Considerations when Designing a Warlord.

[The Crimson Binome]

Still, a fighter isn't doing infinite damage every day. And doesn't break the game.
And at-will attack granting won't do infinite damage every day. And won't break the game.

At a very basic level, the at-will ability to grant an at-will ability is the most powerful at-will ability in the game. It may not break the game outright, depending on your tolerance for that sort of thing, but it is instantly as powerful as the most-powerful at-will ability that you can cause someone else to use.

Normally, the star of the at-will show is going to change with the circumstances. When you're fighting undead, the paladin with the sunblade is the star; and when you're going against treants, the barbarian with the flametongue will shine. If you allow a warlord with the at-will ability to grant at-will abilities, then the warlord is as strong as the paladin against undead and as strong as the barbarian against treants.

 

[mellored]

If you allow a warlord with the at-will ability to grant at-will abilities, then the warlord is as strong as the paladin against undead and as strong as the barbarian against treants.

Which is why i suggest 1/2 damage.

And most others, are granting 1 attack, which still is 1/2 of what the barbarian and paladin do (post 5).

 

[The Crimson Binome]

Which is why i suggest 1/2 damage.

And most others, are granting 1 attack, which still is 1/2 of what the barbarian and paladin do (post 5).

Where is the half damage coming from, though? What does that represent, within the game world, that this character manages to strike yet another telling blow - but with only half of the force behind it?

The one attack thing makes sense, because you don't have a full six seconds to do your reaction, but that seems to disproportionately favor having a rogue in the party. Something like granting an attack could have worked, if they'd taken it into consideration when they'd designed the other classes, but at this point it seems like it would take a lot of work to make it fit.

 

[Remathilis]

A fighter does "run out" of sword swings after 20 rounds by virtue of having no one to attack. She isn't doing infinite damage every rest.

And a wizard 11 does have 20 spells, as does a sorcerer or land druid. Cleric 11 also, if you include channel divinity. Bard's are a bit short.

You also need to factor in that many spells last multiple turns. Bless, for instance, can be done for 20 rounds by level 5. Haste by level 11. Foresight lasts all day, and stacks.

You are brutally missing the point.

Effects are balanced (for the most part) based on uses per day. A melee attack is infinite because there is no factor stopping a PC from using it except opportunity. A barbarian run's out of rage. A cleric runs out of spells. A fighter never runs out of "attacks". The point of this is subtle, because there is effectively no penalty for using an attack. Fireballing a red dragon wastes a spell slot utterly. Raging and then killing your foe in one round is a poor use of rage. Attacking never burns a resource; hit or miss, you can keep doing it until you or your opponent die. In terms of token economy, there is no exchange here. Its free.

So any warlord power that doesn't cost a token to use (be it point, die, slot, or rest) needs to be balanced as if it will be used every round, since there is no "penalty" for not using it. (Other than Opportunity Cost vs. another action). In the case of your "free attack, 1/2 damage" power, there is a number of triggers that must be monitored.

1.) Is the use of the power straight up better than attacking with a "basic attack" (a weapon attack for most, or a cantrip for casters)?
2.) Is the power a better use of the warlord's action (or bonus action) than anything else he can do "for free"?
3.) Is the power the best use of the recipient's "reaction" per round?
4.) Is there unintended consequences that arise from this that aren't factored into comparing DPR? (For example, multiple attacks, smites/sneak attacks, feats, etc?)

 

[Tony Vargas]

You are brutally missing the point.

I just like that turn of phrase.

Effects are balanced (for the most part) based on uses per day. A melee attack is infinite because there is no factor stopping a PC from using it except opportunity.

Yep, and a key to balancing limited-use abilities is how limited those uses are compared to opportunity to use them. A top-level caster in 3.5 might have had as many as 8 or 10 of his top two spell levels available another 30 or 40 lower level spells, plus as many scrolls as he felt like making and hundreds of charges in wands. He might have as many as a thousand 'limited' uses of magic to use as the opportunity presented itself during the day. A day that might have been 4-6 'rocket tag' encounter of a round or two each, or even only one such encounter. Even looking at his top two spell levels, he's really facing almost no resource limitation at all.

5e casters aren't nearly that bad. If you stick to the 6-8 encounter day, and assume 2-5 round encounters, even a 20th level wizard with 22 spell slots can't blow one every round. At worst every-other round, though, and then cantrips the rest of the day.

