So The Jester Made it In

[mellored]

All I've done is point out that you can't just balance action economy (as was originally claimed) and think you're done--there are multiple interlocking economies which must be considered.

Agreed.

A class built around interactions with other classes has a lot more interactions to balance.

Though things like bless, haste, greater invisibility, and foresight already exists, so it's not like you need to start from scratch.

 

[Tony Vargas]

All I've done is point out that you can't just balance action economy (as was originally claimed) and think you're done--there are multiple interlocking economies which must be considered.

There may be some intended or de-facto 'economies' outside the fairly limited 5e action economy, but I don't see anything to indicate that they're particularly interlocking nor intentionally balanced to any meaningful degree. 5e balance is something that happens in play, mediated by the DM. The way classes are 'balanced,' mechanically, is broad-strokes, at best, not intricate, and after-thought of the designs based primarily on concept and tradition.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

There may be some intended or de-facto 'economies' outside the fairly limited 5e action economy, but I don't see anything to indicate that they're particularly interlocking nor intentionally balanced to any meaningful degree. 5e balance is something that happens in play, mediated by the DM. The way classes are 'balanced,' mechanically, is broad-strokes, at best, not intricate, and after-thought of the designs based primarily on concept and tradition.

Sure, and I even agree with that statement. Essentially our conversation has been:

Tony: X because Y.
Max (Hemlock): Not actually Y.
Tony: Still X because Z.
Max: Sure, maybe, that's plausible. I don't have a horse in that race. Just pointing out that not Y.

 

[Zardnaar]

At will axction granting is inherently broken in 5E. Look at the closest things that do it.

1. Battlemaster dice. Short rest mechanic, limited amount of dice.
2. Dissonent Whispers (daily effect, save mostly negates.
3. Haste spell. Daily effect, can't transfer the effect from round to round.

In 4E the Rogue only dealt a few extra dice (2d6, 2d8). In 5E they deal 3E levels of damage but can only sneak attack once per turn. The only way to get around that is Sentinel feat, dissonant whispers or Battle master which functions as your enabler. All of which are more limited than at will granted attacks. other big problems are the sharpshooter feat and great weapon master feat. Consider this party.

1 Great Weapon Master Fighter
1 Warlord w/healer feat.
1 Rogue
1 Ranger (hunter) w/sharpshooter.

That would outright brak the game right there. Spellcasters can kind of break the game but in limited ways or only at the highest level of the game and most of them have counters in the game such as dispel magic, the concentration mechanic and spell slots.

Spells do not function the way they used to why should a 4E type Warlord?

 

[Tony Vargas]

At will axction granting is inherently broken in 5E. Look at the closest things that do it.

1. Battlemaster dice. Short rest mechanic, limited amount of dice.
2. Dissonent Whispers (daily effect, save mostly negates.
3. Haste spell. Daily effect, can't transfer the effect from round to round.

What you're trying to say here is that anything that is different from what already exists must be broken. That's obvious nonsense. Someone with more time on their hands can look up the name of the formal fallacy you committed, if they want.

In 4E the Rogue only dealt a few extra dice (2d6, 2d8).

At 1st level. It went up from there. And they were limited to doing it 1/turn.

In 5E they deal 3E levels of damage but can only sneak attack once per turn.

That's falling pretty far short of 3e damage potential, then. But, 5e's in line with 4e, in that sense because it kept the 4e 1/turn SA limit.

1 Great Weapon Master Fighter
1 Warlord w/healer feat.
1 Rogue
1 Ranger (hunter) w/sharpshooter.

That would outright brak the game right there.

How so compared to, say, just adding a Paladin (support, versatility, and plenty of DPR of his own)?

Spellcasters can kind of break the game but in limited ways or only at the highest level of the game and most of them have counters in the game such as dispel magic, the concentration mechanic and spell slots.

You're really way over into 'protests too much' territory, there.

1e casters faced serious counters - casting, not just concentration, could be interrupted with no 'save' and complete loss of the spell, magic-resistance was an absolute % not just advantage on saves, you had dispel magic, anti-magic shells, even towards the end, Mordenkainen's disjunction. Every edition since has only made it easier on casters, and 5e is no exception.

Spells do not function the way they used to why should a 4E type Warlord?

It is true that spells don't function like they did in 4e, not even close. 5e casters get many more known spells, many more daily spell slots, those daily spells are more powerful and versatile, and they have vastly increased flexibility in how they use slots to cast them. And, yes, it's true that a direct port of the Warlord wouldn't work well for those reason, not because it'd be game-breaking, but because it'd be non-viable.

 

[Zardnaar]

What you're trying to say here is that anything that is different from what already exists must be broken. That's obvious nonsense. Someone with more time on their hands can look up the name of the formal fallacy you committed, if they want.

