Are we overthinking the warlord?

[Zardnaar]

Situationally. If the warlord does slightly more damage (i.e. 4 attacks) or slightly less damage (i.e. 3 attacks), then action granting is best used at a distance and for acceleration. A good example of this would be if an enemy is farther away than the warlord can move, but an ally of the warlord is adjacent to that enemy, especially if that enemy has proved to have devastating attacks and the group wants to whittle that enemy down quickly.

Other good examples include if an ally has a magic weapon, or a different type of weapon than the warlord, which bypasses a resistance or plays to a vulnerability of an enemy.




I'm not worried about the -5/+10 feat builds. One, feats are optional (I use them, but they are optional). Two, I have yet to see these feats be a problem in actual play. I see people (predominantly Zardnaar) complaining about them online, but the player at my table with that feat never broke anything by using that feat, even when his character was blessed.

Re: Lazylords, I'm not entirely certain what that jargon refers to. I've had warlords at my table in 4e, but no one ever called their character a lazylord. Is that a Char Op term? Because I don't really visit Char Op boards.




You don't use shocking grasp on the warlord to negate action-granting; you use it on the ally of the warlord who you don't want to be able to take off-turn attacks, because then they wouldn't have a reaction available to spend on making the off-turn attack. In your example, this would mean using shocking grasp on the rogue.




Ignore? No. But, a 7.5 point swing at the highest levels of play is purely de minimums.

And the only thing close to that at the higher levels is a.....Battlemaster fighter and it still doesn't get at will attack granting (and is the best fighter class).

So now a 5E WL needs to have 4 attacks a round, attack granting, healing abilities and probably other abilities.

 

[MechaPilot]

And the only thing close to that at the higher levels is a.....Battlemaster fighter and it still doesn't get at will attack granting (and is the best fighter class).

So now a 5E WL needs to have 4 attacks a round, attack granting, healing abilities and probably other abilities.

No Zardnaar, it doesn't need 4 attacks. It should have at least three, but it doesn't need 4 (my version would have only three).

Yes, it needs attack granting. And who gives a crap that the battlemaster doesn't have attack granting? The battlemaster is a fighter, not a warlord, and the battlemaster is still acting every time it's her turn.

Yes, the warlord needs healing abilities to help it actually fill the support role.

 

[Zardnaar]

No Zardnaar, it doesn't need 4 attacks. It should have at least three, but it doesn't need 4 (my version would have only three).

Yes, it needs attack granting. And who gives a crap that the battlemaster doesn't have attack granting? The battlemaster is a fighter, not a warlord, and the battlemaster is still acting every time it's her turn.

Yes, the warlord needs healing abilities to help it actually fill the support role.

Only one class gets 3 attacks lol it's a major fighter ability. You can demand what you like but Mearls is not a drunken idiot.

All these ideas basically boil down to we want our pet class to be the most powerful in the game.

The only class that can handle at will attack granting and not break the game is the rogue and design space there is limited like the fighter for the other abilities.

 

[MechaPilot]

Only one class gets 3 attacks lol it's a major fighter ability. You can demand what you like but Mearls is not a drunken idiot.

Nice. Don't you have a thread to start about how people are playing the wrong way, or about how bless, sharpshooter, and GWM are broken?

All these ideas basically boil down to we want our pet class to be the most powerful in the game.

Not by a long shot.

The only class that can handle at will attack granting and not break the game is the rogue and design space there is limited like the fighter for the other abilities.

It's a good thing my version of warlord would be its own class then, isn't it.

 

[Zardnaar]

Nice. Don't you have a thread to start about how people are playing the wrong way, or about how bless, sharpshooter, and GWM are broken?




Not by a long shot.




It's a good thing my version of warlord would be its own class then, isn't it.

I don't mind the concept of the warlord as an independent class. If you think designing a class with 3 attack, attack granting (which was an option only in 4E),healing abilities and other abilities is a good idea go knock yourself out.

Assuming a warlord can heal roughly as close as a cleric (better than a Paladin perhaps Druid/non life cleric type healing), assuming you design warlord abilities to replace spell casting.
A cleric gets an additional 1d8 damage at level 8 and 14.

That kind of should give you a clue about how much damage attack granting should be doing. A lazy lord that should be around 1d6+4+2d8, a more militant one perhaps a Bravura 2d6+4+2d8 or so. In both cases I assumed roughly a 18 in strength (unlikely a cleric has that at 14).

That is how much damage by level 14 an attack granting support PC should be doing IMHO.

