|
9 months ago ::
Oct 11, 2012 - 12:27PM
#251
|
|
|
Your rewording would actually trigger things that happen on an action AND things that happen on an attack. I don't see how that improves the situation when the intent is to JUST give an attack.
Having both trigger was actually the point, every normal attack is an action. I don't think it is a huge issue, but I see the potential for it to interact weirdly with other powers when a character can take an attack without making an action at all.
That would be ideal except that it introduces another pseudo-resource that needs to be kept track of.
They eliminated minor actions exactly to get away from that sort of thing.
If a party really has three warlords and they all want to shout at the same fighter, let them. It's not unbalanced mechanically, it's just a little conceptually silly; I think it's so much of a corner case that it can just be ignored.
Well, it can be unbalanced mechanically, if the fighter stacks up constant bonuses on his attack and damage then granting him more attacks multiplies the effect of those bonuses. For example, if the cleric uses a spell that gives the fighter +4 to hit for one turn, and then a bunch of warlords give him a stack of extra attacks, that spell becomes vastly more powerful. However, that sort of mechanical imbalance was not my primary concern.
I was actually looking at it more as a universal meta rule, to prevent warlords stacking with spells stacking with action points stacking with items stacking with powers and so on. Situations where the wizard casts Haste, the cleric casts Frenzy, and now the warlord can use directed attack 3 times on the fighter who already had 3 attacks.
I don't really see the problem with warlords in this example. Each of those supporting characters spent an action to give the fighter another action. If anything at all is a problem, its the fact that haste and frenzy last for more then one round so the casters accomplished the warlords job in the following rounds without giving up an action. There is at least a persistant cost to the warlord ability.
 | Big Model: Creative Agenda
Love 4e? Concerned about its future? join the Old Guard of 4th Edition
Reality Refracted: Social Contracts
D & D: A Documentary Kickstarter (http://kck.st/SyKNzf)
Dreaming the Impossible Dream
Show
Imagine a world where the first-time D&D player rolls stats, picks a race, picks a class, picks an alignment, and buys gear to create a character. Imagine if an experienced player, maybe the person helping our theoretical player learn the ropes, could also make a character by rolling ability scores and picking a race, class, feat, skills, class features, spells or powers, and so on. Those two players used different paths to build characters, but the system design allows them to play at the same table. -Mearl |
|
|
|
|
9 months ago ::
Oct 11, 2012 - 1:13PM
#252
|
Date Joined:
Aug 31, 2007
|
Part of the reason you need to limit "when you take an action" stuff.
For instance, clerics spiritual hammer would effectivly adds 1d8 to all the warlord granted attacks as well.
Yes, you are right. Potentially a multi-class cleric/warlord could cast spiritual hammer and then use Directed Strike on himself whenver he wanted to attack so that the hammer would go twice. All of the "when you take an action" stuff needs to specify once per turn unless they really mean to let you do it more then once.
Really, there isn't a huge way to abuse this or most of the rest of the rules yet. However, getting it right now so that things continue to work when the characters are 25th level is important. This is where 3e fell apart, the rules where not tested or written with an eye towards high level play and a lot of stuff just doesn't work without a lot of DM fudging.
You say unbalanced, I say rewards team play. People should be encouraged to build synergies within the party.
And the specifc "unbalance" you doesn't even sound very problematic. It even sounds fun!
A lot of balance destroying characters work by taking advantage of overly efficient synergies. When you have two powers that individually make a character 5% more poweful but when stacked together make a character 25% more powerful, game balance falls apart. Building up some synergy between characters is good, having the warlord say "I'll grant the fighter an attack on my turns when they come up. I'll be in the kitchen for the rest of the fight, come get me if something else comes up." is bad.
|
|
|
|
9 months ago ::
Oct 11, 2012 - 1:50PM
#253
|
|
|
Part of the reason you need to limit "when you take an action" stuff.
For instance, clerics spiritual hammer would effectivly adds 1d8 to all the warlord granted attacks as well.
