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

[Zardnaar]

Have you listened to the Mike Mearls podcast that re-ignited this discussion? He addresses the point you're getting at. And, bottom line, yeah, it can be OP, and yeah, that level of OP is w/in the broad margin for error to which 5e is balanced (if you can call that balanced).

Actually, a lot of 5e critters have /tons/ of hps - the ones that noticeably lower hps are de-facto minions, or sub-minions when hit with AE save:1/2 damage that ganks them on a successful save. But, that aside, the 4e Rogue had 2d /to start/, and any striker and not a few fighters could be a great target for action granting.

What really made Commander's Strike more tactically interesting and merely good than go-to-optimal in combination was the Rogue. In 4e, at release, mind you, the Rogue's Basic Attack wouldn't keep up as you leveled, because there was no Melee Training Feat yet, and, his SA was 1/round. So he was only a good target for Commander's Strike when he hadn't been able to get in an SA, and was behind the damage curve, the Warlord would then give him a chance to get back on track - exactly a leader thang.

Design elegance at work, really.

But while 5e is inelegant in the name of natural language & classic feel, that just makes it more complicated, not gimped.

5e could totally handle anything the Warlord did in 4e. Some of it might be a little trickier to design, or take three sentences instead of two words to explain, but that added complexity is just in the nature of 5e.

Abject nonsense. The Warlord challenged paleo-D&D's One True Way. The Band-Aid cleric and meatshield fighter and LFQW.


The 4e warlord absolutely has to be fit to 5e design. 5e design is less balanced and unconstrained by Role, the Warlord needs to be adapted to that. It needs to be powered up to the degree that the Bard, Cleric, and Druid were from their 4e 'Leader'-role versions. And, it needs to be expanded to fill the whole range of archetypes the concept suggests, which should include what would have been game-breaking intrusion into the controller role in 4e.

The fighter needs to take some of that same medicine.

You could, it would just be radically underpowered and non-viable compared to a Cleric, Bard, Druid or Paladin.

I think most of the 4E stuff is fine with the exception of the at will attack granting.
Some of my homebrew Warlord stuff is more powerful than the 4E stuff. +2 to hit becomes advantage that sort of thing. Mucking around with WL healing rates is also tricky I have revised inspiring word about 5 times (bonus action 1d6+ allows HD used, bonus action bonus hit dice, bonus action 1d8+ ability mod, bonus action +2d6 hp, and how many you get and how it scales).

 

[FrogReaver]

Is there a good reason that it shouldn’t allow the use of a cantrip, specifying that the cantrip is always used as if the attacker is level 1?

Works mechanically.. feels weird.

That's where most warlord designs end up for me.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Works mechanically.. feels weird.

That's where most warlord designs end up for me.

Anything that hasn't been chugging along with at most incremental changes for 20 years or so of D&D history might end up feeling a little weird...

The rest only doesn't feel weird because we've had decades to get used to it. I mean, Vancian? That's weird.

I think most of the 4E stuff is fine with the exception of the at will attack granting.

Thus the thread, obviously. But, seriously, you asked, you've been answered.

In 4e it was simple to design at-will attack granting (well, not /that/ simple, Commanders Strike did get a big fat update that made it much clearer) because the game was more consistent in it's use of jargon and design of attacks (offense of any kind, really). 4e was simpler that way.

In 5e it is more complicated to lay out the kind of limitations or checks & balances that in 4e flowed naturally, but it's not impossible, nor even necessarily all that difficult. It's also less of a necessity, since balance isn't nearly so tight.

You're not wrong about a Rogue being the theoretically optimal target for attack granting, and an optimal rogue, optimally set up every round, and granted an extra, optimal attack, would do a lot of damage. You're just wrong about 5e having any kind of issue with that level of imbalance.

If it were that concerned about balance, it wouldn't have used neo-Vancian casting, for instance. ;P

Is there a good reason that it shouldn’t allow the use of a cantrip, specifying that the cantrip is always used as if the attacker is level 1?

Ouch. Maybe give a high level warlord - one good at that sort of thing, like a sub-class based on the Arcane Battlemaster Paragon Path might be - the chance to scale that a little, hey?

 

[Zardnaar]

Anything that hasn't been chugging along with at most incremental changes for 20 years or so of D&D history might end up feeling a little weird...

