D&D 5E I don't actually get the opposition for the warlord... or rather the opposition to the concept.

[ChrisCarlson]

Specifically a hand, rather than intestines, FWIW.

My point stands. Even more so. This is not an example of simple HP loss. The DMG has rules for losing a hand. And guess what? HP recovery doesn't put your hand back on.

And? Attacks are fungible, they just do damage. So you can swap between giving the Barbarian one more attack or the archer Fighter one more attack? So what? If you were just another archer, you'd be doing even more damage every round.

Every time this point is made, it misses the mark. It's not being just like a second archer in the group. It's about a wildcard in the group. Whatever you need in the moment you have an extra one of. That extreme flexibility is what is broken. A second archer is always a second archer. Whether you want one or not. But a warlord gives you a second of whatever else is at hand. Need a second archer right now? Done. Need a second wizard next round? Done. Need a second rogue the round after? Done.

As long as at-will attack grants just grant simple attacks with none of the target's pile-on DPR effects (like Extra Attack or SA or Smite - most of which are bonus action or on-turn-only, anyway), they're not remotely broken, they're just a way of for some of the less lead-from-the-front builds to toss out modest damage when there's nothing critical to do on their turn.

I'd like to see this finally attempted instead of just given lip service when the need arrises. But I'm betting it ends up on the cutting room floor. At the end of the day, what has been asked for repeatedly is off-turn, at-will action granting. Which is broken.

Granting a less restricted action, or spellcasting other than a cantrip (though burning through slots twice as fast is already a major limiter in itself) or off turn attack actions identical to on-turn ones, OTOH, certainly shouldn't be at-will.

Agreed. But I doubt that's the intent. All the arguments and threads have championed otherwise. But feel free to try and keep it on track. I encourage the efforts to go against the grain.

 

[mellored]

All day long?

Yes, they can grant 4+ attacks for long enough to cover combat.

If so, what else are they doing that day? I'm betting not much.

Yes, they arn't doing much else. Unless you count the double speed, +2 AC, and advantage on Dex saves that goes along with haste. They still have some spell slots left, but not many.

But then a hypothetical warlord using every action, every turn, wouldn't be doing much else either.

Also, are you forgetting the concentration mechanic on purpose? Or just hoping I won't remember it?

I remember it. Again they still have some spell slots left. So they can lose concentration a few times.

And hypothetical warlord would effectively need to spend an action every round to maintain concentration.

See my previous comment directly above. The flaw in your theory is that your proposed warlord isn't doing just that one thing all day like the sorcerer.

Which one?

He's also got a kitchen sink's worth of other awesome things he's doing while also granting all his allies double actions all day long.

I never suggested also. Each turn a warlord need to decide weather to grant a buff, or grant an attack. He can't do everything at once.

And where do you get "double" actions?

Though haste also grants other benefits, so a higher level warlord granting movement as a bonus action, and +1d4 AC as a reaction is still in line.

Meanwhile, there's that poor sorcerer, spending all his resources trying to keep up with just one of many features in the warlord's swiss army knife toolbox. Stuff he's still completely able to access and use, I'm betting.

The sorcerer has plenty of other spells he can cast. He just needs to decide if fireball is more effective then haste in a particular battle.

Likewise, a warlord would have to decide if granting a buff is better then granting an attack on a particular turn.

Broken. At-will, off-turn action granting is broken. Full stop.

Again, how is it broken for one class to do something that another class can already do?

It certainly was in 4e for the same reasons it would be in 5e.

Why do you think it was overpowered in 4e?

I mean you certainly COULD make an overpowered warlord by granting full actions to 5 people with a +10 bonus to hit... but you can make any class overpowered.

Or are you saying being able to do so would use up all the warlord's resources for the day? I'm betting not here as well.

Yes. Actions are resources.

A warlord who spends all their actions to grant attacks all day, should match a sorcerer who spend all their resources granting attacks.

Short days and the sorcerer will win. Longer days and the warlord will win.

 

[mellored]

Every time this point is made, it misses the mark. It's not being just like a second archer in the group. It's about a wildcard in the group. Whatever you need in the moment you have an extra one of. That extreme flexibility is what is broken. A second archer is always a second archer. Whether you want one or not. But a warlord gives you a second of whatever else is at hand. Need a second archer right now? Done. Need a second wizard next round? Done. Need a second rogue the round after? Done.

Yes. That's a big part of the fun of being a warlord.

And yes, flexibility is power so picking between 2x archer and 2x wizard would be OP.
Picking between 1.1x archer and 1.1x wizard would be underpowered.

Somewhere in between is balance. (IMO: about 80%).

At the end of the day, what has been asked for repeatedly is off-turn, at-will action granting. Which is broken.

Granting a full unrestricted action at-will would be broken yes.
But I haven't seen anyone suggest that.

What we have been suggesting is something like...

Level 8: You can cast haste at-will. You cannot take any actions, bonus actions, or reactions while concentrating on it.