So any warlord power that doesn't cost a token to use (be it point, die, slot, or rest) needs to be balanced as if it will be used every round, since there is no "penalty" for not using it.

And, if the warlord also has other abilities that are limited-use (token mechanics or otherwise), the way casters have both slots and at-wills, then the relative power (and variety) of cantrips might be a better guide than the high-DPR-only benchmark established by the other non-caster sub-classes.

2.) Is the power a better use of the action (or bonus action) than anything else he can do "for free"?

Interesting question. For a Fighter, for instance, attacking is better than anything else he can do (basically everyman stuff like the Help action or a check), hands-down. Is that problematic? Does it make extra attack 'too powerful?'

3.) Is the power the best use of the recipient's "reaction" per round?

This comes into the same uncertainty that you face when deciding whether to expend a resource. You know what you can do with your reaction - and can do more with it if you cast spells as a reaction, or use Protection Style, or whatever - but you can't know for sure if it'll be called for. That makes expending the ally's reaction a fairly heavy limitation on the ability.

At a very basic level, the at-will ability to grant an at-will ability is the most powerful at-will ability in the game.

On another, it's also the most trivial, since it adds nothing new to the party's repertoire.

 

[ChrisCarlson]

On another, it's also the most trivial, since it adds nothing new to the party's repertoire.

That's not true at all. It adds a second "whatever will shine brightest in the moment" to the party. This fight we needed two wizards. Good thing the warlord was here to emulate that! This fight a second rogue would be ideal. Yay, warlord! Now, if only this fight we had a second paladin. Warlord FTW!

As the Strength is agile thread would hope to prove, "flexibility" = power (see what I did there?...)

 

[The Crimson Binome]

On another, it's also the most trivial, since it adds nothing new to the party's repertoire.

In a sense, sure. In another sense, being able to shut off the regeneration on two (or three) trolls is not something you could otherwise do while you only had the one flametongue (barring object-interaction shenanigans).

It's kind of like Action Surge, in that way. It nominally doesn't give you any new options, but it creates new ways of using what you already have.

 

[Tony Vargas]

In a sense, sure. In another sense

In a third sense, or the first one again?

being able to shut off the regeneration on two (or three) trolls is not something you could otherwise do while you only had the one flametongue (barring object-interaction shenanigans).

The flametongue lets you do something you couldn't (assuming no one cast fire or acid spells). Doing it once or doing it twice is still not doing something /else/, it's just doing something you can already do, again.

Though, really, the superior tactic is to focus fire on one troll at a time, anyway, (it won't regenerate if you haven't hit it yet) and you only need the one flametongue for that. So that's really another good example of the action-grant being almost trivial.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

The flametongue lets you do something you couldn't (assuming no one cast fire or acid spells). Doing it once or doing it twice is still not doing something /else/, it's just doing something you can already do, again.

Having a flametongue lets you do something unique: shut down the regeneration of a troll, which is something you could not otherwise do.

Adding a warlord, with the ability to grant an extra attack to the barbarian, lets you do something unique: shut down the regeneration of two trolls simultaneously, which is something you could not otherwise do.

Though, really, the superior tactic is to focus fire on one troll at a time, anyway, (it won't regenerate if you haven't hit it yet) and you only need the one flametongue for that. So that's really another good example of the action-grant being almost trivial.

It's just an example that's easy to explain, since a more complicated scenario would involve detailing the setup to a degree beyond what anyone wants to read. If the DM is applying the rules and guidelines from the books, though, then everything is trivial. The whole edition is designed that way.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Having a flametongue lets you do something unique: shut down the regeneration of a troll, which is something you could not otherwise do.

Adding a warlord, with the ability to grant an extra attack to the barbarian, lets you do something unique: shut down the regeneration of two trolls simultaneously, which is something you could not otherwise do.

That's not a unique thing, it's doing a unique thing a second time.

It's just an example that's easy to explain, since a more complicated scenario would involve detailing the setup to a degree beyond what anyone wants to read.

It's just a chance to do something the party already could a second time. A more complex set-up isn't going to change that.

If the DM is applying the rules and guidelines from the books, though, then everything is trivial. The whole edition is designed that way.

The whole edition is designed to be trivial? What?