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

[Zardnaar]

First things 1st 5E does have attack granting or something similar to it via Battlemaster dice and spells. IN all cases however these are limited resources.

At will attack granting however is broken in the 5E context. This is not an edition war type thing as the concept was fine in 4E and you could make it work in say AD&D (via xp tables for example) but it does not work in 5E.

The main problem with it is 5E does not define a basic attack which the 4E version did. A basic attack in 5E would be weapon damage + strength or dex (perhaps charisma or wisdom in some cases).
And if you are granting a cantrip casting it is even worse (Eldritch Blast, Green Flame Blade etc).

The Rogue is a main case in point with its sneak attack. A 4E Rogue had an extra 2 dice (d6's d8's with a feat) while the 5E Rogue goes all the way to 10d6 and is limited to only using that once per turn. A Warlord enabling such an attack at will is dealing a lot more damage and a Battlemaster Fighter+ Rogue is already a great 5E combo and you can also cast spells such as haste and dissonant whispers. Spells however are a limited resource and dissonant whispers is also unreliable.

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).

A support class like a cleric generally deals anemic levels of damage with weapons. A basic 1d6+ 2 or 3 is generally about the best you will likely have at least early on (assuming point buy rolled stats are hard to apply). At best a cleric with martial weapons will have 2d6/1d12+ 2 or 3. A warlord will likely deal a similar amount of damage sacrificing their attack but they potentially gain a lot more damage enabling another PC. Here are some other potential non Rogue problems.

Hunter Ranger with a bow using sharpshooter, warlord does its things presumably ranger uses its reaction.

2d8+1d6+10+ability modifier potentially an extra 27.5 average damage.

On a Rogue.

1d8+10d6+5 (49.5 avg damage)

Barbarian raging with great weapon master........ (you do the math)

And the warlord is supposed to heal as well.

If this is not bad enough consider 4 member party.

1 Warrior
1 Skirmisher
1 Support
1 Artillery

I used these names as you might have a wizard/sorcerer/warlock etc as artillery, a Rogue/Monk/Bard as skirmisher etc. You add a 5 person to that group perhaps an archer (the support PC is a warlord).

1 Warrior (using Great Weapon Master)
1 Skirmisher (Rogue)
1 Support (Warlord)
1 Artillery(Wizard)
1 Archer (Fighter or Ranger with sharpshooter)

Note a cleric more or less has to focus on melee and has to use spells to be really good at fighting (ranged clerics are a bit lacking without spells) and they are a bit MAD. The warlord now has a choice of 3 good targets (Rogue, Warrior, archer)to enable depending on the situation, the Rogue can be ranged or melee as well. Any 3 of those options make a Clerics or any other support PC (Bard, Druid etc) fairly pitiful in terms of damage since the warlord can basically use the best attack in the party at range or melee and key it off the prime attribute of that class (clerics should almost always pump wisdom over anything else IMHO). And people want the warlord to heal.

And that is why I believe a potential 5E warlord needs to give up at will attack granting. An AD&D fighter gave up weapon specialisation (a 2E fighter relative to their editions is better than the 5E one), a 3.x wizard gave up DC 30-40 spell DCs (and had spells nerfed and concentration mechanic). A long time ago I claimed that the warlord should go in the Nerath campaign setting (or big book of generic campaign settings chapter), failing that a generic splat book. I also believe the artificer should be in the Eberron book as well or they may do a splat book of new classes (psion, artificer, alchemist, warlord). Those classes are probably the strongest classes as a concept that can't really be done as a subclass or something else.

The key things I think a warlord should do in 5E.

1. Heal probably not as good as a cleric (the 4E cleric was better at it for example)
2. Some sort of tactical/inspirational type support
3. Some sort of buffing

I would focus on 2 subclasses initially (the 4E PHB ones), get them right and you can look at the other 4E sub classes and any new ones. A magical warlord (1/3rd caster) also takes care of some of the objections towards some warlords class abilities they could have- a Divine Tactician for example could cure a disease and grant an attack perhaps, an inspirational one grants a bonus hit dice to be used immediately etc. You would still have a class in the game called a warlord, you would still be doing mostly the same things you did in 4E. Perhaps limited in some ways just like every other class that was not a direct port. Names for subclasses can be based off 4E ones or 4E Paragon paths.

Key subclasses

1. Inspirational
2. Tactical

Potential subclasses

Bravura (picks up heavy armor, 2nd attack at 5th or 6th level, worse at buffing than the other 2).

Gish (warlord/arcane)

Divine (warlord/cleric)

 

[mellored]

warlord does its things presumably ranger uses its reaction.

IMO, i'd keep it the same as haste. The ranger/rogue/barbarian get's an extra attack, but on their turn.
This "fixes" several once-per-turn bonuses (sneak attack). But can still be helpful if the rogue missed his first shot.

It also helps keep things in order. Since the ranger is attacking on the Rangers turn, not on the warlords turn. Less confusion.

you do the math

Sure.
First, let's set it at level 12. Which is 6d6 sneak attack, and enough feats for 20 dex and sharpshooter.
It's also a high enough for a sorcerer can cast twin-haste every battle.

Sharpshooter Ranger: 1d8+5+10+1d6 * 0.45 (-5 to hit, +2 archery) = 10.35 damage.

Rogue: 1d6+5 + (6d6 * .4 (missed the first attack)) * .6 = 10.14

Barbarian: 2d6+5+3+10 * .5775 (-5 to-hit, advantage) = 14.4375

Wizard firebolt: 3d10 * .6% = 9.9 damage.

