Water, water everywhere, Nor any drop to drink

[Lord Twig]

I just posted a reply to another thread in this forum about this very thing.

In the real world, many people don't always try their hardest, even when they are trying to! That's why there are coaches. That's why people have personal bests that they can't always emulate. That's why people can be driven to do things for people they love that they would otherwise not have thought they could bring themselves to do.

The idea that everyone is entirely self-sufficient within him-/herself, and that feelings and relationships have no effect upon performance, is very atomistic. I think it's contrary to a lot of actual, lived human experience. And I also think it's contrary to a lot of the literary material that underlies the tropes and themes of fantasy RPGing. (The soldiers defending Gondor were trying hard. They were helped - tried harder than they otherwise would - because Gandalf went among them, heartening them and encouraging them. It's never occurred to me that the only explanation for this is that Gandalf is casting a spell on them! It seems to me that Tolkien is pointing to a perfectly commonplace aspect of human life.)

And the problem here is that you have to assume that everybody loves the Warlord or are heartened by the Warlord's presence, even when they just met the Warlord and have no idea who he is. I could have a Paladin fighting side-by-side with his deity, and he wouldn't feel inspired to fight harder until the Warlord (or Bard) decides to say a few encouraging words.

 

[Lord Twig]

I liked your features.
However, the issue with your sub-class is balance.

Cleric 5 has..
+1d4 to-hit, and (2d8) * .5 = 4.5 damage

Your Fighter 5 has...
+1d4 to-hit, and (4d6+6) * .5 = 10 damage.

Fighters do twice the at-will damage that clerics do.

Unless the Cleric has a great sword, or the Fighter is fighting with sword and board. Why are you assuming only cantrip damage?

Plus the Cleric has all his other spells. Extra flexibility is worth doing a little less damage.

Regardless, it could probably use some tweeking, but I don't think it is that far out of line.

It's effectively the same thing.

Round 1: +1d4 to hit, as an action.
Round 2: +1d4 to hit, with concentration.
Round 3: +1d4 to hit, with concentration.
Round 4: +1d4 to hit, with concentration.
vs
Round 1: +1d4 to hit, as a bonus action.
Round 2: +1d4 to hit, as a bonus action.
Round 3: +1d4 to hit, as a bonus action.
Round 4: +1d4 to hit, as a bonus action.

So it's pretty balanced?

Hmm... i never ran the numbers for help action.

Wizard helping the fighter.
(2d6+5) * .6 = 7.2
(2d6+5) * .84 = 10.08
= 2.88

Help action for rogue 11...

(1d8+6d6+5) = 30.5 * .6 = 18.3
advantage: 30.5 * .84 = 25.62
= +7.32 with the help action with a rogue.

That's actually not to bad for a rogue. But otherwise yes, a cleric would need to throw out some sacred flames or otherwise be ineffective.

Too bad help action only works for 1 attack. If it was all attacks, then helping a fighter 11 would be 2.88*3 = 8.64, close enough to (3d10*.6) = 9.9 firebolt. Particularly since i didn't include fighting style or feats.

Or attack with a weapon for more damage. But either way, the point is that all classes are more focused on damage in 5e.

The God Wizard build (one of my personal favorites) from 3.x (and Pathfinder) isn't as viable in 5e. Once you get one concentration spell up, you are going to have trouble finding spells to cast that are support without cancelling your previous spell. You end up throwing some damage cantrips or spells.

So the Warlord would have to change, just like every other class.

 

[mellored]

I could have a Paladin fighting side-by-side with his deity, and he wouldn't feel inspired to fight harder until the Warlord (or Bard) decides to say a few encouraging words.

Or cleric of some other god says "orcus bless you".

Though, i would very much grant a deity bonus to any follower of that god. Probably +1d6 to-hit and saves.

 

[jayoungr]

(The soldiers defending Gondor were trying hard. They were helped - tried harder than they otherwise would - because Gandalf went among them, heartening them and encouraging them. It's never occurred to me that the only explanation for this is that Gandalf is casting a spell on them! It seems to me that Tolkien is pointing to a perfectly commonplace aspect of human life.)

Ah, but Gandalf is basically an angel, so I'm not sure his "heartening and encouraging" is not somehow augmented from what an ordinary human could do. But it's also difficult to nail Tolkien down on points like that because he tends to give you just enough detail to spark your imagination, leaving virtually any passage open to multiple interpretations. I discovered when I started discussing his work with other fans that some people read certain passages completely differently from me, and neither of our readings could be disproven.

 

[mellored]

Unless the Cleric has a great sword, or the Fighter is fighting with sword and board. Why are you assuming only cantrip damage?

2-hander's don't do anything for clerics past 5. But i'll run the numbers.
2d6+3 * .5 = 5
2d8+6+4(dualist) * .5 = 9.5

So 190% instead of 222%.

Plus the Cleric has all his other spells. Extra flexibility is worth doing a little less damage.