At 1st level. It went up from there. And they were limited to doing it 1/turn. That's falling pretty far short of 3e damage potential, then. But, 5e's in line with 4e, in that sense because it kept the 4e 1/turn SA limit.

How so compared to, say, just adding a Paladin (support, versatility, and plenty of DPR of his own)?

You're really way over into 'protests too much' territory, there.

1e casters faced serious counters - casting, not just concentration, could be interrupted with no 'save' and complete loss of the spell, magic-resistance was an absolute % not just advantage on saves, you had dispel magic, anti-magic shells, even towards the end, Mordenkainen's disjunction. Every edition since has only made it easier on casters, and 5e is no exception.

It is true that spells don't function like they did in 4e, not even close. 5e casters get many more known spells, many more daily spell slots, those daily spells are more powerful and versatile, and they have vastly increased flexibility in how they use slots to cast them. And, yes, it's true that a direct port of the Warlord wouldn't work well for those reason, not because it'd be game-breaking, but because it'd be non-viable.

No I actually tested the BK in action and the noble kind of does at will action granting but the designer hit everything else it did hrd with the nerf bat and it was still semi OP.

I was referring to spellcasting pre 4E. Spellcaster do not function the same as 1E-3E. Spellcasters are not god mode in 5E. If they are broken its if you have a lot of them rather than individual power. And by a lot I mean spell combos with 4-5 caster in a 5 or 6 person party.

Paladins I would rate as some of the most powerful classes int he game borderline OP even for the avenger and Oath of the Ancients. I would take one any day of the week over a fighter. Paladin is actually better IMHO than most of the primary casters. I am comparing at will action granting to things like BM dice, haste, dissonant whisper, or the sentinel feat all of which are really good but limited. At will action granting is not limited and is very versatile and will do funny things to a party DPR for example for a support class. Cleric damage in 5E for example tends to be a bit meh so giving up your attack to enable a Rogue to sneak attack or a sharpshooter/GWM to have another attack is already broken right there. The BM fighter is actually a fighting class so having it give up a fighter attack is less OP than something like a Druid, Cleric or Wizard PC would and since most warlord advocates want the warlord as a support type PC plus healing plus some other abilities its to much.

The 5E rogue is the prime example of why at willa ction granting is a stupidly bad idea in 5E. An extra 2d6 striker dice in 4E could be 10d6 dice in 5E at range or in melee. That is a lot of damage and versatility to enable via the BM let alone at wiull via a new warlord. Add 5E monster have less hit points than 4E so its a bad idea in 5E like an at will ability in 4E dealing 15d6 or 20d6 via a 4E warlord would be. That is the equivalent amount (roughly) of damage a 4E warlord would be enabling in 4E.

 

[Tony Vargas]

I was referring to spellcasting pre 4E.

How spellcasting in 5e is different from 3e & earlier (not really all that different - slightly fewer slots, even greater flexibility in using them, fewer restrictions on casting, etc) in't really relevant to how a Warlord from 4e would work relative to caster classes in 5e. How 5e casters differ from 4e casters (vastly more slots, much greater flexibility, greater acess to more powerful and versatile spell lists) is relevant.

Paladins I would rate as some of the most powerful classes int he game borderline OP

If that's how you'd rate 'em. I wouldn't. 'Borderline OP' doesn't mean a lot in 5e, balance is a lot looser, that border is wide and fuzzy, encompassing most of the game until the DM steps in.

and since most warlord advocates want the warlord as a support type PC plus healing plus some other abilities its to much.

I don't know what you think you mean by 'support type PC plus healing,' healing is at the core of support-capable classes in D&D. As far as 'plus some other abilities' no concept of the Warlord ever advanced has had any where near the range and depth of 'other abilities' on top of any support function than the extant 5e support classes have just by virtue of being casters.

The 5E rogue is the prime example of why at willa ction granting is a stupidly bad idea in 5E.

It's an example of how inconsistent 5e class design is, and how that makes adding a new class a little more challenging than in a more consistent game, but it's a minor consideration. Designers do have to think about how any new class or ability interacts with any/every other existing one, since those existing classes and abilities don't follow any consistent design parameters. It's not as 'modular' as it could have been.

In 4e, granting a basic attack as a limited at-will action-grant worked fine, because basic attacks were uniformly less powerful/versatile than attack powers. 4e design was just neat that way. In 5e is, perhaps ironically, more complicated.

Add 5E monster have less hit points than 4E

At lower level, sure, at higher levels, 5e monsters have more hps. The same with PCs, actually. 5e puts more scaling on hps/damage than prior editions, to make up for the limited sense of advancement from bounded accuracy.

There is an issue in that any action-granting ability would have to keep up with that rapid scaling, somehow. That could be addressed by having the scaling come from the Warlord's level, rather than the ally's - the ally just providing the attack roll and damage die, for instance. Not ideal, IMHO, I think the Warlord should be more about the ally than that, but it might be a workable alternative to granting full actions (including sneak attacks, extra attacks, spells, smites and who-knows-what-else) as a way of capturing the range of damage scaling mechanics 5e uses. Or maybe Mearls &co can come up with something better, they are the professional designers, afterall.

