So The Jester Made it In

[Jester David]

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.

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.

It's not particularly balanced.

It's the equivalent of giving one character twice as many actions. Which seems fine when you consider they're replacing another character in combat. However, the replaced character would still have all their potential non-combat options. So it's everything the one character can do and everything else.

Think about it this way, you could do that right now. Build a character where every feat and class option was based around non-combat options or bonus actions, and then just let another character act during combat.
Would you allow a player to run two characters at once: one combat and one RP/exploration?

Additionally, it's replacing an ineffective turn with an effective turn. Not all characters are effective each round. The melee characters outside of melee range, the ranged characters in melee, the pyromancer facing a fire elemental, the rogue without a flank buddy, etc. In many situations in a dynamic game, a character's turn is not 100% effective. However, a warlord with at-will action granting is always effective, since they can choose who takes the additional action. Each turn is extra optimized, and does far more than the character could do themselves with their own action. They can effectively cast spells as as a sorcerer, attack as often as a fighter, strike as hard as a rogue, heal as good as a cleric, and more. Whatever is needed any given round. It's incredibly flexible and thus incredibly powerful.


Even in 4e this was an issue. The lazylord was not a standard build, and was a fan build and one not really viewed seriously at first (as seen by its original name as "the princess warlord"). The vast majority of warlord powers involved attacking. The lazylord was problematic as it could dump stat the warlord's attack stats and focus on the presumed kicker stats for superiour bonuses. It was a great munchkin build, being very effective.
It's also very much not what I'd base a 5e warlord on, since it's a message board build. It's very, very unlikely to be how the majority of warlord players designed their characters.

 

[ChrisCarlson]

Additionally, it's replacing an ineffective turn with an effective turn. Not all characters are effective each round. The melee characters outside of melee range, the ranged characters in melee, the pyromancer facing a fire elemental, the rogue without a flank buddy, etc. In many situations in a dynamic game, a character's turn is not 100% effective. However, a warlord with at-will action granting is always effective, since they can choose who takes the additional action. Each turn is extra optimized, and does far more than the character could do themselves with their own action. They can effectively cast spells as as a sorcerer, attack as often as a fighter, strike as hard as a rogue, heal as good as a cleric, and more. Whatever is needed any given round. It's incredibly flexible and thus incredibly powerful.

This cannot be repeated oft enough in response to demands for at-will action granting. Well said.

 

[mellored]

It's not particularly balanced.

It's the equivalent of giving one character twice as many actions. Which seems fine when you consider they're replacing another character in combat. However, the replaced character would still have all their potential non-combat options. So it's everything the one character can do and everything else.

2x actions does not mean 2x the damage, because you only have 1x the spell slots.

i.e.
a hypothetical wizard might deal 50 * 10 casts = 500 damage with spells, and 20 * 10 = 200 damage with cantrips.
= 700 damage in a day.


a wizard and warlord together would deal the same 50*10 cast = 500 damage, and 20 * 30 = 600 damage with cantrips.
= 1100

The warlord would add 400 damage. That leaves 300 damage worth of other stuff to have.
Maybe count 100 of that towards the nova capacity. Still enough room for a few heals or out of combat things.

Additionally, it's replacing an ineffective turn with an effective turn. Not all characters are effective each round. The melee characters outside of melee range, the ranged characters in melee, the pyromancer facing a fire elemental, the rogue without a flank buddy, etc. In many situations in a dynamic game, a character's turn is not 100% effective.

IMO: That's the most fun part of being a warlord. Picking the right person (or right buff) for the job.

But yes, flexibility is power, and needs to be factored in.

The lazylord was problematic as it could dump stat the warlord's attack stats and focus on the presumed kicker stats for superiour bonuses. It was a great munchkin build, being very effective.

It wasn't a munchkin build. It was a self restricted theme build. Same as making a pacifist cleric, or a fire only sorcerer.

Nor was it more powerful then a regular warlord. 2 attacks (You +ally) > 1 improved attack (ally). Particularly in 4e.

 

[mellored]

This cannot be repeated oft enough in response to demands for at-will action granting. Well said.

You can't grant spells casting at-will. Because spells slots are not at-will.

 

[ChrisCarlson]

You can't grant spells casting at-will. Because spells slots are not at-will.

That is an outright incorrect statement on multiple fronts. First, you can have at-will action granting that includes spellcasting. Whether or not spell slots run out (you can't even know that) is irrelevant to the fact that the ability using them is at-will action granting. Secondly, look up cantrips. You might be surprised to find they do not use spell slots.

 

[mellored]

That is an outright incorrect statement on multiple fronts. First, you can have at-will action granting that includes spellcasting. Whether or not spell slots run out (you can't even know that) is irrelevant to the fact that the ability using them is at-will action granting. Secondly, look up cantrips. You might be surprised to find they do not use spell slots.

You really are just being ornery aren't you.

Going by your logic, everyone has at-will casting. Nothing stops a wizard from casting fireball ever round. Except spell slots.

It's not useful analysis.

 

[ChrisCarlson]

Going by your logic, everyone has at-will casting. Nothing stops a wizard from casting fireball ever round. Except spell slots.

