Lets design a Warlord for 5th edition

[Hussar]

I have to ask here. [MENTION=6716779]Zardnaar[/MENTION] is the only one here who thinks that at will action granting is too powerful. No one else seems to have a problem with it.

Why are we bothering with his criticisms? It's been repeatedly pointed out that at-will attack granting is not overpowered, and I don't think anyone here (other than Zardnaar) has an issue with it. So, howzabout we simply ignore Zardnaar's issue and constant derailment of the thread, and get back to designing a warlord that we'd actually want to play, rather than designing a warlord that satisfies the lone squeaky wheel in the wilderness.

 

[FrogReaver]

I restricted the action grant to only allies of your (warlord) level or below.

Probably not the most elegant way to do it, thinking about it further, I would probably scale the action grants based on warlord level.

Level 1 - Dodge, Dash, Use an Item, Disengage, one attack (not the attack action)
3 - Cantrip, 1st level spell (Int mod /LR)
5 - Attack action, 2nd level spell or lower (Int mod /LR)
7 - 3rd level spell or lower (Int mod/LR), 1st level spells at will
9 - 4th level spell or lower (Int mod/LR), 1st level spells at will
11 - 5th level spell or lower (Int mod/LR), 2nd level spells at will
13 - 3rd level spells at will
15 - 4th level spells at will
17 - 5th level spells at will

Hey, now you are getting closer to a balanced ACTION granting feature. The only problem is that such a feature is still really about all you should be giving a class without overpowering the class. Since you've taken up so much design space with a single feature that doesn't actually evoke any real character concept then it's really not an ability we can use to design any 5e class around.

The other important thing is, a limited daily version of such an ability may end up being just as strong as the at will version depending on what the warlord can normally do on the turns he is not using that daily ability.

 

[FrogReaver]

I have to ask here. @Zardnaar is the only one here who thinks that at will action granting is too powerful. No one else seems to have a problem with it.

Why are we bothering with his criticisms? It's been repeatedly pointed out that at-will attack granting is not overpowered, and I don't think anyone here (other than Zardnaar) has an issue with it. So, howzabout we simply ignore Zardnaar's issue and constant derailment of the thread, and get back to designing a warlord that we'd actually want to play, rather than designing a warlord that satisfies the lone squeaky wheel in the wilderness.

Read my posts then. At will ACTION granting is too powerful. At will attack granting can be balanced.

We are bothering with his criticisms because such are the criticisms any warlord class will likely face. If we can't convince someone that wants a warlord class about at-will attack granting isn't too strong then we have no chance to convince those that could care less about a warlord class.

Remember or goals here should be to design not just a warlord class we like but also one that is flexible enough for most all warlord fans while not using features that will cause the community to drop support of said class.

at will ACTION granting,
at will lowering saves,
possibly even at will attack granting

are all abilities that will face some pushback. I think we can make a good case about at will attack granting. Damage and DPR comparisons will easily prove such an ability isn't too strong.

At-will action granting and lowering saves is a different ball-game (and even anything that approaches at-will for such abilities). Such abilities will make the already controversial warlord class face an even steeper up-hill battle.

 

[Hussar]

/snip

We are bothering with his criticisms because such are the criticisms any warlord class will likely face. If we can't convince someone that wants a warlord class about at-will attack granting isn't too strong then we have no chance to convince those that could care less about a warlord class.
/snip

Meh, he's already proven that he will not be convinced that at will attack granting is possible to balance, never minding at will action granting. He hasn't even bothered to show why he believes this, only that he absolutely believes it and cannot be convinced otherwise.

There will always be people like that. They aren't the ones you have to convince because, no matter what you do, unless you 100% accept their ideas, they will never, ever actually engage in anything constructive.

Folks who could care less don't need to be convinced of anything.

 

[FrogReaver]

Meh, he's already proven that he will not be convinced that at will attack granting is possible to balance, never minding at will action granting. He hasn't even bothered to show why he believes this, only that he absolutely believes it and cannot be convinced otherwise.

There will always be people like that. They aren't the ones you have to convince because, no matter what you do, unless you 100% accept their ideas, they will never, ever actually engage in anything constructive.

Folks who could care less don't need to be convinced of anything.

He will come around. It's just been that there are so many bad implementations of at will attack granting I think. I don't think he's taken time to really consider the new approach or has really sit down and really thought about what other classes can already do in the attack granting department.