Edit: That would actually be perfect for at time mage. I want one of those too.

 

[Zardnaar]

Specifically a hand, rather than intestines, FWIW.

And? Attacks are fungible, they just do damage. So you can swap between giving the Barbarian one more attack or the archer Fighter one more attack? So what? If you were just another archer, you'd be doing even more damage every round.

As long as at-will attack grants just grant simple attacks with none of the target's pile-on DPR effects (like Extra Attack or SA or Smite - most of which are bonus action or on-turn-only, anyway), they're not remotely broken, they're just a way of for some of the less lead-from-the-front builds to toss out modest damage when there's nothing critical to do on their turn.

Granting a less restricted action, or spellcasting other than a cantrip (though burning through slots twice as fast is already a major limiter in itself) or off turn attack actions identical to on-turn ones, OTOH, certainly shouldn't be at-will.

Its a very goo effect when warlords can do other stuff. Its almost a haste effect. Sure you are technically giving up an action but so is a Sorcerer for example calling down another bolt of call lightning and that is a daily effect.

Sure my own warlord grants extra attacks to others but I have broken it down to subclasses and just like spellcasters they only get 1 attack. The combat warlord does get two attacks like valor bars but they miss out on the grant attacks to others except via superiority dice- a limited resource just like Sorcerers spells (except they recharge on short rests).

A warlord who can grant an extra attack to say a hunter ranger with the sharpshooter feat and then do the same thing the next round to say a Barbarian with the GWF feat and they can do it all the time has to give up something. My ones give up multiple attacks and opportunity cost (spells if they picked a spellcasting class) to do that as my warlord can still heal and play with superiority dice and have an attack themselves.

Not sure if you could cast a cantrip via a warlord either but that is not gonna interact well with eldritch blast. Comparing things to haste is not a fair comparison because haste is a daily effect, can't switch targets, requires concentration and the classes with it have a d6 hit dice.

 

[Aldarc]

Specifically a hand, rather than intestines, FWIW.

Thank you for the correction. Am I correct then to suspect that the notion of 'shout healing intestines back in' came from one of the other monstrous Warlord threads?

Heh. You familiar with the word "context"? Also, you are dodging. You claim HP loss can be equated to having your intestines ripped out. I'm asking you to show where it even gives an example of that. Not even a rule. Just an example.

I am familiar with context, yes. Look, Chris, I am being genuine, so I feel that it is a mischaracterization to say that I am dodging. People do often equate HP loss with a variety of specific physical injuries, including having your intestines ripped out. I also find this non-sensical, but it is within the purview of the rules for tables to describe HP loss in such terms. This is primarily rooted in the HP narrative over the HP mechanics that are meant to represent that narrative. That is all. This may not be the case at your table (or mine), or your oft-repeated immeasurable experience, but well beyond the supermajority of D&D games don't happen with you sitting at their table and we have to take into account those wider D&D experiences that do.

Regardless, you are wrong about there not being rules for it, anyway. The DMG has rules for grievous injuries. But guess what? It's more involved than just being low on HPs. That's where you go when you have someone with their intestines on the floor.

Okay then. I am wrong about the lack of rules. But guess what? That further supports my point that Mearls's opposition to the Warlord's 'shout healing' is ridiculous. As per Tony Vargas's correction, neither a standard cleric healing spell nor a warlord's shout could cause a person to regrow their hand. So I will re-quote Orlax's post that you skipped over:

That's why hp aren't precisely meat, because even at zero hp if you've stabilized and passed your death saving throws it takes like an hour of laying there before you stand up like nothing is wrong. Describing death is rough in D&D you must be sure to not over describe your current situation until the outcome is absolutely certain. It is why full description of a scene is best left till after the mechanics have born out the scene's result.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Thank you for the correction. Am I correct then to suspect that the notion of 'shout healing intestines back in' came from one of the other monstrous Warlord threads?

Could have been, I suppose, it's an example of the kind of extreme, debilitating injury that hps & 5e natural healing simply fail to model.

neither a standard cleric healing spell nor a warlord's shout could cause a person to regrow their hand. So I will re-quote Orlax's post that you skipped over:"That's why hp aren't precisely meat, because even at zero hp if you've stabilized and passed your death saving throws it takes like an hour of laying there before you stand up like nothing is wrong."

That's about it. Regaining hps doesn't rise to the level of regeneration. If all you've suffered is hp loss, then nothing a extreme as bits of you being removed is being modeled.

DMs are free to narrate hp loss as mostly non-physical or as mostly trivial injuries (or, as in the sidebar example, the former down to 1/2 hps and the latter thereafter), or as more serious injuries that PCs, as fantastic heroes, can just act unimpeded by and recover fully from them, in the sense of hp loss, even in a timeframe that precludes the actual, literal healing of those wounds. But nothing about the way the Warlord restored hps is at odds with any of those narratives.

 

[Jester David]

Off the top of my head - and the top of the spell list - Aid. Cleric spell, temp hps, plus. Plenty of other more varied/flavorful forms of damage mitigation, as well.