 

[Zardnaar]

How spellcasting in 5e is different from 3e & earlier (not really all that different - slightly fewer slots, even greater flexibility in using them, fewer restrictions on casting, etc) in't really relevant to how a Warlord from 4e would work relative to caster classes in 5e. How 5e casters differ from 4e casters (vastly more slots, much greater flexibility, greater acess to more powerful and versatile spell lists) is relevant.

If that's how you'd rate 'em. I wouldn't. 'Borderline OP' doesn't mean a lot in 5e, balance is a lot looser, that border is wide and fuzzy, encompassing most of the game until the DM steps in.

I don't know what you think you mean by 'support type PC plus healing,' healing is at the core of support-capable classes in D&D. As far as 'plus some other abilities' no concept of the Warlord ever advanced has had any where near the range and depth of 'other abilities' on top of any support function than the extant 5e support classes have just by virtue of being casters.

It's an example of how inconsistent 5e class design is, and how that makes adding a new class a little more challenging than in a more consistent game, but it's a minor consideration. Designers do have to think about how any new class or ability interacts with any/every other existing one, since those existing classes and abilities don't follow any consistent design parameters. It's not as 'modular' as it could have been.

In 4e, granting a basic attack as a limited at-will action-grant worked fine, because basic attacks were uniformly less powerful/versatile than attack powers. 4e design was just neat that way. In 5e is, perhaps ironically, more complicated.

At lower level, sure, at higher levels, 5e monsters have more hps. The same with PCs, actually. 5e puts more scaling on hps/damage than prior editions, to make up for the limited sense of advancement from bounded accuracy.

There is an issue in that any action-granting ability would have to keep up with that rapid scaling, somehow. That could be addressed by having the scaling come from the Warlord's level, rather than the ally's - the ally just providing the attack roll and damage die, for instance. Not ideal, IMHO, I think the Warlord should be more about the ally than that, but it might be a workable alternative to granting full actions (including sneak attacks, extra attacks, spells, smites and who-knows-what-else) as a way of capturing the range of damage scaling mechanics 5e uses. Or maybe Mearls &co can come up with something better, they are the professional designers, afterall.

The 4E Rogue is the odd one out though. The 5E rogue damage is closer to 3.5 and AD&D levels not just a piddly 2 extra dice like in 4E with the extra damage strapped onto an encounter or daily power. The superiority dice thing which I doubt you have tested is really powerful in 5E and works great with the Rogue.

The Warlord is just not a popular class/concept as it turns out let alone the playstyle it was developed from. When things like Jesters are turning up before it and it is barely selling on the DMGuild the proof is in the pudding.

 

[mellored]

The Warlord is just not a popular class/concept as it turns out let alone the playstyle it was developed from. When things like Jesters are turning up before it and it is barely selling on the DMGuild the proof is in the pudding.

I disagree. They made multiple attempts at a warlord before they did the jester.

Those attempts fell short of expectations, like the ranger, but having 3 subclasses is the proof in the pudding that the concept is plenty alive.

Edit: Also, the concept has spread to other games. Noble in star wars, commander in 13th age, and... something in pathfinder.

 

[Tony Vargas]

The 4E Rogue is the odd one out though. The 5E rogue damage is closer to 3.5 and AD&D levels not just a piddly 2 extra dice like in 4E with the extra damage strapped onto an encounter or daily power.

Your ignorance of 4e is really hurting whatever point you're trying to make here. Rogues did not depend on daily attack powers to deliver striker-level DPR, they could do so even sticking to at-will, all strikers could.

The Rogue is different from other weapon-using classes in 5e, since it gets a scaling damage boost to a single attack instead of depending on more problematic multi-attacking to improve DPR as a it levels. That's not a major obstacle to design, though.

The Warlord is just not a popular class/concept

That appeal to popularity has been done to death. We've never seen any evidence to back it up, on the few surveys we've seen it's come in closer to the middle of the pack, with classes less popular than it seeing the inside of the 5e PH. Even were it true, it wouldn't be a valid reason for exclusion: the mere fact that a minority is outnumbered does not justify persecution.

When things like Jesters are turning up before it and it is barely selling on the DMGuild the proof is in the pudding.

There were two fighter sub-classes, and one rogue sub-class touching on the Warlord concept published prior to the College of Satire touching upon the Jester in UA. The two offerings on DMsG are just two more fighter sub-classes, an approach that just can't succeed, they're even not worth a look, no matter how low the price. For may fans, nothing un-official is ever going to matter, getting or blocking the Warlord for them is as much about WotC making a statement validating that desire or the vindictive need to thwart it as providing a feature 5e needs or saving the dead trees that it might be printed on.