 

[Tony Vargas]

. At will attack granting can be balanced.

Sure, to the loose standards of 5e, quite easily. It's really a non-issue.

. If we can't convince someone that wants a warlord class about at-will attack granting isn't too strong

Zard doesn't want a Warlord.

Remember or goals here should be to design not just a warlord class we like but also one that is flexible enough for most all warlord fans

Flexibility is also key to adequate support contribution.

while not using features that will cause the community to drop support of said class.

This is only a homebrew, people who like the idea of a Warlord may use it if it's good. People who hate the warlord because of its 4e pedigree, or whatever, will hate it regardless.

Spirit guardians is daily effect not at will. Its also a level 5 ability.

That can deal ridiculous damage in aggregate in the kind of corner cases you're fretting over balancing, and which 5e doesn't much concern itself with.

One can have warlord attacks scale or look at multiple attacks.

Or not, and leave more design space open.

More practically, though, only the lazy char-OP build really needed at-will action-granting. A carefully-worded ability like that could be segregated in the 'Icon' sub-class for that purpose, and other builds could use a maneuver like Commander's Strike or long-rest resources to give out less restricted and/or enhanced attacks.

 

[Hussar]

He will come around. It's just been that there are so many bad implementations of at will attack granting I think. I don't think he's taken time to really consider the new approach or has really sit down and really thought about what other classes can already do in the attack granting department.

Really? What bad implementations have there been? The only implementation of at-will action granting was the 4e warlord, which, by and large, was balanced pretty well. There were certainly very few problems with it.

While 5e doesn't have at will action granting, it does have lots and lots of ways of granting attacks. Haste, Battlemasters, heck, even the Command spell can be used to trigger opportunity attacks with very little problem.

As you said yourself, a 5th level sorcerer is granting, potentially, some 20+ bonus attacks (or movement, or other actions, plus AC bonuses) and the same level Battlemaster is granting 8-12 bonus attacks over the course of the adventuring day with and extra 8-12 d8 damage added on and all it costs is a single attack, not even a full action.

The idea that we have an action of some sort that grants a single attack per round from another PC is so massively overpowered is ludicrous. It's not even in the near ballpark of over powered. If it was, then all those other ways of DOING THE SAME THING would also be overpowered. But, they aren't.

If granting a single attack 1/round 50% of the time is fine, then doing it 100% of the time probably isn't making a whole lot of difference. The argument is specious and frankly pretty disingenuous because it's not based on any actual play experience, but, rather, a bunch of white tower hypotheticals where the group is 100% charop specialized.

 

[TwoSix]

More practically, though, only the lazy char-OP build really needed at-will action-granting. A carefully-worded ability like that could be segregated in the 'Icon' sub-class for that purpose, and other builds could use a maneuver like Commander's Strike or long-rest resources to give out less restricted and/or enhanced attacks.

As a strong advocate of lazylord/princess builds, I'm perfectly fine with restricting at-will action or attack grants into a subclass silo.

Other possibilities that occurred to me were granting a restricted set of attacks per encounter (only melee attacks, or only cantrips), or only being grant actions to a limited set of allies (declare one ally as your "partner" at the start of initiative, and you can only grant actions to that partner).

 

[FrogReaver]

Really? What bad implementations have there been? The only implementation of at-will action granting was the 4e warlord, which, by and large, was balanced pretty well. There were certainly very few problems with it.

While 5e doesn't have at will action granting, it does have lots and lots of ways of granting attacks. Haste, Battlemasters, heck, even the Command spell can be used to trigger opportunity attacks with very little problem.

As you said yourself, a 5th level sorcerer is granting, potentially, some 20+ bonus attacks (or movement, or other actions, plus AC bonuses) and the same level Battlemaster is granting 8-12 bonus attacks over the course of the adventuring day with and extra 8-12 d8 damage added on and all it costs is a single attack, not even a full action.

The idea that we have an action of some sort that grants a single attack per round from another PC is so massively overpowered is ludicrous. It's not even in the near ballpark of over powered. If it was, then all those other ways of DOING THE SAME THING would also be overpowered. But, they aren't.

If granting a single attack 1/round 50% of the time is fine, then doing it 100% of the time probably isn't making a whole lot of difference. The argument is specious and frankly pretty disingenuous because it's not based on any actual play experience, but, rather, a bunch of white tower hypotheticals where the group is 100% charop specialized.

