D&D 5E What the warlord needs in 5e and how to make it happen.

[FrogReaver]

Thing is, it isn't commander's strike which is inherently overpowered. It's the fact that a rogue can use their sneak attack once per turn, not once per round. This issue is with the rogue not the manoeuvre.

Rogue has no issue on it's own. Commander's strike has no issue on it's own.

Though you are right that it's the combination that is OP. It's also arguably an underpowered maneuver when a rogue isn't in the party.

But just to reiterate you can't in good faith act like it's the rogues fault that commander's strike is OP when a rogue is in the party.

 

[Blue]

Tactician: Non-offensive, but just awful. Besides, name a character from history or fiction who is a tactician? And by that, I mean, if you went up to a stranger on the street and said, "What was Batman?" they would say, "Oh, he was a tactician!"

Obvious we need to rename the concept to "World's Greatest Detective".

 

[Blue]

[qupte]3. Action economy degrades when passed on - it takes you more actions then you give to someone else, or it takes a limited resource.

Well, that's the rub. All efforts (only talking official material) so far makes you pay an action cost then and there.

What's needed is an unrestricted ability, but one that is restricted by its own subsystem (such as spell slots, superiority dice or sorcery points)[/QUOTE]

Remember that the action economy degradation doesn't need to be only paid by the Warlord. I think the canonical example of this is the Battlemaster's Commander's Strike.

Battlemaster uses on attack (which may be only 1/2 or 1/3 of an action) to grant someone else an attack (which might be a full action for them and/or benefit from being on a different turn like the rogue). It also gives a boost to damage. The costs are the reaction from the receiver, which means that 4 warlords couldn't trigger the same rogue one after another, and it's using a limited-but-not-too-limited resource from the Battlemaster, a superiority die.

Now, from a design consideration, "pay now for someone to get something later" might also be considered a degradation. An example of that would be granting the equivalent of the Haste action. I think that's a valid concept to explore as well.

 

[cbwjm]

Rogue has no issue on it's own. Commander's strike has no issue on it's own.

Though you are right that it's the combination that is OP. It's also arguably an underpowered maneuver when a rogue isn't in the party.

But just to reiterate you can't in good faith act like it's the rogues fault that commander's strike is OP when a rogue is in the party.

Honestly, I don't think it matters that the rogue gets to add it's sneak attack damage. I don't think it matters that hunter rangers get to add the d8 from colossus slayer or clerics with divine strike get to add one or two d8s to their attack or that great weapon masters can get a +10 to their damage. I don't really consider it overpowered, I consider it powerful.

What I'm trying to say is that we should be looking at abilities in 5e that let warlord-like abilities to function. In this case, a warlord could give up an attack and let another class use their reaction to make an attack. I don't think it is an issue that some classes are going to be able to use this ability to hit harder than another.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Just a note, [MENTION=6801328]Elfcrusher[/MENTION], "Captain" has never been a purely military term. It is older as a term from a person who inspires and leads by example, etc, than as a military term, IIRC, and it has always retained that non military meaning.

We have all hashed out our responses to the rest of this thread's arguments a thousand times, though, and I've never really cared about any of it that isn't focused on how to impliment and execute the class. You provided a well thought out, well written, post, and for that I give you some xp, even though I disagree with pretty much every word of it.

 

[FrogReaver]

Honestly, I don't think it matters that the rogue gets to add it's sneak attack damage. I don't think it matters that hunter rangers get to add the d8 from colossus slayer or clerics with divine strike get to add one or two d8s to their attack or that great weapon masters can get a +10 to their damage. I don't really consider it overpowered, I consider it powerful.

What I'm trying to say is that we should be looking at abilities in 5e that let warlord-like abilities to function. In this case, a warlord could give up an attack and let another class use their reaction to make an attack. I don't think it is an issue that some classes are going to be able to use this ability to hit harder than another.

It's always a matter of degress. No one would be comlaining if we were talking about one character hitting for a d6+5 and another hitting for a d8+5 and another a d10+5 with the abilitiy. Instead we are talking about 2d6+5 vs 11d6+5. And most of us think that having a difference of 9d6 depending on what class your ally is playing is too big of a difference.