Yes, you are right. Potentially a multi-class cleric/warlord could cast spiritual hammer and then use Directed Strike on himself whenver he wanted to attack so that the hammer would go twice. All of the "when you take an action" stuff needs to specify once per turn unless they really mean to let you do it more then once.
I didn't even think of the warlord granting himself an action...
Possibly 2 warlord/clerics, since "ally" will likely be in there, but still, that's infinite damage by level 2.
So yea... can't have WYTAA triggering.
guides
Show
my builds
Show
F-111 Interdictor Long (200+ squares) distance ally teleporter. With some warlord stuff. Broken in a plot way, not a power way.
Thought Switch Higher level build that grants upto 14 attacks on turn 1. If your allies play along, it's broken.
Elven Critters Crit op with crit generation. 5 of these will end anything. Broken.
King Fisher Does an excellent job at keeping an enemy disabled in a few ways. Strong.
Boominator Fun catch-22 booming blade build with either strong or completely broken damage depending on your reading.
Very Distracting Warlock Lot's of dazing and major penalties to hit. Overpowered.
Pocket Protector Pixie Stealth Knight. Maximizing the defender's aura by being in an ally's/enemy's square.
Yakuza NinjIntimiAdin: Perma-stealth Striker that offers a little protection for ally's, and can intimidate bloodied enemies. Very Strong.
Chargeburgler with cheese Ranged attacks at the end of a charge along with perma-stealth. Solid, could be overpowered if tweaked.
Void Defender Defends giving a penalty to hit anyone but him, then removing himself from play. Can get somewhat broken in epic.
Scry and Die Attacking from around corners, while staying hidden. Moderate to broken, depending on the situation.
Skimisher Fly in, attack, and fly away. Also prevents enemies from coming close. Moderate to Broken depending on the enemy, but shouldn't make the game un-fun, as the rest of your team is at risk, and you have enough weaknesses.
Indestructible Simply won't die, even if you sleep though combat.
Sir Robin (Bravely Charge Away) He automatically slows and pushes an enemy (5 squares), while charging away. Hard to rate it's power level, since it's terrain dependent.
Death's Gatekeeper A fun twist on a healic, making your party "unkillable". Overpowered to Broken, but shouldn't actually make the game un-fun, just TPK proof.
Death's Gatekeeper mk2, (Stealth Edition) Make your party "unkillable", and you hidden, while doing solid damage. Stronger then the above, but also easier for a DM to shut down. Broken, until your DM get's enough of it.
Domination and Death Dominate everything then kill them quickly. Only works @ 30, but is broken multiple ways.
Battlemind Mc Prone-Daze Protecting your allies by keeping enemies away. Quite powerful.
The Retaliator Getting hit deals more damage to the enemy then you receive yourself, and you can take plenty of hits. Heavy item dependency, Broken.
Dead Kobold Transit Teleports 98 squares a turn, and can bring someone along for the ride. Not fully built, so i can't judge the power
Psilent Guardian Protect your allies, while being invisible. Overpowered, possibly broken
Unnamed Avenger|Runepriest/Hammer of Vengance Do lot's of damage while boosting your teams. Strong to slightly overpowered.
Charedent BarrageA charging ardent. Fine in a normal team, overpowered if there are 2 together, and easily broken in teams of 5.
Super Knight A tough, sticky, high damage knight. Strong.
Super Duper Knight Basically the same as super knight, only far more broken.
Mora, the unkillable avenger Solid damage, while being neigh indestuctable. Overpowered, but not broken.
Swordburst Maximus At-Will Close Burst 3 that slide and prones. Protects allies with off actions. Strong, possibly over powered with the right party.
|
|
|
|
9 months ago ::
Oct 11, 2012 - 4:04PM
#254
|
|
|
I disagree.
That kind of synergy is exactly the kind of thing which Warlords SHOULD be able to amplify.
If there is an issue with Wizard spells being too numerous and powerful that a Warlord allowing another to be cast is overpowered then that's a problem with the Wizard spells, not the Warlord action granting.
Likewise if there is an issue with WYTAA powers activating again then that is only emphasising the need for them to be unfolded out of "actions" and into a category of their own to prevent these issues.
