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

[CapnZapp]

The Warlord can enable the Rogue to sneak attack twice per turn at will is the issue. Everything else that allows that is limited in some way ergo the Rogue is not supposed to have the opportunity to sneak attack twice per turn at will.

I have to ask you again - why is that a problem, Zard?

 

[CapnZapp]

Mearls mentions in the video they don't look at the best options when balancing a class. He isn't balancing his subclass against the rogue's sneak attack, instead he is balancing it against another fighter. Not every group will have a rogue.

And sometimes the fighter outdamages the rogue anyway...

 

[5ekyu]

If you took another Rogue that Rogue is not going to be able to heal along with doing other warlord stuff (I assume you want a 5E warlord to do more than heal and grant attacks). A Rogue will not be that good at range either and may not be able to SA (as opposed to a WL switching attack granting between a Rogue, Fighter, Ranger for example).

The designers of 5E were fairly tight with bonus action things and attack granting (its all limited by resources).

You are correct that the mastermind rogue wont have the other things a warlord class *might have* but at the same time the warlord might not have all the things the mastermind does have - like say his own sneak attack, his own skills and expertise, etc etc etc. As for healing, looking at racial options etc as well as options for using healers kit with feats and as bonus action for some rogues - there are lots of ways to get this or that.

*again* a --class-- can be overgunned and overpowered, but the thread did not seem to focus on a single warlord set of finished specs and say "the class if OP as a whole" - instead it chose a single mechanic and said that mechanic is inherently imbalance on its face.

That is not to me a supportable claim given the fact that *by definition* it adds nothing *new* to a party capability - just lets it do more of what it can already do.

if one wants to claim "this specific version of a finished warlord class is Op and here is why" that is a much different discussion than one about the general concept of per round give action being a problem.

The strength of the warlord or any sort of "give action" to me is what i kind of call the "F-18 syndrome" from earlier days of Harpoon gaming which enabled the F-18 to be outfitted as an air superiority fighter for early campaign but then switch to "ground attack" once airsup was gained. The F-18 strength was being able to empower both stages to meet whatever the threat was. Similarly, the warlord should be there and helping to make others awesome - specifically the single most relevant character to a given challenge.

gotta say, helping others look awesome is not to me a thing i would rather have as a very limited resource slapped on top of a fighter sub-type. Not saying it should be "cheap" but it should not IMO be limited in its uses any more than the rogue sneak attack would be.

 

[Zardnaar]

I have to ask you again - why is that a problem, Zard?

Its OP, I have seen the BM fighter around with a Rogue in the party and its a great trick, aciton surge for 3 attacks give 1 attack to the Rogue.

A dex based BM fighter (duelist) deals 1d8+7 damage (11.5 avg damage), they give one attack to the Rogue at level 8 for example 1d8+4d6+5 (23.5). Its a nice ability but its also not at will.

The Duelist style for example grants +2 damage, a level 8 cleric class feature grants a huge 1d8 (at level 8), thats an at will thing that doubles the damage (comapre with the crit thing of the 5E champion)

Replace the Rogue with a Ranger, 1d8+5+ 1d8+1d6 your are still getting an extra 8 points of damage out of it, and this is also missing out on things like the -5/+10 feats in an edition where the average AC in the MM is 14.5.

This also ignores the versatility of being able to switch the targets to use range/melee attacks and you can key it off the best stat of another PC (negating Clerics MAD downsides for example).

Its fairly close to the +10 damage part of the -5/+10 feats without the -5 part. Or Paladin smiting witout having to use level 1 spell slots. When you look at how much damage crits deal or class features deal the way at will attack granting is very very out of whack with other PHB abilities for dealing extra damage. Or how cantrips scale even.

If you compare it with extra damage and how it will be used in a real game of D&D its the best damage enabler in the game, its better than level 8 cleric abilities its better than a fighting style, its roughly equivalent to a Paladin using a level 1 spell slot to smite at will, its the situational advantage of the hunter ranger all the time. It worked in 4E because they had a basic attack and Rogue sneak attack only dealt an extra 2 dice of damage (and 4E critters had more HP).

If you allow it at all it should be dealing perhaps 1d8+3 damage roughly as that is roughly what a cleric or warlord would deal at level 1 and you still get the versatility of switching between ranged and melee or keying off the prime stat of another PC.

