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

[Imaro]

Of course the warlord will take the best action now; my question is how much better is that action than an average action? And it that action is the best, how big is the benefit from the warlord using you to do it on his turn, rather than just waiting for you to do it yourself on your turn?

What is an "average" action? Using an example from earlier... when facing two large mobs of low hit point creatures is the "average" action for the Rogue to use sneak attack and kill one... is it for the fighter to use his multiple attacks and kill 2-3... is it for the cleric to use a spell slot and kill 2-4 or maybe heal someone? If the optimal action is to use fireball and kill an entire group what is the average action?

 

[CapnZapp]

I don't particularly think that allowing a warlord to grant regular attacks at will, even with a bonus from the warlord (charisma or int was common), is particularly off. I don't think the recipient really should have to spend a resource for it - the warlord already spent one.

Agreed. The fun part is getting SOME of these suckers (where the recipient doesn't have to spend anything).

The tricky part is granting just enough of them (more than zero would be a nice start) but not too many.

PS. The Warlord could have an unlimited supply of the existing (crappy) actions trades, for what I care.

 

[TwoSix]

What is an "average" action? Using an example from earlier... when facing two large mobs of low hit point creatures is the "average" action for the Rogue to use sneak attack and kill one... is it for the fighter to use his multiple attacks and kill 2-3... is it for the cleric to use a spell slot and kill 2-4 or maybe heal someone? If the optimal action is to use fireball and kill an entire group what is the average action?

That's why it's tough, right? The obvious action for the course you mentioned is to cast fireball, of course, but if that's the optimal action, isn't the wizard going to do that anyway?

 

[Imaro]

On the other hand, Wizards have given us absolutely zero access to this so far, so a little more relaxed limitations would sure be appreciated

Disagree... the BM gives us this in a limited form with Commander's Strike and Maneuvering Attack... May not be enough for Warlord fans but zero access is incorrect.

 

[Imaro]

That's why it's tough, right? The obvious action for the course you mentioned is to cast fireball, of course, but if that's the optimal action, isn't the wizard going to do that anyway?

There are 2 groups in the example, all things being equal... why wouldn't I end it in the first round if I'm the Warlord?

 

[CapnZapp]

Sure, but I also don't see why the assertion that the situational difference between X, Y, and Z is so great that (X or Y or Z) must be overpowered is obviously true. Especially if you could have made the choice to bring W instead.

I think that pretty much boils down to party size.

In a two man party of X and Z, Y or W is probably more appreciated than (X or Z).

In a four man party of A, B, C and D, (A or B or C or D) is probably more appreciated than X or Z, simply by [ABCD] probably covering all or near-all bases already.

A party with 5 Barbarians will probably appreciate a Wizard recruit* more than a Warlord. A well-rounded party with Fighter, Paladin, Bard, Rogue and Wizard would definitely get more mileage out of a Warlord than any other class.

Unless we put the brakes on his action trading, that is.


*) yes, I'm aware some AD&D Barbarians would kill the Wizard instantly

 

[CapnZapp]

Disagree... the BM gives us this in a limited form with Commander's Strike and Maneuvering Attack... May not be enough for Warlord fans but zero access is incorrect.

I'm talking about access to the completely no-strings-attached ability. You know, the one that you wouldn't described as "in a limited form"

 

[Corwin]

That's why it's tough, right? The obvious action for the course you mentioned is to cast fireball, of course, but if that's the optimal action, isn't the wizard going to do that anyway?

Two common enough, plausible factors give me pause with your premise. One, the wizard can now cast two fireballs in a round, rather than just the one when his turn to go comes up. Thus taking out both groups of mooks. But, and IMO the bigger issue, the second being the possibility that the mobs beat the wizard on initiative, and so they can scatter before he can even get that fireball off. Having a warlord in the group gives the PCs double the chance of beating the mobs at initiative and catch them still bunched up.

 

[Imaro]

I'm talking about access to the completely no-strings-attached ability. You know, the one that you wouldn't described as "in a limited form"

Sorry... I misunderstood. Yeah... I'm not convinced they should allow a class that has action swapping with no limitations... unless there is a way to relax the limitations and still keep it from exponentially powering up a group.

 

[TwoSix]

Two common enough, plausible factors give me pause with your premise. One, the wizard can now cast two fireballs in a round, rather than just the one when his turn to go comes up. Thus taking out both groups of mooks. But, and IMO the bigger issue, the second being the possibility that the mobs beat the wizard on initiative, and so they can scatter before he can even get that fireball off. Having a warlord in the group gives the PCs double the chance of beating the mobs at initiative and catch them still bunched up.

Which seems a worthwhile trade-off to not playing a wizard and having your own slots.