Oh, okay. I get it now. You want warlord at-will action granting to be restricted to allies casting fireballs. Useless class feature. But whatever floats your boat, one supposes.

 

[Jester David]

2x actions does not mean 2x the damage, because you only have 1x the spell slots.

It's exchanging a spell you could need later for a spell you do need now.
Wizard spells are potent and balanced between the fact you have so many per day. But when you can get two out before the enemies can even act, that's game changing. You can hit people with that second fireball or sleep spell. At that point even low level spell slots can become deadly.

There's also why you choce a particular caster over another. The enemies move into position and are more vulnerable to a fireball or lightning bolt than they were on the wizard's turn or will be on their next turn. So that spell does more damage than it would have otherwise.
To say nothing of control effects in spells. Damage is the least impressive part of many spells, especially cantrips. It allows a wizard to regularly cast true strike or blade ward.

IMO: That's the most fun part of being a warlord. Picking the right person (or right buff) for the job.

But yes, flexibility is power, and needs to be factored in.

How do you balance against something so phenomenally situation?
You could limit the actions granted: an attacks not Attack action, cast a cantrip not cast a spell. But the big way would be to to limit the uses of that power per day.

It wasn't a munchkin build. It was a self restricted theme build. Same as making a pacifist cleric, or a fire only sorcerer.

Nor was it more powerful then a regular warlord. 2 attacks (You +ally) > 1 improved attack (ally). Particularly in 4e.

The iconic on is Commander's Strike, where an ally does a melee basic attack + your Intelligence modifier. But because you're dumping Str you can boost Int so instead of a +2 bonus to damage it's a +4, which only goes up as you level. Ditto Guide the Charge. And so does... well, actually that's it. Because of the 50 non-Utility Warlord powers in the PHB, only 2 were attack granting. It really wasn't a major part of the class compared to beating people on the head and having a friend move 5 feet.

I know there were eventually enough added for almost every level (albeit still a minority of warlord options), but the idea is the same. It's taking powers based around X and making it X+2. It's better.

 

[mellored]

How do you balance against something so phenomenally situation?

How do you balance all the other situational abilities?

Like turn undead?
Or silence?
Or immune to poison?
Or create food and water?
Or darkvision?
Or arcane lock?

The iconic on is Commander's Strike, where an ally does a melee basic attack + your Intelligence modifier. But because you're dumping Str you can boost Int so instead of a +2 bonus to damage it's a +4, which only goes up as you level.

I think adding +Int was a bad move, yes.
Being able to move the attack to the right person is enough of a bonus.


Though the biggest balance mistake they made for 4e was the scaling + to the d20.

i.e. Lead the attack (which requires Str). Everyone get's +Int to hit the target. Fine when it was +2 or +3, but got OP at +4 or +5, and then nearly broken at +8.

I know there were eventually enough added for almost every level (albeit still a minority of warlord options), but the idea is the same. It's taking powers based around X and making it X+2. It's better.

Which is easy to fix. Just do X, without the +2.
And make sure the +2 to hit stays +2 to-hit.


i.e.
Don't add +Int to commander's strike.
And have lead the attack a non-scaling +1d4.

 

[Jester David]

How do you balance all the other situational abilities?

Like turn undead?
Or silence?
Or immune to poison?
Or create food and water?
Or darkvision?
Or arcane lock?

None of those are at-will, or are being proposed to be at-will.
Making turn undead an at-will ability would very much be phenomenally hard to balance. The rest have little to no impact on combat, let alone granting the ability to nova in a boss fight or in an exploration combat.

I think adding +Int was a bad move, yes.
Being able to move the attack to the right person is enough of a bonus.

Though the biggest balance mistake they made for 4e was the scaling + to the d20.

i.e. Lead the attack (which requires Str). Everyone get's +Int to hit the target. Fine when it was +2 or +3, but got OP at +4 or +5, and then nearly broken at +8.

That's getting off topic into balancing 4e. I certainly have thoughts on Lead the Attack (and its errata) but it doesn't feel relevant.

But, honestly, Lead the Attack would probably feel far more iconic to my warlord's player than Commander's Strike.

Which is easy to fix. Just do X, without the +2.
And make sure the +2 to hit stays +2 to-hit.

i.e.
Don't add +Int to commander's strike.
And have lead the attack a non-scaling +1d4.

Which fixes a 4e problem (or rather a pre-Essentials PHB-heavy 4e problem), but does nothing for the 5e issue. Different games, different balance.
In 4e all characters were functionally the same in terms of damage on a round by round basis. The warlord replacing their at-will attack or encounter attack with another PCs' doesn't matter as both were doing roughly the same damage. On paper anyway.
(Okay, yes, yes, there were differences when you just look at that edition on its own. But when you compare that edition to any other edition the classes were very tight in terms of comparative damage.)

However, even then things could break. It was way more advantageous to pick the rogue after their sneak attack missed. The ally with the bonus that lasts to the start or end or their turn. The person in the flank. The minion powered rocket barbarian next to the injured enemy. The fighter whose Combat Challenge would proc on a second target.
It was very easy to get far more power out of that at-will attack than any other at-will choice. Even without the Int damage spike.