D&D 5E Homebrew Marshal Class (+Thread)

[Fenris-77]

I see where we're differing. The Marshal ability, as I understand it, grants additional attacks to the existing attack option of the recipient, it doesn't replace the target's attack option or grant an additional attack option. For example, the 5th level Paladin I used as an example above would get a total of 4 attacks when he used his attack option on his turn, two granted by the Paladin class and an additional two granted by the Marshal's ability.

 

[Tony Vargas]

I see where we're differing. The Marshal ability, as I understand it, grants additional attacks to the existing attack option of the recipient, it doesn't replace the target's attack option or grant an additional attack option. For example, the 5th level Paladin I used as an example above would get a total of 4 attacks when he used his attack option on his turn, two granted by the Paladin class and an additional two granted by the Marshal's ability.

Yeah, I caught that, I just was also considering the possibility of granted attack(s) happening on the warlord's turn. The difference is timing. Whether you can grant 2 attacks on your turn, or add two attacks on an ally's turn, adding two attacks to someone who normally get two (as in your example) or to someone who's single normally attack scales, are going to have different impacts.

 

[Garthanos]

I see where we're differing. The Marshal ability, as I understand it, grants additional attacks to the existing attack option of the recipient, it doesn't replace the target's attack option or grant an additional attack option. For example, the 5th level Paladin I used as an example above would get a total of 4 attacks when he used his attack option on his turn, two granted by the Paladin class and an additional two granted by the Marshal's ability.

if the Paladin wanted to spend a reaction allow him to use the attack on the Warlords turn. I just like flexibility

 

[Fenris-77]

How about we use the Paladin as the test case - what cost should accrue to the WL and/or Paladin for swapping over those two attacks (assume for now it's on the same turn). Granting attacks is probably going to be focused on the best fighter types, so this seems like a reasonable test case.

If you have a different case where a single attack class is potentially a problem I'm all ears. We should definitely be on the lookout for both balance and potential abuse.

 

[Tony Vargas]

If you have a different case where a single attack class is potentially a problem I'm all ears. We should definitely be on the lookout for both balance and potential abuse.

Even before we get to balance or abuse, just IDK, symmetry? If the warlord essentially passes his turn to give someone a second turn, that turn should be a regular turn (for them), it shouldn't be a half-effectiveness turn for some and a double-effectiveness turn for others. It might be that a given character has a lot of attack potential every turn, so giving him an extra go is an obvious thing, but that's different from a mechanical artifact.

I guess it comes down to baseline at-will attacking scales at least three different ways in 5e. Cantrips, which scale damage dice on a single attack roll (or save) with character level, Extra Attacks, which scale all sources of damage that apply to an attack with class level, and SA, scaling with Rogue level. OK, and there's EB which kinda scales more like Extra Attack than other cantrips. And, y'never know, something else could show up at any time.

So how do you make an attack-granting ability robust in the face of that?

I'm thinking: expend an action to grant an action, with a proviso that it can only be used "to attack" - and, if concerned about the balance issues of dissimilar level warlords & allies, limit the functional level of the granted action to the lower of the two (which seems too complicated for 5e - but if you're that concerned about it, that'd be a way to rule).

 

[TwoSix]

Here's my issue as plainly as possible. At level 5 the Marshal has two attacks per attack action. He also has the ability to grant attacks to allies. Do we think it's ok that he grant both of those attacks, at whatever cost, to the same ally on the same turn? My thought was no, but I'll roll with the majority opinion.

No. He can grant one attack per ally. If he has two attacks, he has to specify two different allies (or some other subclass specific benefit.) That's my vote.

I'd also say it has to be attacks generated by the Attack action; the extra action granted by the haste spell or similar effects can't be used to grant attacks.

 

[Fenris-77]

It could also work like Haste, where it's an additional action that only allows a single attack. I think having it work more like action surge than Haste is maybe too strong, but that's just my opinion. (ninja'd)

I also don't have a problem, at least at face value, with the currency of exchange being attacks rather than actions, even if that mechanic isn't currently represented elsewhere in the game. At which point TwoSix and I seem to be on the same page.

 

[TwoSix]

It could also work like Haste, where it's an additional action that only allows a single attack. I think having it work more like action surge than Haste is maybe too strong, but that's just my opinion. (ninja'd)

I also don't have a problem, at least at face value, with the currency of exchange being attacks rather than actions, even if that mechanic isn't currently represented elsewhere in the game. At which point TwoSix and I seem to be on the same page.

I like attacks because they're far more normalized than actions. Yes, a paladin smiting with Divine Smite and GWM one more time is a bitc...ad thing, but that's mostly paladin's fault for being way over the top.

 

[Tony Vargas]

I like attacks because they're far more normalized than actions.

Individual attacks? Some individual attacks scale with level, others only with extra attacks, so I don't see how that's normalized.
But, actions, so long as you're not spending a resource as part of them, should be fairly baseline.

No. He can grant one attack per ally. If he has two attacks, he has to specify two different allies (or some other subclass specific benefit.)

I like that, visually - as the warlord gets more capable, he gets more allies working together.

I'm not so sure if it's consistent, mechanically. But, then, I had the same reaction to Haste (big differences that there are, like it's one action+concentration, not sacrificing your action every round, so it 'earns an action economy profit, and it costs a resource), but it's clearly what it is. ::

 

[TwoSix]

Individual attacks? Some individual attacks scale with level, others only with extra attacks, so I don't see how that's normalized.

But, actions, so long as you're not spending a resource as part of them, should be fairly baseline.

Just looking at tiers 1-2, virtually every attack is in the range of 1dX+stat+small rider. Making it on-turn attacks means rogues don't get a 2nd sneak attack, which is one reason I favor that option. Rogues like a 2nd attack because it's like advantage for their sneak attack, which is less problematic because it's a floor increase far more than a ceiling increase.

If you open up actions, you open up the Cast a Spell action, which opens up Eldritch Blast. That's bad.