The rest only doesn't feel weird because we've had decades to get used to it. I mean, Vancian? That's weird.

Thus the thread, obviously. But, seriously, you asked, you've been answered.

In 4e it was simple to design at-will attack granting (well, not /that/ simple, Commanders Strike did get a big fat update that made it much clearer) because the game was more consistent in it's use of jargon and design of attacks (offense of any kind, really). 4e was simpler that way.

In 5e it is more complicated to lay out the kind of limitations or checks & balances that in 4e flowed naturally, but it's not impossible, nor even necessarily all that difficult. It's also less of a necessity, since balance isn't nearly so tight.

You're not wrong about a Rogue being the theoretically optimal target for attack granting, and an optimal rogue, optimally set up every round, and granted an extra, optimal attack, would do a lot of damage. You're just wrong about 5e having any kind of issue with that level of imbalance.

If it were that concerned about balance, it wouldn't have used neo-Vancian casting, for instance. ;P


Ouch. Maybe give a high level warlord - one good at that sort of thing, like a sub-class based on the Arcane Battlemaster Paragon Path might be - the chance to scale that a little, hey?

Claims of spellcasters in 5E are overblown, the exception being if you have to many primary ones in the same party. They tend to not have enough spells for example and the concentration mechanic+ martials are a lot better and things like Paladins are great (Hunter ranger is also good but a bit more complicated).

Spellcasters tend to suck at damage, martial types are really good. Most spellcasters also suck at melee (or non magical ranged).

 

[Tony Vargas]

Claims of spellcasters in 5E are overblown[

It's fairly straightforward, really. In 4e, they were put into role boxes, and what didn't fit was often lost. The Druid, for instance, was chopped into three pieces and still didn't have all it's toys. The 5e Druid has all it's toys - like it hasn't had them since 1e, really - it may not be CoDzilla, but neither is the Cleric, and there's a thousand dazzling shades of OP between CoDzilla and balanced 4e leader. The bard has more going for it than ever. The Paladin is pretty butch for a half-caster, and a big step up from it's 4e incarnation.

Even the classes that were smacked down hard in terms of almost everything else are bigger damage-dealers than they were in 4e, relative to the things they're hitting in standard-issue encounters.

Spellcasters tend to suck at damage, martial types are really good.

Well, single-target damage vs a target not resistant to weapon attacks, and also not particularly vulnerable to anything the caster has prepped that day...

But, the Warlord doesn't fit into that dichotomy, at all - support classes aren't beatsticks.

Which is another thing you're missing about attack-granting. It's synergistic, a cooperative effect. The character getting the free attack gets a fair portion of the glory or spotlight time for it - IMX, as someone who's played a lotta warlords, often the larger share. Which, if you enjoy the idea of playing a support character in the first place, is a solid win-win.

 

[mellored]

Is there a good reason that it shouldn’t allow the use of a cantrip, specifying that the cantrip is always used as if the attacker is level 1?

Other than being clunky, I don't see any reason why you couldn't grant level 1 cantrips. Probably even level 5 cantrips at higher levels.
Or low levels spells while you're at it, since spell slots are still expended.

Though, I still like using reactions to reroll (or other similar bonuses) better both from an agency perspective (you "help", you don't "command"), a game flow perspective (ranger does things on the rangers turn), and as making the class feel different (most classes can spend an action to deal 2d6+5 damage).

 

[Yunru]

Agency agenshmy. You don't 'command' you 'enable'

 

[Zardnaar]

It's fairly straightforward, really. In 4e, they were put into role boxes, and what didn't fit was often lost. The Druid, for instance, was chopped into three pieces and still didn't have all it's toys. The 5e Druid has all it's toys - like it hasn't had them since 1e, really - it may not be CoDzilla, but neither is the Cleric, and there's a thousand dazzling shades of OP between CoDzilla and balanced 4e leader. The bard has more going for it than ever. The Paladin is pretty butch for a half-caster, and a big step up from it's 4e incarnation.

Even the classes that were smacked down hard in terms of almost everything else are bigger damage-dealers than they were in 4e, relative to the things they're hitting in standard-issue encounters.

Well, single-target damage vs a target not resistant to weapon attacks, and also not particularly vulnerable to anything the caster has prepped that day...

