Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Jester David" data-source="post: 6816301" data-attributes="member: 37579">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.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 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.</blockquote>

Verification