Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Enchanted Trinkets Complete--a hardcover book containing over 500 magic items for your D&D games!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Jester David" data-source="post: 6815942" data-attributes="member: 37579">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.</blockquote>

Verification