But, the Warlord doesn't fit into that dichotomy, at all - support classes aren't beatsticks.

Which is another thing you're missing about attack-granting. It's synergistic, a cooperative effect. The character getting the free attack gets a fair portion of the glory or spotlight time for it - IMX, as someone who's played a lotta warlords, often the larger share. Which, if you enjoy the idea of playing a support character in the first place, is a solid win-win.

I found the 4E ROgue and Bard ot be the most interesting lasses. 5E Paladins, Monks, Bards are good and I am happy with the 5E Land Druid.

 

[5ekyu]

Granting extra attacks at will is a bad idea for the same reason granting extra cantrips at will is a bad idea. Not all attacks are made equal, firebolt who cares, eldritch blast by a Warlock becomes a problem.

Granting a 1d6+3 or 1d8+5 is not really a problem, or even 2d6/1d12+ ability mod that is kind of fine. its those classes who can layer on extra stuff is where the problem is. A warlord "extra attack" could be expressed with +2d6 damage for example that would be fine from a mechanical PoV.

A Rogue has never really been the best striker type in AD&D, 3.x, or even 4E (beaten by Ranger yes?) so enabling it to sneak attack twice a round at will is a bad idea.

Again, you state what it can do and declare it as a problem.

Like sneak attack, you balance the class assuming this feature will be used for the most useful, most relevant option every round for a given combat. if you have a sneak attack rogue in the best spot, give them more. if you have a fighter wanting to shove prone and waylay and that is key, do that, if the cleric is the one who needs or benefits most... use that.

So you balance the warlord assuming the best most optimal use... just like they did with sneak for the rogue.

You seem to have a thing when elements are not always equal to other elements of the same type - like a warlock Eb being better than normal attack cantrips when the warlock spends say multiple invocations to boost it. Again, its the other class features that kick in there. just like its the rogue sneak that gives his attack its extra.

But while you may not like it that one attack cantirps when used by different classes have different effects, that is how the game is currently presented and the warlord's ability to "give action" should be one of those cases where its strength is dependent on the needs of the moment and it is balanced for the higher end of the spectrum.

nothing in that can be a balance problem... it may just underperform if the situation does not provide a clear "use it on that guy" opening.

have you not seen combats and challenges where one character started using the help action instead of their own "actions/attacks" to help a character whose special abilities were more crucial to the outcome? i have and it happens not uncommonly in my experience. helping a warlock hit with their Eb or the rogue hit with their sneak may be better than helping the wizard with their chill touch or the cleric with his spiritual weapon but... that does not suddenly make the HELP action "a problem" or "OP" or "unable to be babanced" and it is not even a class feature.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Anything that hasn't been chugging along with at most incremental changes for 20 years or so of D&D history might end up feeling a little weird...

The rest only doesn't feel weird because we've had decades to get used to it. I mean, Vancian? That's weird.

Thus the thread, obviously. But, seriously, you asked, you've been answered.

In 4e it was simple to design at-will attack granting (well, not /that/ simple, Commanders Strike did get a big fat update that made it much clearer) because the game was more consistent in it's use of jargon and design of attacks (offense of any kind, really). 4e was simpler that way.

In 5e it is more complicated to lay out the kind of limitations or checks & balances that in 4e flowed naturally, but it's not impossible, nor even necessarily all that difficult. It's also less of a necessity, since balance isn't nearly so tight.

You're not wrong about a Rogue being the theoretically optimal target for attack granting, and an optimal rogue, optimally set up every round, and granted an extra, optimal attack, would do a lot of damage. You're just wrong about 5e having any kind of issue with that level of imbalance.

If it were that concerned about balance, it wouldn't have used neo-Vancian casting, for instance. ;P


Ouch. Maybe give a high level warlord - one good at that sort of thing, like a sub-class based on the Arcane Battlemaster Paragon Path might be - the chance to scale that a little, hey?

If we’re giving full on attacks, then cantrips are within those bounds (mostly). If we’re giving up an *action* to grant an attack, I’m fine with letting the attack be the full attack action. Instead of getting boosts to their attack, the character lets someone else attack, using their class features.

Otherwise, I think the only good solution is to clearly define in the class feature what the parameters of the attack is. One attack with a weapon, that deals weapon damage with no class feature boosts, or one attack with a cantrip that is cast as if at first level.