both Cleric's Command (flee) and Bard's Dissonant Whispers are both level 1 spells.

Thus you can already grant off-turn sneak-attack.
Or even spells if your ally has warcaster.
Or if you want to get nasty, a rogue with warcaster and booming blade.

Caveat's include that it takes a resource, they require a save, and they do more than grant an attack (command is also a stun).

 

[FrogReaver]

I'll just point out that there are already ways to get enemies to provoke OA's, both Cleric's Command (flee) and Bard's Dissonant Whispers are both level 1 spells.

Thus you can already grant off-turn sneak-attack.
Or even spells if your ally has warcaster.
Or if you want to get nasty, a rogue with warcaster and booming blade.

Caveat's include that it takes a resource, they require a save, and they do more than grant an attack (command is also a stun).

I didn't think forced movement granted attacks?

 

[Tony Vargas]

So the basic attack the warlord granted ...was just equivalent of basic weapon die?

Not litterally, no, it just lacked riders or additional bonuses. Balance was much tighter in 4e. So the Warlord using Commander's Strike granted a basic attack (not as good as an at-will) but with a bonus that brought it back up to the level of an at-will.

That would make the 5e battlemaster maneuver considerably more powerful than the 4th ed warlord equivalent.

5e is generally powered up from 4e, just not evenly. But that's not really an instance of it because..

Although the BM is burning short-rest resources so more like the warlord using an encounter power?

Yes, the Warlord could choose some encounter exploits that granted an ally an attack or even an action that was not as restricted, and might be combined with an attack from the Warlord, himself, and/or buffed in some way, as well.