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

[Yunru]

The biggest proof against at-will attack granting causing problems is that I've gotten plenty of feedback about the Path of Hearth Noble, and none of it even says it is a problem, some have even told me it was a little on the weak side.
[MENTION=6795602]FrogReaver[/MENTION], [MENTION=6777341]Zaar[/MENTION]/QUOTE]

Noble doesn't really fit the 5E design paradigm and you have sacrificed everything to enable it and added restrictions.

So... you're saying it was adapted to the 5e paradigm? And are trying to make that out like it's a bad thing?

Also I don't see the 'everything' sacrificed?
It feels 5e, it plays like a Warlord, it performs well enough.

Yeah I'm done with you.

 

[Tony Vargas]

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.

I assume you mean a single-target self-buff, since, with a group buff, it'd, again, be no different than having a second comparable character.
I suppose that is a fair bit of synergy. It's also like granting an attack to the tricked-out high dpr rogue ever round, who happens to have CA ever round - it's more of a corner case, not the kind of thing 5e tends to be 'balanced' around. According to Mike Mearls in the podcast that touched off this new round of Warlord discussion.

And, in 4e, granting attacks to double-down on a buff was just good tactics, so was spending action points for that purpose. It wasn't broken, just a reasonably good tactic, because buffs weren't broken.

Which 5e self-buff is so broken that the increased efficiency you're assuming would be a game-breaker?

^^^ So much this. People seem to be forgetting that opportunity cost is a thing. If you sacrifice your ability to take actions, you're effectively depriving the party of one member.

You're also tending to bow out of the spotlight in favor of another character. A whole lot of 5e balance is about spotlight balance. The warlord may, if played very well, be hell on the monsters (as might most classes), but if it's doing a lot of action granting to get there, it will not exactly be overshadowing anyone - except maybe itself.

 

[FrogReaver]

I assume you mean a single-target self-buff, since, with a group buff, it'd, again, be no different than having a second comparable character.
I suppose that is a fair bit of synergy. It's also like granting an attack to the tricked-out high dpr rogue ever round, who happens to have CA ever round - it's more of a corner case, not the kind of thing 5e tends to be 'balanced' around. According to Mike Mearls in the podcast that touched off this new round of Warlord discussion.

And, in 4e, granting attacks to double-down on a buff was just good tactics, so was spending action points for that purpose. It wasn't broken, just a reasonably good tactic, because buffs weren't broken.

Which 5e self-buff is so broken that the increased efficiency you're assuming would be a game-breaker?

I like those shifting goal posts

You acknowledge my point is correct and then you try to minimize it by taking it to extremes and asking if anything it causes would be game breaking. Very Clever! But, the point isn't whether something game-breaking can be produced, it's whether you just made something even stronger than you could have produced by being a replica of said character. Why? Because if you can do that and do a bunch of other things, like say heal the party with most levels in life cleric healing words then my point is proven.

 

[Zardnaar]

So... you're saying it was adapted to the 5e paradigm? And are trying to make that out like it's a bad thing?

Also I don't see the 'everything' sacrificed?
It feels 5e, it plays like a Warlord, it performs well enough.

Yeah I'm done with you.

I was at work on my fone hence a short answer.

The longer answer is Moonsong designed a base class and then a subclass stripped out those features in order to make the noble, and the noble cold not do much of anything else because it was all tied up in attack granting. The more elegant way would have been to give the class no armor proficiency, simple weapons or a list of a few weapons and then adding in things like medium armor, heavy armor, and marital weapons.

We did actualy test the Noble, at least the Heart one or whatever it was called and yeah we broke it (in the right party). In the wrong party its very very meh which once again no class really pulls off from the PHB (the worst being the elemental monk and beastmaster perhaps).

So yeah the mechanics don;t really fit in and the class can't really stand on its own to feet in an average party and if you build the party around it its broken. You kind of need a 5 or 6 person party to do it with some extra support for example (a cleric, Paladin, bard etc).

Its why I believe the concept in inherently flawed, you either have a broken/weak PC or you throw in the attack granting hting but then you would have to be very very careful not to break the game. The only class I can see it working on is some kind of Rogue as they would be giving up thier sbeak attack to enable someone elses.

Losing a reaction is not that big of a thing in 5E anyway especially if you do not use feats.

 

[mellored]

I agree that at-will full action granting at low levels would be too much.

Maybe a few times per long rest at level 1
A few times per shoet rest at level 5
and at-will at till 11.

Also, still seems like a chronomancer thing, which in would still play.

 

[CapnZapp]

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

Yes switching your own action for the Wizard or Rogue is strong and fun, but not broken, especially since the transaction is a net loss with the reaction cost.

This ability should obviously be on a different track (subclass) than the Cleric-level support Warlord.

 

[CapnZapp]

I can create a weak full caster class, a weak melee class etc. It has nothing to do with whether spells are weak or extra attack is weak. It's all to do with the specific implementation.

Then maybe don't reject the whole idea out of hand?

 

[CapnZapp]

I like those shifting goal posts

You acknowledge my point is correct and then you try to minimize it by taking it to extremes and asking if anything it causes would be game breaking. Very Clever! But, the point isn't whether something game-breaking can be produced, it's whether you just made something even stronger than you could have produced by being a replica of said character. Why? Because if you can do that and do a bunch of other things, like say heal the party with most levels in life cleric healing words then my point is proven.

Don't talk about goal posts.

Answer the question: are we successful in convincing you that at-will action granting is not inherently broken?

 

[TwoSix]

Open your eyes. A level 3 warlord and X whatever can attack like the most damaging class in the party and then do whatever out of combat stuff he wants. Heck, just multiclass with life cleric and wear heavy armor and action grant and cast healing word in combat. You have made a character that fights almost just like a fighter and heals almost just like a cleric. Heck, be a wizard or bard instead of a cleric and save all your spells for out of combat situations. Use magic weapon whenever you buff your CE SS fighter ally as it just takes a bonus action and will give extra to hit and damage on even more attacks than it normally would give.

We already have a 2 level dip option that gives access to a top-tier at-will damaging attack, and then lets you take a full caster class on top. (Sorlock or Bardlock with EB+AB, obviously.) Sorlocks are obviously a top-level optimization build, but are they degenerately broken? If you allow them in the game, then Hypothetical Warlord 3/Caster X shouldn't also be a problem. If you've already banned Sorlocks or nerfed EB+AB somehow, then I can see why you'd have problems with this Hypothetical Warlord.

 

[Coroc]

Well you got your at wills in form of cantrips. The other "at wills" are Standard physical attacks.

How would you handle advantage/disadvantage of the 5 e System with "at wills"?