In other words, we are showing problems NOT with Warlord action granting but instead with Wizard spell (power and/or number per day) and WYTAA abilities (especially potential for stacking).
|
|
|
|
9 months ago ::
Oct 11, 2012 - 4:20PM
#255
|
Date Joined:
Feb 19, 2009
|
Unless there is at least the potential for the "grant an attack" option to be BETTER than the Warlord just making the attack themselves, why would you ever do it?
(Not a rhetorical question.)
|
|
|
|
9 months ago ::
Oct 11, 2012 - 6:56PM
#256
|
|
|
Unless there is at least the potential for the "grant an attack" option to be BETTER than the Warlord just making the attack themselves, why would you ever do it?
(Not a rhetorical question.)
Well, exactly.
That's why I suggested either significantly enhanced "granted actions" (advantage and/or substantial damage bonusesw) OR "granted actions" AS WELL as a Warlord attack.
|
|
|
|
9 months ago ::
Oct 11, 2012 - 8:36PM
#257
|
Date Joined:
Oct 26, 2004
|
Reasons for a warlord to give up his action for another character to get an attack or MINOR spell.
1. Other character might have ongoing buff/item that gives said character an edge.
2. Other character can target the creature that needs to die right now, i.e. not bogged down by the mook screen.
3. Other character might be in 'one-on-one' combat.
4. Attack/Minor spell may have rider or specific effect needed.
6. Ally might be in advantageous position and thus have a better chance of hitting/critting.
7. Warlord doesn't feel like getting out from behind his nice safe wall.
8. Because making the little puppets do as you command is fun.
The way I see it the basic at-will version of the warlord ability needs to allow attacks, and minor spells only, and do so without triggering the WYTAA stuff.
Bigger granted actions and special bonuses can be use limited abilities and/or gained at higher levels.
|
|
|
|
9 months ago ::
Oct 11, 2012 - 11:49PM
#258
|
|
|
I'd think of keeping it related to specific actions.
United Strike
When you make a melee attack against a figure you may grant a basic attack to an ally also adjacent to that figure.
Coordinated Attack
When you make a ranged attack against a target you may grant an ally within 30 feet a basic ranged attack or cantrip against the same target.
Evade
You use your reaction to allow an ally within 30 feet to move without provoking an AoO once per turn if you have moved 10 feet this round.
Of course for my Warlord these also cost TS die but you can keep the concept without them. Why can't you just grant an ally a basic attack?
|
|
|
|
9 months ago ::
Oct 11, 2012 - 11:59PM
#259
|
Date Joined:
Sep 26, 2001
|
Maybe I missed something, but it seems like even those of us who want to see the Warlord class are milling around the idea of it being something like a Fighter, anyway, with a CS-like dice pool and so forth.
5e classes are supposed to harken back to the original vision of the class, are they not? To evoke the core concept of it?
What is the definitive version of the Warlord?
Well, the /only/ version of the warlord is the 4e version, so I guess it's the definitive one. The Warlord had Inspiring Words, Commanding Presence, and he had both at-will and limited-use exploits to manage.
Each class is supposed to be mechanically distinct. Rather than making the Warlord kinda like the fighter but doing different things with his dice pool, why not give it it's own unique mechanics?
I don't see any other 5e classes using AEDU...
Love 4e? Concerned about its future? Join the Old Guard of 4e"You want The Tooth? You can't handle The Tooth!" - Dahlver-Nar. "If magic is unrestrained in the campaign, D&D quickly degenerates into a weird wizard show where players get bored quickly" - E. Gary Gygax
|
|
|
|
9 months ago ::
Oct 12, 2012 - 5:35AM
#260
|
Date Joined:
Jan 15, 2009
|
Maybe I missed something, but it seems like even those of us who want to see the Warlord class are milling around the idea of it being something like a Fighter, anyway, with a CS-like dice pool and so forth.
People are actually asking I think for an underlying theme to the mechanics (a consistancy for martial classes atleast)
And many of us here are still progressives in spite of the nostalgia influence we see, so we are trying to connect with new and interesting is attractive, AEDU had benefits on its own but its primary one (systematic universality) isnt available in 5e.
|
|
|