Clerics can situationally deal more damage using their spells of course, spiritual guardians comes to mind but once again that is a limited daily effect, I am only limiting WLs to short rest effects.

If its at will why not just have it grant an extra 1d8 (perhaps 1d10 be generous) that scales like a cantrip. You will more or less functionally have the same effect and it limits the brokenness of it. Similar concept (more damage), and it limits the abuse (like 4E did at least until essentials basic attack classes). It means you could have a lot more other abilites that you would associate with the WL.

It really does smack of one true wayisms, every other class got changed to fit the 5E design why should 4E get a free pass? Not that the loudest posters actually play 5E anyway. If you spent time designing a 4E retroclone instead of bleating about it on forums you could do whatever you liked with the WL.

Can you have a Warlord in 5E? Yes, can you have a fully functional 4E Warlord in 5E no for the same reason a fully functional 3.x CoDzilla is a stupid idea.

 

[Rossbert]

Did I miss why it needs to be a base class instead of a subclass?

 

[Yunru]

Did I miss why it needs to be a base class instead of a subclass?

Yes.

 

[FrogReaver]

Did I miss why it needs to be a base class instead of a subclass?

Most concepts would be better off with a dedicated class instead of trying to force them into a subclass.

 

[Zardnaar]

You are correct that the mastermind rogue wont have the other things a warlord class *might have* but at the same time the warlord might not have all the things the mastermind does have - like say his own sneak attack, his own skills and expertise, etc etc etc. As for healing, looking at racial options etc as well as options for using healers kit with feats and as bonus action for some rogues - there are lots of ways to get this or that.

*again* a --class-- can be overgunned and overpowered, but the thread did not seem to focus on a single warlord set of finished specs and say "the class if OP as a whole" - instead it chose a single mechanic and said that mechanic is inherently imbalance on its face.

That is not to me a supportable claim given the fact that *by definition* it adds nothing *new* to a party capability - just lets it do more of what it can already do.

if one wants to claim "this specific version of a finished warlord class is Op and here is why" that is a much different discussion than one about the general concept of per round give action being a problem.

The strength of the warlord or any sort of "give action" to me is what i kind of call the "F-18 syndrome" from earlier days of Harpoon gaming which enabled the F-18 to be outfitted as an air superiority fighter for early campaign but then switch to "ground attack" once airsup was gained. The F-18 strength was being able to empower both stages to meet whatever the threat was. Similarly, the warlord should be there and helping to make others awesome - specifically the single most relevant character to a given challenge.

gotta say, helping others look awesome is not to me a thing i would rather have as a very limited resource slapped on top of a fighter sub-type. Not saying it should be "cheap" but it should not IMO be limited in its uses any more than the rogue sneak attack would be.

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.

 

[Tony Vargas]

A Rogue has never really been the best striker type in AD&D, 3.x, or even 4E (beaten by Ranger yes?)

Well, first off, again, balance - 'best' was by a narrower margin. Pre-Essentials but post-Fey-Charger-nerf, the DPR optimization king was briefly a Ranger tricked out to make a series of Encounter-power minor-action attacks on top of it's usual load-out. That's probably what you're recalling.
But all the striker classes of it's day were pretty competitive, especially off that bleeding edge of optimization.

In any case, the Ranger build in question didn't achieve it's uber DPR via a basic attack.

Its OP, I have seen the BM fighter around with a Rogue in the party and its a great trick, aciton surge for 3 attacks give 1 attack to the Rogue.

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).

It worked in 4E because they had a basic attack and Rogue sneak attack only dealt an extra 2 dice of damage (and 4E critters had more HP).

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.

It really does smack of one true wayisms

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

Every other class got changed to fit the 5E design why should 4E get a free pass?

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.

Can you have a Warlord in 5E? Yes, can you have a fully functional 4E Warlord in 5E no

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

 

[doctorbadwolf]

it also works with firebolt, but is not OP with eldrich blast. So it works in more parties.


Personally I find it works well. A bit less command-y, and more team work-y, but that's a good thing IMO.
I.e.

Ranger: 12, I missed.
Warlord: I shove the enemy into the path of the arrow. Roll again.

But try it out. See how how it feels.

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?