So The Jester Made it In

[Tony Vargas]

The default assumption is 6-8 encounters. Being generous 3 rounds that is 18-254 rounds.

18-24, or 12-24, if you conceded the possibility of 2-round combats. :shrug:

The spellcaster ones are also situational, require daily resources and the concentration mechanic.

Specific action grants are pretty situational, by nature. The other two actually mitigate against eachother more than you might think. A daily resource that lasts 10 rounds, even w/concentration, used in combat, is pretty likely to go the whole 3 rounds, so you'd only need to accumulate 6-8 of them, not 12-24, before they became functionally as available (in combat, that is) as an actual at-will. And, from other threads in the 5e forum, it seems like 6-8 encounter days aren't exactly something you can count on.

Ultimately, though, whether you expend a resource for it or not, an action-grant that costs the same action is pretty neatly balanced. Obviously so, in terms of the action economy. But, even in terms of doubling-down on whatever the best action that round may be, it comes out more flexible, but less potent, than simply adding a second character able to take valuable actions, himself. For instance, D&D traditionally had a spell/round limit (3e broke with that tradition, obviously), so granting a caster an action that can be used for spellcasting (far more powerful than granting an attack or cantrip, obviously), seems as powerful and game-breaking as that forbidden 2/spells round. Yet, if instead of an action-granting character, you simply added a second caster, you'd have the same 2/spells round, /and/ twice as many slots.

So, no, action-granting, even action granting far in excess of what the Warlord traditionally was able to do, isn't inherently broken in 5e. 5e's balance is simply looser. It's hard to imagine anything a Warlord might do that could be any worse than what casters already can.

 

[Zardnaar]

18-24, or 12-24, if you conceded the possibility of 2-round combats. :shrug:
Specific action grants are pretty situational, by nature. The other two actually mitigate against eachother more than you might think. A daily resource that lasts 10 rounds, even w/concentration, used in combat, is pretty likely to go the whole 3 rounds, so you'd only need to accumulate 6-8 of them, not 12-24, before they became functionally as available (in combat, that is) as an actual at-will. And, from other threads in the 5e forum, it seems like 6-8 encounter days aren't exactly something you can count on.

Ultimately, though, whether you expend a resource for it or not, an action-grant that costs the same action is pretty neatly balanced. Obviously so, in terms of the action economy. But, even in terms of doubling-down on whatever the best action that round may be, it comes out more flexible, but less potent, than simply adding a second character able to take valuable actions, himself. For instance, D&D traditionally had a spell/round limit (3e broke with that tradition, obviously), so granting a caster an action that can be used for spellcasting (far more powerful than granting an attack or cantrip, obviously), seems as powerful and game-breaking as that forbidden 2/spells round. Yet, if instead of an action-granting character, you simply added a second caster, you'd have the same 2/spells round, /and/ twice as many slots.

So, no, action-granting, even action granting far in excess of what the Warlord traditionally was able to do, isn't inherently broken in 5e. 5e's balance is simply looser. It's hard to imagine anything a Warlord might do that could be any worse than what casters already can.

Its broken when you look at how much damage the casters actually do. a new warlord granting at will attacks to say a barbarian and/or a hunter ranger would be very very silly. That right there is almost an at will haste effect and giving up a meh attack is not a huge sacrifice assuming the warlord would have other abilities (healing, buffing whatever). Support classes in 5E do not tend to do that much damage (outside spells) and often give up a lot to do that- mutliple atacks, weapons, smaller hit dice, squishy etc.

 

[mellored]

Its broken when you look at how much damage the casters actually do. a new warlord granting at will attacks to say a barbarian and/or a hunter ranger would be very very silly. That right there is almost an at will haste effect and giving up a meh attack is not a huge sacrifice assuming the warlord would have other abilities (healing, buffing whatever).

I think you missing that haste also gives a good bit more then 1 attack.
It's also double speed, +2 AC, and advantage on dex saves.

So to match 9 casts of haste (level 11), you would need something like...

Action: Grant 1 attack
Bonus Action: Grant a dash action
Reaction: Grant advantage on a dex save.

That would leave a caster with 7 casts of healing word for 10d4+28 HP. Not a lot of healing, but some.
Plus other feature the caster gets, like channel divinity, portent, bardic inspiration, or twinned. (warlord sub-class).


More per-turn flexible (as compared to switching haste for polymorph or fireball) but takes more of your actions. Actions are your resource. So you can't fling cantrips once you've cast your big spell.

Support classes in 5E do not tend to do that much damage (outside spells) and often give up a lot to do that- mutliple atacks, weapons, smaller hit dice, squishy etc.

Which is exactly why it doesn't fit into a fighter sub-class.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Support classes in 5E do not tend to do that much damage (outside spells)

That's as good as saying they can do lots of damage, if they feel like it.

and often give up a lot to do that- mutliple atacks, weapons, smaller hit dice, squishy etc.

The Paladin is a pretty good support class and gives up none of those things.

Maping the traditional Warlord to 5e, it'd be giving up most of them, anyway (presumably it'd have martial weapon proficiency, but, without multiple attacks, that doesn't amount to much).

