D&D 5E The Problem With At Will Attack Granting

[mellored]

Using Haste as your base model is a bit deceptive. Haste requires Concentration, but there is no real non-magical parallel to Concentration. And if there was, what else would a Warlord require in order to make it an actual trade-off?

the +2 ac, advantage on dex save, and the double speed which haste also provides.

Possibly shorter range as well. It would make sense for the warlord to be near the person he was helping / hindering.

 

[FrogReaver]

Warlord is a fighter subclass. Therefore you are playing a fighter. That is a massive investment into combat. As far as non-combat abilities go, fighters get approximately jack.

I suppose it does give you the option to invest an ASI in the Leadership feat, or something like that, rather than bumping your attack stat or picking up GWM. In exchange, however, your best "attack" option is dependent on another PC being present, conscious, and in position to strike when your turn comes. That is far from guaranteed.


So what? If you played a carbon copy of that character, you could deal just as much damage. And you could do it without depending on anyone else.

If you play a carbon copy of that other character you will be able to do damage and nothing else. The Warlord in question gets to do that same damage and heal, and invest in cool feats like inspiring leader, healer, skulker, actor, observant, etc.

 

[FrogReaver]

the +2 ac, advantage on dex save, and the double speed which haste also provides.

Possibly shorter range as well. It would make sense for the warlord to be near the person he was helping / hindering.

The only issue I have basing it on haste is: A warlord granting PC's off turn attacks would be doing it naturally while trying to use a reaction attack with haste almost feels like an exploit.

 

[mellored]

To be honest, I still prefer rerolling a missed attack. Nearly the same as granting one (they still make another d20 roll for damage), but it feels less like haste and more like helping.

 

[FrogReaver]

To be honest, I still prefer rerolling a missed attack. Nearly the same as granting one (they still make another d20 roll for damage), but it feels less like haste and more like helping.

It also has the added benefit of having them mix up who they are helping a little more.

Mechanically this would be a lot more balanced. I'm not sure it feels like a warlord though. At will attack granting was their defining stuff and this isn't quite there.

That said, 4e basic attacks very fairly consistent and typically didn't have much variance in damage. In 5e that's no longer the case and so an attack granting power is harder to make work.

 

[Zardnaar]

Haste often lasts 3 or four rounds and it has a big drawback if it's disrupted. A Sorcerer is also a bad baseline since it's more or less focused on being better at buffing than most classes.

 

[FrogReaver]

Haste often lasts 3 or four rounds and it has a big drawback if it's disrupted. A Sorcerer is also a bad baseline since it's more or less focused on being better at buffing than most classes.

4 rounds of a twin haste is 8 attacks. With 6 combats in a day that's 48 attacks granted (once you can twin 6 hastes in a day).

You also have the utility of having other things you can do than just grant attacks with those same spells and sorcery points. So while concentration is a drawback, versatility is a huge benefit.

 

[mellored]

Haste often lasts 3 or four rounds and it has a big drawback if it's disrupted.

again, no +2 AC, advantage, or double movement for the warlord.

It doesn't have to match perfectly, but it gives a nice baseline.
We can quibble about weather they should get 60 or 70 HP worth of healing after we get the core traits down.

A Sorcerer is also a bad baseline since it's more or less focused on being better at buffing than most classes.

that makes it a very good comparison. As the warlord is focused on being better at buffing than most classes.

 

[mellored]

It also has the added benefit of having them mix up who they are helping a little more.

it also works with firebolt, but is not OP with eldrich blast. So it works in more parties.

i'm not sure it feels like a warlord though. At will attack granting was their defining stuff and this isn't quite there.

Personally I find it works well. A bit less command-y, and more team work-y, but that's a good thing IMO.
I.e.

Ranger: 12, I missed.
Warlord: I shove the enemy into the path of the arrow. Roll again.

But try it out. See how how it feels.

 

[Tony Vargas]

The main problem with it is 5E does not define a basic attack which the 4E version did.

Lack of one jargon term in no way renders 5e incapable of handling a fairly simple concept. Yes, because of 5e's commitment to natural language, it means the phrasing of any such ability will be a tad convoluted. There's a lot of convoluted language repeated in 5e where a simple term would have sufficed.

That's just a design aesthetic decision.