doctorbadwolf
Heretic of The Seventh Circle
The fireball still burns the wizard's spell slot. And the warlord is still not doing a thing of their own.
D&D 5E What the warlord needs in 5e and how to make it happen.
The fireball still burns the wizard's spell slot. And the warlord is still not doing a thing of their own.
Which is not something an advocate for such a class is even seeking. So not an argument.
Regardless, sub-forum ghetto in 3... 2... 1...
TwoSix
Dirty, realism-hating munchkin powergamer
Sure, but I have no problem with a "fifth-wheel" character being better at fifth-wheeling than other options. Being the best option for a subset of all party configurations is hardly the same as being the best overall class, period.
It's hardly silly, it's one of the main examples of why the action granting isn't overpowered. Casting a high-level spell is, on a per action basis, the strongest option in the game. That's why high-level spells are so resource limited. Any high-level spell is only going to happen once per long rest per high level caster. With a warlord in the party, that frequency doesn't change. The only change is that it could happen on the Warlord's turn instead of the caster's turn.
Only with 3+ casters in the party would the diversity of spell options available on the Warlord's action overcome the inherit weakness of not playing a caster that provides a broader pool of spells available to the party as well as the spell slot resources to cast them. And I'm OK with an action granting class being a superior enabler in a diverse party.
The only one there that concerns me is sneak attack, or access to Sharpshooter/GWM level at-wills. All the other options are resource constrained already.
All that being said, I'm spitballing based on a hypothetical class with only one feature, the ability to give their action to another character to take. Such a class would be strong, scaling with the number of other characters in the party as well as the optimization level of those characters, but not OP. A real warlord class, though has a limited subset of the options that would be granted by that hypothetical ability, but granted their own set of warlord abilities as a trade-off.
doctorbadwolf
Heretic of The Seventh Circle
You realize you are speaking to an advocate for such a class, right?
you've missed the point, as well, but I'm not interested in a merry go round about it.
mellored
Legend
Actually, i can think of 1 way they might do it. They could make a fighter sub-class that traded attacks for warlord maneuvers.
i.e. When you take the attack action, you can forgo a number of attacks in order to gain a benifit.
you can forgo 1 attack to let an ally move 5' without provoking and opportunity attack.
you can forgo 1 attack to give an ally temporary hit points equal to your Cha modifier.
you can forgo 2 attacks to let an ally move his speed.
you can forgo 3 attacks to let an ally cast a cantrip.
etc...
If you advocate for a lazylord, it is highly improbable you have much desire for a class that does "its own thing", no. Sorry. Not buying it.
Or, perhaps, *you* did? It would appear you are responding to something I wasn't talking about.
Hard to believe when you reply in the manner in which you did.
mellored
Legend
I agree with twosix, and captainzap.
Granting spells is fine, because there are a limited number of spells slots. However, I also agree that you shouldn't be able to grant full barbarian multi-attacks, or off-turn rogue attacks. It also makes no sense for a warlord to grant a Rouge and extra hide check, or lock pick attempt.
Thus I would do it similar to haste. On their next turn, they get an extra action, and can do a small number of things (including casting 2 spells).
Granting spells is fine, because there are a limited number of spells slots. However, I also agree that you shouldn't be able to grant full barbarian multi-attacks, or off-turn rogue attacks. It also makes no sense for a warlord to grant a Rouge and extra hide check, or lock pick attempt.
Thus I would do it similar to haste. On their next turn, they get an extra action, and can do a small number of things (including casting 2 spells).
Imaro
Legend
Eh, but he isn't just the best at "fifth-wheeling" if he can grant an action for an action... he's the best at maximizing effectiveness period which means a party with a Warlord is going to be significantly stronger and more effective than a party without one.
In a general sense yes... in a more nuanced sense it's the strongest option of the game as long as there isn't a lower level spell or lower cost ability that would accomplish the same thing.
Well in the sense that a high-level spell is the ONLY option that will achieve the desired effect yes... in actual play though how often is a second wish spell necessary as opposed to a lower spell effect? The point is that in being able to trade his action for the most optimal action (not necessarily the highest spell available) the Warlord does in fact have the most powerful ability (in a general sense) of the party.