Aid increases the maximum hit points of the target.
I don't recall a single cleric spell that grants thp. Bards have one with heroism and there's false life for wizards. But not many.

You have 10 hps, someone else gets 4 temps but is never attacked, you take 5, oh well. Temp hps, specifically, and damage mitigation, in general, are sometimes better than restoring hps, sometimes worse.

Which is true if that character does not get hit for the rest of the adventuring day, as the thp stick around. Unless you're giving thp to the bow ranger or wizard it's a safe bet people will be hit.
You can also choose to heal the wrong person too; a couple injured PCs, heal one, and the other gets hit and goes down.
It's not a strong complaint.

 

[tuxgeo]

You can also wait until anybody is hit, heal that person to regain part of the damage taken; see that person get hit again, so heal that person part of the way up again; then see that person get hit a third time and realize you've run out of spells, and have to Spare the Dying to prevent a PC death.

I've been there: I'm playing a cleric in Lost Mines, and the fighter was down to 0 HP, flat and unconscious before we got the chance to wait 1d4 hours for him to regain consciousness.

It's always possible to craft a potential scenario where things don't go the way people might want. That doesn't mean it's not a strong complaint, if using reactive healing is more likely to do the job well than THP beforehand. It's partly a matter of how many times can you heal during a specific time period, and how many times you can give THP in the same time period, and how many members are in the party to choose among for giving THP to, and how hard the prospective foes hit (i.e. level of damage taken), and even of how many maximum HP the members of the party have. There are a lot of moving parts in the calculations.

If the Warlord can be designed to grant real healing, and if that's what the people who want the class want it to do, then that's how it should be.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Aid increases the maximum hit points of the target.
I don't recall a single cleric spell that grants thp. Bards have one with heroism and there's false life for wizards. But not many.

Enhance ability: Bear's Endurance. Advantage on Con saves, 2d6 THP which are lost when the spell ends (concentration up to 1 hour).

Other than the one stated above, Heroism, armor of Agathys, and false life are the only spell-based sources of THP. Fiend Warlocks also get Dark One's Blessing, Battlemasters get Rally, and Inspiring Leader grants some. Otherwise, THP are, I am somewhat surprised to admit, relatively thin on the ground from what I can tell; I really only skimmed through the Cleric list for THP spells, so I might be missing something from a different class.

Though the simple fact of "a meaningful number of THP granted would make the Inspiring Leader feat a notably subpar choice" (thank you, censorship chat filter...) certainly doesn't help.

Which is true if that character does not get hit for the rest of the adventuring day, as the thp stick around. Unless you're giving thp to the bow ranger or wizard it's a safe bet people will be hit.
You can also choose to heal the wrong person too; a couple injured PCs, heal one, and the other gets hit and goes down.
It's not a strong complaint.

As long as the THP do in fact stick around, sure. Though I gotta say, simply shouting "THP are the answer!" leaves me a little cold for a big, big reason (which I still have yet to see a response to): How is it gonna be balanced, especially at the lowest levels? You've made it abundantly clear that you think an HP-based ability would irrevocably destroy a 5e-Warlord's access to Warlord-y features. As I've said elsewhere, if we're actually going to avert the "one-or-more people unconscious for 1d4 hours" problem, we're gonna need some serious THP--serious enough to (at least) double a first-level PC's pool of hit points, possibly even triple for the squishiest classes (who can, quite easily, go from full to 0 in a single hit--a Con 12 Wizard has only 7 HP). Simply throwing out 1d6 THP to a single target ain't gonna cut it. A lucky damage roll from many CR 1/2, and even some CR 1/4, creatures can do it--a Crocodile can even take down a Fighter with a +2 Con mod on a max-damage roll (which should, in theory, happen 10% of the time...)

And if you do hand out enough THP to make the difference, what's keeping this thing from being ridiculously, game-warpingly OP? That's the dark side of your arguments about their power, after all. If they're just as good as HP, as you claim, yet they can be handed out frequently and to all party members (which they'd need to be, to prevent the aformentioned "1d4 hours unconscious after most every fight" problem), it's starting to sound like your THP-based Warlord would make the first few levels a cakewalk...and then risks becoming obsolete thereafter when damage out-scales it.

 

[Orlax]

Frankly I'm looking to do the tmp hit point handout as possible every turn, it works on multiple targets (int mod for number of targets within range) and you expend a limited resource to pump up how much tmp you hand to your targets (the number of dice worth of tmp you hand out is also limited by your int mod). The die you roll to determine how much temp you hand out grows as you level and starts as a d4. It takes an action to hand out this temp and can be combined with handing out an attack or a cantrip casting or a move action or straight up healing as well, though adding any of those things to the mix lessens the amount of temp you hand out. Given the right subclass you can mix handing out this temp (or whatever command you are giving) with making your own attack. Also a party member can only benefit from the straight up healing once per long rest. The straight up healing is single target and you spend points to increase how much you heal them.