A little, yes.
But hopefully the warlord will also have flexibility.

So it's pretty balanced?

If the fighter did cantrip damage, then sure.
But unless you have a good way to reduce the fighters damage...

Or attack with a weapon for more damage. But either way, the point is that all classes are more focused on damage in 5e.

I showed earlier that a wizard who casts haste and firebolt, is 66% support, and 33% damage.

And that support ratio is low, since i only included the extra attack, and not the value of +2 AC, double speed, or advantage on dex saves.

 

[Lord Twig]

Or cleric of some other god says "orcus bless you".

Though, i would very much grant a deity bonus to any follower of that god. Probably +1d6 to-hit and saves.

If a Cleric of an enemy god cast Bless on you (for some reason), yes you would fight better, but not because you were so inspired by that Cleric or his god. You would fight better because there was magic guiding your attacks. It would be the same as picking up a magic sword. But that is very unlikely to happen. More likely you will get a spell cast on you by a Cleric with a deity of similar alignment. Why wouldn't you accept their help? You are allies!

Think of it this way. You can use a musket instead of an assault rifle, but why would you? In a world of magic not using magic would be like not using science in our world. I mean, if I were bleeding out and had a choice between my beloved commander or a paramedic with a bag of medical gear, I'll take the paramedic. Yay science!

 

[Lord Twig]

2-hander's don't do anything for clerics past 5. But i'll run the numbers.
2d6+3 * .5 = 5
2d8+6+4(dualist) * .5 = 9.5

So 190% instead of 222%.

Or your fighter could take the protection fighting style, because, you know, Warlord.

But then to be equal the Cleric would also be using a one-handed weapon and a shield. So...

1d6+3 * .5 = 3.25
2d8+6 * .5 = 7.5

Cantrip would do 2d8 * .5 = 4.5 So the cantrip is better.

A little, yes.
But hopefully the warlord will also have flexibility.

If the fighter did cantrip damage, then sure.
But unless you have a good way to reduce the fighters damage...

I showed earlier that a wizard who casts haste and firebolt, is 66% support, and 33% damage.

And that support ratio is low, since i only included the extra attack, and not the value of +2 AC, double speed, or advantage on dex saves.

Haste is a 3rd level spell, so I would expect it to be good. Any Warlord abilities would need to compete with that. But that is the Wizard spending one turn doing a support action, then he is attacking. So it would not be unreasonable to expect a Warlord to do the same.

Edit:
Speaking of Wizard, lets compare:

Wizard casts Haste, then Firebolts:
2d10 * .5 = 5.5

And Haste is a lot better, as you mentioned.

 

[mellored]

Or your fighter could take the protection fighting style, because, you know, Warlord.

But then to be equal the Cleric would also be using a one-handed weapon and a shield. So...

1d6+3 * .5 = 3.25
2d8+6 * .5 = 7.5

Cantrip would do 2d8 * .5 = 4.5 So the cantrip is better.

Ok... Then 166% more damage, and you protect your allies.

Still OP.


Maybe something like...
As a bonus action you and all allies have +1d4 to hit the target until the start of your next turn. Do not add your Str or Dex modifier to weapon damage while this is in effect.

thus 1d8 -> 2d8 -> 3d8, on par with cantips. Could use better wording

Haste is a 3rd level spell, so I would expect it to be good. Any Warlord abilities would need to compete with that. But that is the Wizard spending one turn doing a support action, then he is attacking. So it would not be unreasonable to expect a Warlord to do the same.

Yes. Or make it a bit less powerful, like no double speed.
Remember too that haste can often be cast pre-battle.


But my point was concentrating on haste has much more of an impact then cantrip spam. Even if it's less actions, you are doing much more support then damage.

 

[Lord Twig]

Oh, one thing that everyone leaves out with Haste. If the caster loses concentration, the target of Haste loses his entire turn.

That is a pretty significant drawback. If a Fighter 11 gets two turns of Haste, then loses Haste, he is at negative 1 attack. He got 2 extra attacks from Haste for two turns, then loses his 3 attacks for the turn lost.

 

[Aldarc]

Think of it this way. You can use a musket instead of an assault rifle, but why would you? In a world of magic not using magic would be like not using science in our world.

Yet here we are in a fantasy world of non-magical fighters and rogues. There's even a certain expectation that they won't be magical. It's almost as if there is a niche within fantasy (gaming) of playing non-magical characters who nevertheless perform extraordinary deeds, feats, and actions that - while non-magical in nature - fantastically defy the mundane and the ordinary. It's a shame that we only have thousands of years of literature to draw upon for such examples.

I mean, if I were bleeding out and had a choice between my beloved commander or a paramedic with a bag of medical gear, I'll take the paramedic. Yay science!

I would imagine that the preferred choice would be to have the beloved commander whose sound, inspirational command and tactical thinking helped prevent you from being in the situation where you are bleeding out in the first place and needing the paramedic so badly.