Do we need healing this round... the Warlord can do it, Do we need to stop that trap before the next round... the Warlord can do it, DO we need the Barbarian's damage output on a BBEG... the Warlord can do it. Do we need a teleportation spell to get us out of here before someone drops... the Warlord can do it. Yes there are resources to be managed but that's there irregardless of whether the Warlord is a part of the party or not. What he does is make it possible to bring to bear the best ability (given resources are being managed by all characters) in any specific situation. That is a really powerful ability and would change the effectiveness of a party by a significant amount if played properly
Again I'm not sure I agree (and since there are a majority of caster classes it's not unreasonable to think there will be 3 in a party of 5 or more characters)... being able to cast the right spell... or in fact use the right ability when necessary to save a spell slot from being expended is a powerful ability and a game changer. I'm not sure it's as powerful as having spells to waste (of course if you don't need them or they are overkill for the situation I could see the argument) but it's probably one of the strongest abilities in the game because of the sheer versatility it brings to any situation.
Eh, the fighter getting another go at an attack action that grants 3-4 attack at high level is nothing to sneeze at either. But again it's the fact that this Warlord can bring to bear exactly what is needed (as opposed to other classes having to sometimes improvise when it's their turn and they don't have the exact ability necessary to optimize their response to the challenge thus resulting in reduced effectiveness and/or wasting of some resources) that is the true power of this ability.
I think depending on the optimization levels of the other players, what options (such as feats, magic items, etc.) are allowed, this hypothetical class could be not just strong but quite overpowered. I think being able to bring the most optimized ability to bear (given cost and effect) on a 1:1 basis is a much stronger contribution that many realize.
Last edited:
mellored
Legend
lazy lords are not much different that buff sorcerers, or pacifist life clerics.
I'd like to put a finer point on the following:
But a warlord added to the group gives them that "significantly more powerful" aspect at *all* those things because each round they get to double down on the one thing they need most. Whatever that may be. The warlord becomes a proto-fighterwizardroguecleric. Fighting an army of mooks? Two fireballs in one round coming right up! Assassin and warlord both going before the BBEG in round one? Guess that means two full rounds worth of murderizing goodness on the poor sob! Paladin in the group and your fighting powerful undead or fiends? So much smiting gonna go down! And so on...
Sure, instead of that warlord you could have a second wizard in a group. So you are a group who's getting those double fireballs against large groups. But he's always a wizard. Every encounter. And never one of those other examples. That wizard isn't a second assassin when it would count. Or that second paladin to get all those smites in on that scary archfiend (who, BTW, has magic resistance - good thing you have a double round of smites instead of being stuck with that second wizard right now, huh?).
That's the point Imaro and others are getting at. And I agree. Unlimited access to such flexibility is just too good.
When a balanced 4-man party (fighter, wizard, rogue, cleric as an example) adds a fifth PC, it gets significantly more powerful at whatever that 5th PC is focused on. At killing stuff with weapons by adding a second fighter. Or significantly more powerful at healing during a fight by adding a second cleric. Or significantly more powerful at AoE control by adding a second wizard. You get the point.
But a warlord added to the group gives them that "significantly more powerful" aspect at *all* those things because each round they get to double down on the one thing they need most. Whatever that may be. The warlord becomes a proto-fighterwizardroguecleric. Fighting an army of mooks? Two fireballs in one round coming right up! Assassin and warlord both going before the BBEG in round one? Guess that means two full rounds worth of murderizing goodness on the poor sob! Paladin in the group and your fighting powerful undead or fiends? So much smiting gonna go down! And so on...
Sure, instead of that warlord you could have a second wizard in a group. So you are a group who's getting those double fireballs against large groups. But he's always a wizard. Every encounter. And never one of those other examples. That wizard isn't a second assassin when it would count. Or that second paladin to get all those smites in on that scary archfiend (who, BTW, has magic resistance - good thing you have a double round of smites instead of being stuck with that second wizard right now, huh?).
That's the point Imaro and others are getting at. And I agree. Unlimited access to such flexibility is just too good.
Similar Threads
