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

[Jester David]

Having it use the character's action AND the other character's reaction largely works. Because it's basically the same as a character using their action to induce an Opportunity Attack.

Technically that is already in the game, via the Shove action.
The difference is this could conceivably be done at range and doesn't have the same chance of failure. It's basically the same as being given a class feature to be able to move a creature 5 feet at range without a save, which doesn't feel *that* broken.

However, I don't think at-will attack granting is that great. It works better as a limited resource. So you choose when you want to use the cool class power. I can't think of another class in the game that has unlimited access to their class' signature ability.

 

[Tony Vargas]

So frakking what? Unless they all can be combined, that's utterly irrelevant.

The point I see is that it's hard to argue that something is "impossible in 5e" or "contrary to 5e" when it already exists in 5e.

You don't get it. At-will action granting is the core fun part of the class. Maybe I should set you a task instead.

It wasn't at all difficult, nor a bad idea, really, to build a warlord with no attack-granting, at all, in 4e. There was one build, a cool one, probably one the designers didn't even intend, one that opens up character concepts that would normally be fringe-to-worthless to be practical contributing members of the party. So, yeah, at-will attack granting (really, action-transferring), like that of one specific power, Command the Strike, should be available to warlords. But there's a lot more the class needs, and a lot of Warlords, like the Bravura, who probably shouldn't ever feel tempted to use such a thing.

Honestly, the more is see threads about the mechanical X,Y,Z of the warlord, most of them about how to port features from 4e to 5e, the more I tell myself that I think it would be best to keep the idea of a martial support class, but dont want the features that were given to such class in 4e in the 5e version. Something like they did with the sorcerers, which are different in mechanics and thematic in 5e.

The thematics of the Sorcerer at introduction in 4e were basically identical there was a dragon sorcerer and a chaos sorcerer. In 4e the Sorcerer used the same power mechanics as everyone else, in 5e it uses the same spell-casting mechanics as everyone else.

The adaptation from 3.5 to 5e was more pronounced - the Sorcerer gave up it's signature spontaneous casting to everyone else, and everyone else gave up netamagic to the Sorcerer.

So, instead of a mere translation from 4e to 5e, why not create a class that do something no other class can do?

Since most classes are reality-warping casters - and generally do things one or more other classes can do - that's a tall order.

Some quick ideas:
- Mess with short/rest long rest power recovery

Sure, like the 4e Warlord exploits No Gambit is Wasted or Warlords Recovery or the Battle Captain exploit Bolt of Genius.

- Ally within 30 can sacrifice advantage to let an ally within range do a single attack

Still attack-granting.

- Help action give super-advantage (ala Elven accuracy feat), Help can target more than one ally at higher levels

Like the Warlord feats Inspiring Aid and Warlords Formation, respectively.

- Recover exhaustion faster, recuperate X HD per short rest,

Bit like Heart of the Titan, sure.

party can transfer HD from one to another

4e had a ritual for transfering surges, but at least it wasn't a warlord power.

- Bonus Action let an ally spend HD

The obvious way to convert Inspiring Word to 5e, been suggested many times.

- Concentration stances x/short rest:

Concentration isn't the worst way to convert stances. All the martial classes in 4e had some stance powers, the Warlord had 16. As an added bonus the community considers concentration a huge limitation, justifying great power.

refluff bless, refluff sanctuary, refluff calm emotion, refluff crusader mantle etc

It wouldn't be re-fluffling (you can't re-fluff away spellcasting mechanics or magic), so much as using similar mechanics - bonuses to attack, AC, damage, saves/countering conditions. Yep, the warlord had plenty of exploits or features for those sorts of things, and those existing mechanics would be ways to convert them.

But, bottom line, in spite of all that, I do agree that simply porting/converting the warlord over whole cloth is doomed to failure. Not because there's anything to that can't be done in 5e, not because any of it would be too powerful or broken, but because the resulting class, overall, would be too deeply inferior to the existing support-class options to be viable. There are 4 caster classes already available to fill support contributions for the party, they've all been powered-up and received huge increases in versatility relative to when they were balanced with eachother & the warlord - a 5e Warlord must be competitive with them, somehow.

 

[FrogReaver]

Quite a bit, for me. I played a bravura warlord in 4e, but my next character was going to be a warlord|wizard, because I liked the lazylord concept that much.

Right. I think all 4e Warlord fans liked the lazylord concept much more than the traditional hit things and help allies while doing so type. What I am trying to ask is did you like the lazylord better because it was stronger than the other warlords. That is, would you or anyone have even cared for it if it was weaker?

 

[FrogReaver]

IMO, enough to make lazy-lord the base class....

I think so as well. It was strength and flexibility that made lazylords rise in popularity. They could hybrid well with almost any class and had tons of synergy with many different classes when using hybrids. In fact one may call what 4e Warlords and Warlord Hybrids could do in combat a little broken or at the very least highly effective.

I think that kind of power in the only warlord incarnation we have is one of the stumbling blocks in designing a 5e one. Fans want the 5e version to be as strong as the 4e version and it really shouldn't be.

 

[Tales and Chronicles]

snip

Most of what you are quoting are expandable powers from the 4e warlord list that were use in combat. What I suggest is similar features that can make the support class use its ''support'' features as well in combat than out of combat. Let them affect mechanics from 5e that are still untouched. I think some of the Martial Rituals (I dont remember the real name) from 4e can be a good starting point.

What I was saying is that I think a martial support class should be more innovative than just (tho I think its a good and interesting start) giving attack and healing allies in combat. If the ''warlord'' is only a class that support in combat, it will still be outshined by the other support classes who can do the same while also contributing in utility outside of combat. I'm afraid the warlord will suffer the same problem as the fighter, having all its out-of-combat utility left in the Background and player's RP.

 

[TwoSix]

Right. I think all 4e Warlord fans liked the lazylord concept much more than the traditional hit things and help allies while doing so type. What I am trying to ask is did you like the lazylord better because it was stronger than the other warlords. That is, would you or anyone have even cared for it if it was weaker?

I can't speak for anyone else, but while I certainly make choices based on effectiveness, this was one case where I really liked a concept because of the narrative hook. I also liked that hybrid warlords could mix with a lot of different concepts and still be useful. I liked the flexibility, not really the power.

One of my favorite 4e classes was the vampire, so I hardly made all my choices based on raw power.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Fans want the 5e version to be as strong as the 4e version and it really shouldn't be.

That would be impractical: any 5e version of the Warlord has to be considerably more powerful and versatile than the 4e version to have any hope of standing in for one of the extant support classes without seriously disadvantaging his party.

 

[Tales and Chronicles]

I can't speak for anyone else, but while I certainly make choices based on effectiveness, this was one case where I really liked a concept because of the narrative hook. I also liked that hybrid warlords could mix with a lot of different concepts and still be useful. I liked the flexibility, not really the power.

One of my favorite 4e classes was the vampire, so I hardly made all my choices based on raw power.

You know what 5e misses more than a Warlord?

A Vampire class.

 

[Yunru]

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.

You're right, using haste is deceptive.
After all, it only takes 1 action, grants the attack foe as long as concentration's up (max 1 minute?), grants double speed, grants +2 AC and allows them to do something other than attacking.

In otherwords using haste to dermine when at-will attacks should be granted is a massively conservative estimate.

 

[Yunru]

That's really not the way you want to go with that comparison. Time Stop is the spell that grants actions without Concentration.

You want to come up with a mechanic that's as cost prohibitive as Concentration.

Or you could, y'know, just drop the duration (and concentration).