A class with 3 attacks and healing superior to a Paladin+ attack granting+ other abilities doesn't seem like the best idea when compared with a Paladin who gets 2 attacks, a limited amount of spell slots (the aura is MVP of a Paladins existence) etc.

Lets design a support class that is better than all of the other warriors in the game in number of attacks (except lvl 20 fighter), if anything better is in the party we can wield them instead. Hmmmnn.

 

[MechaPilot]

I don't mind the concept of the warlord as an independent class. If you think designing a class with 3 attack, attack granting (which was an option only in 4E),healing abilities and other abilities is a good idea go knock yourself out.

The "was an option only in 4e" thing is a meaningless comment. It doesn't matter what edition it came from, it's a core element of what most warlord fans consider to be a must-have ability for the warlord. And, to be frank, it's almost a net zero benefit. It's at best, a 7.5 damage benefit over what you could have done on your own at the cost of an ally's reaction and you not acting at all.

Regarding three attacks, a third attack is a non-problem. I don't want to give it 4, because that's the fighter's capstone, and because the warlord should sacrifice some combat ability for some support ability. Likewise, the warlord is sacrificing some support ability (no removing curses, raising the dead, etc.) for combat ability.

All of that sounds quite reasonable.

A class with 3 attacks and healing superior to a Paladin+ attack granting+ other abilities doesn't seem like the best idea when compared with a Paladin.

The paladin class itself doesn't seem like the best idea. It seems like a glorified Ftr/Clr that was originally designed to be most op class in the game, and that you could only choose if you were lucky enough to already be powerful through great stat rolls. Thank goodness the two most recent editions walked away from that.

 

[MechaPilot]

Lets design a support class that is better than all of the other warriors in the game in number of attacks (except lvl 20 fighter), if anything better is in the party we can wield them instead. Hmmmnn.

You can if you want to.

 

[Hussar]

More or less agree but if you have good healer plus good damage dealer you have a problem.

Do you have the same issue with a cleric?

I mean, a War Priest has 2 attacks/round, plus maybe a Spiritual Weapon attack (not terribly hard to have that up multiple times per day) at 5th level. Plus, he has full healing. He's certainly competitive with any fighter plus spells. Even a vanilla priest of anything else can dump out considerable damage while full healing. It's not like clerics are particularly weak.

 

[Zardnaar]

Do you have the same issue with a cleric?

I mean, a War Priest has 2 attacks/round, plus maybe a Spiritual Weapon attack (not terribly hard to have that up multiple times per day) at 5th level. Plus, he has full healing. He's certainly competitive with any fighter plus spells. Even a vanilla priest of anything else can dump out considerable damage while full healing. It's not like clerics are particularly weak.

No because the War Priest
1. Has a limited amount of extra attacks.
2. Is actually a bit meh at combat.

Clerics can only do fighter level damage when they use spells, and that is a limited number of daily slots just like I am advocating for a warlord with a limited number of granting attacks.

 

[Zardnaar]

The "was an option only in 4e" thing is a meaningless comment. It doesn't matter what edition it came from, it's a core element of what most warlord fans consider to be a must-have ability for the warlord. And, to be frank, it's almost a net zero benefit. It's at best, a 7.5 damage benefit over what you could have done on your own at the cost of an ally's reaction and you not acting at all.

Regarding three attacks, a third attack is a non-problem. I don't want to give it 4, because that's the fighter's capstone, and because the warlord should sacrifice some combat ability for some support ability. Likewise, the warlord is sacrificing some support ability (no removing curses, raising the dead, etc.) for combat ability.

All of that sounds quite reasonable.




The paladin class itself doesn't seem like the best idea. It seems like a glorified Ftr/Clr that was originally designed to be most op class in the game, and that you could only choose if you were lucky enough to already be powerful through great stat rolls. Thank goodness the two most recent editions walked away from that.

Its not a core part of the warlord as such in 4E. It was an option they could take in 4E but its not a required part of the warlord class- heal, tactics, support that can all be expressed in various ways.

Its like insisting that sleep from 1E should function the same in 5E (hint its weaker).

A warlord in 5E can still grant attacks sure, just like a wizard can cast fireball but it does not 100% have to follow a previous editions version of it. Wizards not longer deal 10d6 fireballs or uncapped fireballs, they no longer have uncapped spells and monster HP has doubled or tripled. A hypothetical warlord does not have to have at will attack granting that was not a core part of the warlord in 4E anyway nor is it required for a hypothetical warlord to fulfil its role either.

I'll probably agree to at will attack granting around about the time you lot agree to uncapped damage dealing spells, rogues can sneak attack multiple times