So The Jester Made it In

[ChrisCarlson]

Really? What worlord is that? None of the one's I've seen proposed, certainly. At least none getting any praise. If a suggested warlord, that would fit that description, does show up I guarantee it would widely get trounced by kitchen-sinker advocates as being woefully limited and unacceptable.

 

[mellored]

Really? What worlord is that? None of the one's I've seen proposed, certainly. At least none getting any praise. If a suggested warlord, that would fit that description, does show up I guarantee it would widely get trounced by kitchen-sinker advocates as being woefully limited and unacceptable.

I have yet to see a warlord that can grant an attack without using one of his actions.

Or a warlord that had infinite actions.

 

[ChrisCarlson]

A warlord has infinite actions. At least effectively. That's one reason why at-will action granting would be broken and has been nixed by the 5e devs. They put a resource cost on it for a reason.

 

[mellored]

A warlord has infinite actions. At least effectively. That's one reason why at-will action granting would be broken and has been nixed by the 5e devs. They put a resource cost on it for a reason.

How is granting attacks outside of combat broken?

Or do you mean that battles are infinite rounds long?

 

[ChrisCarlson]

Strawman. Try again. I recommend reading what I actually wrote before posting a second attempt.

 

[mellored]

Strawman. Try again. I recommend reading what I actually wrote before posting a second attempt.

You said it was broken.

I'm asking why it's broken.

 

[ChrisCarlson]

Ask the devs. They are the ones who avoided offering it for this edition.

 

[Tony Vargas]

The jester was a 1E class.

It was a Dragon Magazine parody 'NPC' class for AD&D in an April Fools issue (more than one, IIRC). The sub-class in UA is a take on a 2e kit.

Hopefully we get a more amusing, true-to-the-original class some April.

I don't think they are trying to screw over 4E fans

Not trying - at least, not significantly more nor less than they were 3.5 fans or grognards in 2008. Though, if we get two years out, or see a PH2 or similar expansion resource, and still nothing...

at-will granting attacks is probably outright broken in 5E (compare with haste as a daily resource) and that is the main problem a conversion would have.

Multiple attacks have always been problematic. Extra Attack and the variety of available bonus attacks, not to mention Haste and Action Surge can all produce some very high DPR. But, as an action-economy thing, they're pretty tame. Even at-will granting of a full action wouldn't be all that broken, if the class able to do so had good enough actions of his own to perform.

The 4e Warlord didn't at-will grant standard actions, though, just basic attacks. The 5e equivalent would be a single attack. Spending an action to grant a single attack, even at-will, would go from situationally good and potentially abuseable with very specific builds at low level, to noticeably weak as multiple attacks come into play (as early as 5th). Making the attack weaker or more limited at apprentice tier (lower damage bonus, for instance), but beefing it up some starting at 5th (an additional die per 5 levels, for instance), would probably work out OK.
That is, if 5e were all that concerned about 'balance' in the first place... as it stands, DM's are Empowered to deal with balance issues as they crop up, anyway, so it's not a big concern in designing a class.

 

[Zardnaar]

Except it's not. "Daily" doesn't mean anything when you have enough to do it all day.

A level 11 sorcerer can grant an extra attack, double movement, +2 AC, and advantage on Dex saves to 2 people for every single battle of a day and is not broken.

So a level 11 warlord who can grant an attack, double movement, +2 AC, and advantage on Dex saves to 2 people for every single battle of a day would also not be broken.

It is close to being broken IMHO and it is a very very powerful trick to pull off. Its actually an example of why granting at wioll attacks is broken. Compare with the cleric for example who can heal (as people want WLs to heal). A Cleric gets a single attack and at level 8 gets a bonus dice of healing.

A Warlod that could grant two attacks at will would be very very broken in say a party with a GWF and an archer for example as it grnats a huge amount of utility. I have seen a Battlemaster fighter doing this with a hunter ranger in tow and I have seen the Sorcerer using twin spell to haste 2 opponents and they can still spam cantrips. Its powerful and in both cases they are expending daily and short rest resources to do it.

 

[Zardnaar]

It was a Dragon Magazine parody 'NPC' class for AD&D in an April Fools issue (more than one, IIRC). The sub-class in UA is a take on a 2e kit.

Hopefully we get a more amusing, true-to-the-original class some April.

Not trying - at least, not significantly more nor less than they were 3.5 fans or grognards in 2008. Though, if we get two years out, or see a PH2 or similar expansion resource, and still nothing...

Multiple attacks have always been problematic. Extra Attack and the variety of available bonus attacks, not to mention Haste and Action Surge can all produce some very high DPR. But, as an action-economy thing, they're pretty tame. Even at-will granting of a full action wouldn't be all that broken, if the class able to do so had good enough actions of his own to perform.

The 4e Warlord didn't at-will grant standard actions, though, just basic attacks. The 5e equivalent would be a single attack. Spending an action to grant a single attack, even at-will, would go from situationally good and potentially abuseable with very specific builds at low level, to noticeably weak as multiple attacks come into play (as early as 5th). Making the attack weaker or more limited at apprentice tier (lower damage bonus, for instance), but beefing it up some starting at 5th (an additional die per 5 levels, for instance), would probably work out OK.
That is, if 5e were all that concerned about 'balance' in the first place... as it stands, DM's are Empowered to deal with balance issues as they crop up, anyway, so it's not a big concern in designing a class.

Basic attacks in 4E were a bit meh until one added the splat and magic items and the essential classes into the game. IN 5E basic attacks are often quite good with things like raging Barbarians, Hunter Rangers and things with the sharpshooter/GWF feat.