Dragon sorcerer firebolt: 3d10+5 * .6 = 12.9


So to be on par with a level 12 twin-haste spamming dragon sorcerer. The Warlord needs to grant 3 attacks at-will, on the allies turn.
And then have some extra stuff worth a level 5 and 6 spell slot. So about 150 HP worth of healing, or some other equivalent.

 

[Zardnaar]

IMO, i'd keep it the same as haste. The ranger/rogue/barbarian get's an extra attack, but on their turn.
This "fixes" several once-per-turn bonuses (sneak attack). But can still be helpful if the rogue missed his first shot.

It also helps keep things in order. Since the ranger is attacking on the Rangers turn, not on the warlords turn. Less confusion.

Sure.
First, let's set it at level 12. Which is 6d6 sneak attack, and enough feats for 20 dex and sharpshooter.
It's also a high enough for a sorcerer can cast twin-haste every battle.

Sharpshooter Ranger: 1d8+5+10+1d6 * 0.45 (-5 to hit, +2 archery) = 10.35 damage.

Rogue: 1d6+5 + (6d6 * .4 (missed the first attack)) * .6 = 10.14

Barbarian: 2d6+5+3+10 * .5775 (-5 to-hit, advantage) = 14.4375

Wizard firebolt: 3d10 * .6% = 9.9 damage.

Dragon sorcerer firebolt: 3d10+5 * .6 = 12.9


So to be on par with a level 12 twin-haste spamming dragon sorcerer. The Warlord needs to grant 3 attacks at-will, on the allies turn.
And then have some extra stuff worth a level 5 and 6 spell slot. So about 150 HP worth of healing, or some other equivalent.

Haste is a daily effect and limited along with Sorcerer points. I have designed some semi haste WL effects also limited. Its alkso a high level Sorcerer what about a 5th level WL vs Sorcerer? Even with 3d6 sneak atack or using it on a hunter ranger the WL is outperforming the cleric by a lot and has the versatility to use it on an archer which outperforms a cleric spamming a cantrip.

Giving up an attack to grant extra dice of damage works though and those dice could scale with the WLs level.

 

[Dausuul]

Why not just give the warlord an action which allows one ally to take the Attack action? Then you don't have to worry about some attacks being better than others. Your damage output is balanced with other classes by definition.

 

[FrogReaver]

Why not just give the warlord an action which allows one ally to take the Attack action? Then you don't have to worry about some attacks being better than others. Your damage output is balanced with other classes by definition.

I could go on and on about the issues there but I'll tackle the biggest first.

1. You can put absolutely no investment into combat and you can cause as much damage as the most damaging player in the party.

 

[Leatherhead]

Using Haste as your base model is a bit deceptive. Haste requires Concentration, but there is no real non-magical parallel to Concentration. And if there was, what else would a Warlord require in order to make it an actual trade-off?

Anyway, here are my thoughts on the Action Economy.

 

[cbwjm]

I think if you want to use haste as the exemplar for granting extra attacks you should just use haste rather than a twinned version of haste. Other considerations for using haste as the comparison point. It is a daily resource, it lasts at most 1 minute, perhaps less if the caster is disrupted, and it can't be transferred. Even at level 12, you cannot guarantee that it will be available.

 

[Dausuul]

1. You can put absolutely no investment into combat...

Warlord is a fighter subclass. Therefore you are playing a fighter. That is a massive investment into combat. As far as non-combat abilities go, fighters get approximately jack.

I suppose it does give you the option to invest an ASI in the Leadership feat, or something like that, rather than bumping your attack stat or picking up GWM. In exchange, however, your best "attack" option is dependent on another PC being present, conscious, and in position to strike when your turn comes. That is far from guaranteed.

...and you can cause as much damage as the most damaging player in the party.

So what? If you played a carbon copy of that character, you could deal just as much damage. And you could do it without depending on anyone else.

 

[mellored]

Haste is a daily effect and limited along with Sorcerer points.

the number of battles in a day is also limited.
Eventually you have enough for every battle. Same as at-will people have enough do.

what about a 5th level WL vs Sorcerer?

a level 5 sorcerer.. almost...
You need to be a level 6 sorcerer to spam haste every encounter.

Even with 3d6 sneak atack or using it on a hunter ranger the WL is outperforming the cleric by a lot and has the versatility to use it on an archer which outperforms a cleric spamming a cantrip.

At level 5, with 3 rangers a cleric can spam bless for...
1d8+4+1d6 * .125 (d4) * 3 rangers * 2 attacks = 9 damage.
+sacred flame and healing.

Granting an attack to the same ranger.
1d8+4+1d6 *.7 = 8.4

That's pretty spot on.

 

[FrogReaver]

Using Haste as your base model is a bit deceptive. Haste requires Concentration, but there is no real non-magical parallel to Concentration. And if there was, what else would a Warlord require in order to make it an actual trade-off?

Anyway, here are my thoughts on the Action Economy.

Sorcerors get proficiency in con saves and a primary buffing sorcerer can focus heavily on con or warcaster for additional concentration as he is less reliant on a high casting stat to do his stuff.

Personally I think a detailed analysis of expected attacks granted by twin haste with sorcerory point and spell slot restrictions taken into account and looking at it on the daily level makes for an excellent baseline for what a warlord should be capable of doing.

A level 5 sorcerer can spend nearly all his spell casting resources on twinning 3 haste spells. This will amount to a total of about 24 attacks granted in the day. The sorcerer gives up 3 of his own attacks for this and otherwise has a very low damage cantrip attack he can make on the remaining rounds of combat.

By level 7-8 that should increase substantially to granting about 48 attacks in a day. Granting two attacks per turn is where the sorcerer tops out at. I think that's a good stopping place for our warlord.

Anyways just trying to think it through here.