 

[cbwjm]

It's always a matter of degress. No one would be comlaining if we were talking about one character hitting for a d6+5 and another hitting for a d8+5 and another a d10+5 with the abilitiy. Instead we are talking about 2d6+5 vs 11d6+5. And most of us think that having a swing of 9d6 depending on what class your ally is playing is too big of a swing.

So what? It's still the best method we have for modelling a warlord's ability to grant extra attacks to allies.

 

[FrogReaver]

So what? It's still the best method we have for modelling a warlord's ability to grant extra attacks to allies.

If that's the best we have and you want to make extra attack granting a prevalent feature of a warlord using that model then you will have a stupidly broken strong class.

There must be a better way than using a terrible model of extra attack granting and if there isn't then a 5e warlord shouldn't grant extra attacks.

 

[cbwjm]

If that's the best we have and you want to make extra attack granting a prevalent feature of a warlord using that model then you will have a stupidly broken strong class.

There must be a better way than using a terrible model of extra attack granting and if there isn't then a 5e warlord shouldn't grant extra attacks.

Well. It sounds like we've reached the point where we will just have to agree to disagree.

 

[Bacon Bits]

I guess the more I look at it, the more I wonder why "Warlord" isn't just a War/Life Cleric 1/Valor Bard X, Fighter/Valor Bard X, or Battlemaster 3/Valor Bard X.

OK, think about a Valor Bard X/Cleric 1/Fighter 1. You get:

bless
guidance
resistance
Combat Inspiration
healing word
heavy armor
martial weapons
Song of Rest
Non-spell healing (with Life Cleric 2)
Protection Style

You don't need high Wis and you don't need very high Cha, so you can take higher Dex, Con, and Str.

Be a Half-Elf. If your DM lets you use SCAG variants, be a half moon/sun elf and take the Elf Cantrip for booming blade for extra battlefield control.

Take stats:

Str 16 (15 + 1)
Dex 10
Con 13
Int 8
Wis 13 (12 + 1)
Cha 16 (14 + 2)

Start with Bard. Gives you the most overall, although you can take Fighter first if you'd rather.
At level 2, select Life or War Cleric. Gain Medium Armor, Heavy Armor and Shields. Gain healing word, bless, resistance, and guidance.
At level 3, select Fighter. Gain Protection Style. Gain simple and martial weapons.
From here on, take Bard. Select College of Valor to get Combat Inspiration.
At level 4, ASI to increase Con and Str, or select Inspiring Leader or Shield Master.
At level 8, you get Extra Attack. Late, but booming blade should have made it not too painful.

Now, yes, I can easily see arguments for dropping Cleric or Fighter, depending on the style you want. It's up to you. This is kind of the all-inclusive build. You gain a fair bit by taking Fighter 2, Battlemaster 3, and Life Cleric 2, too, but Bard is the bread-and-butter. War Magic is a bit too deep into Eldritch Knight to be worthwhile, however.

No, you don't get all these abilities on reactions. Essentially nobody gets good reaction abilities anymore. There's Riposte Maneuver (Battlemaster), Misty Escape (Archfey), Defensive Duelist, and that's basically it. No, you're not handing out Action Surges. I mean, let's be honest, if we ever get a 5e Warlord, he's not going to be the Action Economy Trading Post that he was in 4e. If 5e ever has a 4e Warlord-style "grant an action" ability, it will -- at best -- allow: a) a single attack, b) a cantrip, c) some amount of movement. If it happens off-turn it will probably take the target's reaction to do so, and might still be limited by the Charisma mod of the Warlord. The Bard's ability to grant bonus dice is a reasonable approximation. No, d6 or d8 isn't as big as an extra 1d8 + 4, but numbers in 5e are a lot smaller overall.

Now, if your whole argument is, "But I don't want to do it with spells!" well, I'm sorry. 5e reverts to the old D&D model and puts most special abilities into the "spell" column. That's why 4e made some people feel like every class was casting spells.