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

[Tony Vargas]

I like those shifting goal posts

I set up no goal post, in the first place.

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.

It wasn't game-breaking in 4e, even though that ed strove for more restrictive balance than 5e does, so it seemed a fair question.

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.

The Warlord was a support character, it'd have to be viable as such in 5e, but viability of support contributions, and matching the healing output of a cleric optimized for that purpose are two very different things.

And, I'm not too concerned with 'dipping,' MC'ing is optional, afterall.

 

[FrogReaver]

I set up no goal post, in the first place.

It wasn't game-breaking in 4e, even though that ed strove for more restrictive balance than 5e does, so it seemed a fair question.

The Warlord was a support character, it'd have to be viable as such in 5e, but viability of support contributions, and matching the healing output of a cleric optimized for that purpose are two very different things.

And, I'm not too concerned with 'dipping,' MC'ing is optional, afterall.

If you are not designing with the constraint of keeping multiclassing in mind then we are designing two very different things.

 

[Tony Vargas]

If you are not designing with the constraint of keeping multiclassing in mind then we are designing two very different things.

I am not designing anything. I'm discussing what might be designed, sure, and I'm concerned about whether it'd deliver, and - I thought - you were concerned with how broken it might hypothetically be.

The thing is, once it's designed, it's still optional, as is multi-classing, and nothing I've seen anyone at WotC ever commit to has suggested that there's an intent to balance every possible optional rule (from optional-in-the-PH MCing to double-dog-ex-post-optional-with-warning-claxons-on-it in some not-quite-ready-for-playtest corner of the game's on-line presence) with every other possible optional rule, even to the loose standards of balance 5e seems to work off of.

Rather, an optional rule is something the DM considers, and, if he dares to consider more than one, it behooves him to consider how they might interact. That's at the end of the processes. Designs are completed, DM's consider whether to opt in. It's not a blockade at the beginning of the process: "wait, Mike, before you start to design anything, random posters on the internet must prove that it will be perfectly balanced with every other optional rule you have ever or might someday get around to designing!"

 

[Zardnaar]

I set up no goal post, in the first place.

It wasn't game-breaking in 4e, even though that ed strove for more restrictive balance than 5e does, so it seemed a fair question.

The Warlord was a support character, it'd have to be viable as such in 5e, but viability of support contributions, and matching the healing output of a cleric optimized for that purpose are two very different things.

And, I'm not too concerned with 'dipping,' MC'ing is optional, afterall.

Warlord did not match phb clerics for healing. Beats me why you would expect it to match life cleric.

Basically people seem to want best healer and best damage enabler and that's the problem.

 

[MechaPilot]

Warlord did not match phb clerics for healing. Beats me why you would expect it to match life cleric.

Basically people seem to want best healer and best damage enabler and that's the problem.

Go back and reread what you replied to Zardnaar, I think you'll realize Tony Vargas wasn't asking for best healer.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Warlord did not match phb clerics for healing. Beats me why you would expect it to match life cleric.

I believe you may have just accidentally agreed with me. My point was that there's no reasonable expectation of a warlord, even the inspiring type that was (as you might expect) better at inspiring word than other warlords, to be better at healing than the iconic Band-Aid cleric tricked out to be a dedicated healer.

Go back and reread what you replied to Zardnaar, I think you'll realize Tony Vargas wasn't asking for best healer.

Yes, quite the opposite.
Going further back, I think the point I replied to may actually have been alluding to a cleric hypothetically dipping warlord (3 levels, was it?) to get that at-will attack granting.

 

[CapnZapp]

The Warlord - at least one of its subclasses - needs at-will action granting.

Once this is established, it should be easy to design the rest of the (sub)class.

All the diversionary arguments about support fall away.

 

[TwoSix]

I believe you may have just accidentally agreed with me. My point was that there's no reasonable expectation of a warlord, even the inspiring type that was (as you might expect) better at inspiring word than other warlords, to be better at healing than the iconic Band-Aid cleric tricked out to be a dedicated healer.

Especially considering even in 4e, a warlord couldn't keep up with the healing of a tricked-out cleric (remember pacifist healer?)

 

[FrogReaver]

Warlord did not match phb clerics for healing. Beats me why you would expect it to match life cleric.

Basically people seem to want best healer and best damage enabler and that's the problem.

Or they make damage enabling a low level ability and you can just multiclassing to do both.

 

[FrogReaver]

Especially considering even in 4e, a warlord couldn't keep up with the healing of a tricked-out cleric (remember pacifist healer?)

I seem to recall warlord builds that could get pretty close if not overtake to he daily healing ability of a cleric. Required more healing surges though. But the point is if you were just looking at hp numbers the warlord could build for that and do great at it.