It's important to at least be aware what it will do to highly optimized parties and sometimes not even optimized parties but just parties that happen to have a particular character class.

That said you've not got to convince me. I'm in your boat. At-will attack granting can be balanced and it can even be balanced with other interesting class features. It's not such a strong feature that it precludes anything else.

As for implementations, there have been many different implantation attempts over various warlord threads. The earliest warlord threads all centered around at-will attack granting. They usually pushed for no attacks and trading all your attacks for off turn ally attacks. They were pretty OP implementations.

 

[Zardnaar]

@Zardnaar , Please try to give reasoned thoughtful responses to these questions

How many attack grants (not action grants) should a 5th level character be able to grant in a day (assuming that they are only allowing the character granted the attack to make an additional attack on their turn, unlike haste which does allow a method for the granted attack to be on an off turn)?

We know a level 5 Sorcerer can cast a twinned haste 3 times per day (I estimate that at 24 attacks granted per day). We know a battlemaster fighter at level 5 can generally grant 8-12 attacks per day depending on short rests. All of these can be off turn attacks as well.

Should a Warlord be able to reach those limits especially with an "on turn" restricted extra attack? Or should he maybe get to exceed those limits? And if so by what amount? And if that amount is already quickly approaching the number needed in the day to make it be "essentially at-will" then what's the problem with just letting him have at-will attack granting instead of a daily resource that would allow essentially the same thing?

Sorcerer is wasting a lot of spells to cast 3 hastes at level 5, its not a very good play.Haste will likely end a combat in 2-3 rounds as well.

So assuming the player is not a pumpkin (using sorcerer point sub optimally).A Sorcerer at level 5 can cast haste twice and perhaps twin cast it, either way lets call it 3 time. Assuming each round is about 3 times say 9 rounds, but the sorcerers an be interrupted haste has a draw back etc. Assuming the 6-8 rounds a day and 2 short and each encounter lasting about 3 combats that is 9 rounds out of 18-24 expected rounds and the Sorcerer doesn;t do much else.

A battlemaster fighter can do it level 5 4/short rest or around 12 times assuming 2 short rests, can't be interrupted, doesn't get the other benefits of haste. BM fighter can switch betweeen targets as well, haste can't do that. Sorcerer loses a round casting haste the BM gives up an attack.

The main objection is the Sorcerer is expending a lot of resources to do that a warlord hypothetically is just giving up and attack which may be sod all damage anyway (2d6+5 to gain 1d8+3d6+5 level 5 rogue). That is almost all the sorcerer is doing depends if they butrn spell slots to get more sorcerer points or ore level 3 spell slots. The sorcerer is going to tank itself fast anyway running out of almost everything in around 3 rounds and then can spam 2d8 or 2d10 cantirps (yay).

Some people here want roughly triple strength level 3 ability (BM dice) that are a limited resource at will, some 2 levels earlier.

I also assume a warlord would have some other class abilities like heal, an extra ASI (level 6, 10 or 14 pick 1 or 2?), and some other abilities as well (damge scaling and/or multiple attacks).

Basically I think most people advocating for at will attack granting are wasting their breath the game designers are not going to put at will attack granting into the game. They have already done it via BM dice, they are not going to do a double or triple strength version of that ability.

Functionally at will would be something like 6-9 BM dice perhaps replacing a BM dice with some sort of class ability/"invocation" that grants attacks+rider or an action. Tweaking short rests to 5 mins would allow an additional short rest which would probably make it very close to at will.

I think 75% YMMV is a reasonable/upper limit for attack granting it smooths out the Rogue and the warlord can grow into it instead of front loading it in the 1st 3 levels. It should also cost the warlord resources the BM is already front loaded, so assuming the WL gets dice at level 3 (or spells or whatever) they can spend feats, "invocations" or opportunity cost (like hunter rangers pick this or that ability not both).

Action granting should not be at will obviously perhaps that could come online at level 5 as as short rest ability IDK.

You can homebrew anything you like, don't expect the game designers to put at will attack granting into it. Personally I would like attack granting as an option and the WL to be better at it than say a BM.

Generally I think you want to smooth out the power spikes that at will action granting from 4E would present in 5E and some of the other 4E things that would be weak in 5E can be powered up.