So to match 9 casts of haste (level 11), you would need something like...

Action: Grant 1 attack
Bonus Action: Grant a dash action
Reaction: Grant advantage on a dex save.

That actually sounds kinda reasonable.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

Ultimately, though, whether you expend a resource for it or not, an action-grant that costs the same action is pretty neatly balanced. Obviously so, in terms of the action economy. But, even in terms of doubling-down on whatever the best action that round may be, it comes out more flexible, but less potent, than simply adding a second character able to take valuable actions, himself. For instance, D&D traditionally had a spell/round limit (3e broke with that tradition, obviously), so granting a caster an action that can be used for spellcasting (far more powerful than granting an attack or cantrip, obviously), seems as powerful and game-breaking as that forbidden 2/spells round. Yet, if instead of an action-granting character, you simply added a second caster, you'd have the same 2/spells round, /and/ twice as many slots.

But the action-granting character can bypass the restrictions on bonus action spells: grant a spell to someone else and still Quicken Banishment, for example, at least if multiclassing is in play. That's 50% more spell casting than usual in that party.

5E has multiple interacting economies (action, concentration, spell slot, spells-per-round, gold) so you can't just prima facie accept a balanced action economy as neatly balanced overall.

Not that balance is an overriding concern for 5E writers anyway. Look at how much better than other Rogues Arcane Tricksters got with SCAG cantrips, or how Mastermind 3 in a party supercharges a Sentinel Moon Druid...

So I agree with Tony's overall point (loose balance in 5E) if not with the specific example (granting spell casting action is "obviously balanced").

 

[mellored]

But the action-granting character can bypass the restrictions on bonus action spells: grant a spell to someone else and still Quicken Banishment, for example, at least if multiclassing is in play. That's 50% more spell casting than usual in that party.

5E has multiple interacting economies (action, concentration, spell slot, spells-per-round, gold) so you can't just prima facie accept a balanced action economy as neatly balanced overall.

Not that balance is an overriding concern for 5E writers anyway. Look at how much better than other Rogues Arcane Tricksters got with SCAG cantrips, or how Mastermind 3 in a party supercharges a Sentinel Moon Druid...

So I agree with Tony's overall point (loose balance in 5E) if not with the specific example (granting spell casting action is "obviously balanced").

I don't see an issue granting spells.

If you had 2 wizards, you could cast 2 spells, with 2x the slots.
If you have a wizard and warlord, you could cast 2 spells, but only 1x the slots.

Or to twist it a bit, "you can take a spell slot from a willing creature to cast a spell".

It has it's uses, but it's not an ability your going to be spamming a lot. Maybe if the cleric's bless drops you can renew it for them, or if the enemy is in perfect fireball position, but you'll quickly burn out of slots with 2 people casting.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

I don't see an issue granting spells.

If you had 2 wizards, you could cast 2 spells, with 2x the slots.
If you have a wizard and warlord, you could cast 2 spells, but only 1x the slots.

And if you have a wizard and a sorcerer/warlord, you could cast 3x the spells, with (est) 1.7x the slots.

Normally I'm more of an at-will fan than a nova fan, but when you need a nova, you really need a nova. So the ability to allow others to cast with your action is definitely not value-neutral; it's value-positive.

 

[mellored]

And if you have a wizard and a sorcerer/warlord, you could cast 3x the spells, with (est) 1.7x the slots.

Seems like a decent trade off. Sacrifice 30% of your staying power for a few nova's a day?

Same deal for a sorcerer/fighter 2.

But yes, you wouldn't want the ability to be a level 1 warlord ability because of dipping. 5 at the very earliest, but probably later. Maybe 7.

Normally I'm more of an at-will fan than a nova fan, but when you need a nova, you really need a nova. So the ability to allow others to cast with your action is definitely not value-neutral; it's value-positive.

They took a level for it, they should get positive value from it.

The same value getting extra spell slots would have.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

They took a level for it, they should get positive value from it.

The same value getting extra spell slots would have.

Indeed. And I completely agree that such a feature--which is quite significant--should be deeply locked behind a subclass "paywall," metaphorically speaking. 7 seems the earliest acceptable point IMO; while it does suck a bit to have to wait so long to get such a feature, the potential applications seem worth it to me.

And it's stuff like this--"how could we make a Warlord that does have an influence on magic?"--that is the most interesting and exciting thing about this. The idea that there are unexplored spaces, waiting for a subclass to investigate them.

 

[Jester David]

I love the idea of a jester subclass, for obvious reasons. It's an archetype I quite enjoy, being a figure from literature and myth dating back centuries. The Fool was a trope in Shakespeare's day, and mocking character role is filled by such iconic pop culture figures as Deadpool and the Joker.
Heck, there's enough ground there for a full class. Easily. Lots of roles and subroles, different character types. But a subclass is enough. No need to add a new class to the game just because one can. There's a lot of overlap between the jester and the bard so it makes sense even if spellcasting and music is not a traditional part of the court jester.