Well heavily-armored archers give me the samurai vibe tbh which is part of what I am looking for with this combo. And honestly I like having both ranged and melee options, especially as a warlock. I want to be able to stay back for 1-2 rounds so that the group is deployed before I pick my melee spot.
Archer Warlord+Battlefront Leader+Armored Warlord? Cheese?
AbdulAlhazred
Legend
There is plenty of historical precedent for heavily armored archers. They were mostly mounted fighters but they existed. Samurai is sort of an example, though it is really a bit hard to say exactly how their style of armor would be rated in D&D terms since it was mostly not even made of metal. I think its more on the order of something similar to chain perhaps, but its a debatable point.
In terms of using the Archer Warlord powers though there's no NEED to be an Archer Warlord, you still get to use STR. Admittedly your RBA won't be STR based, but RBA's don't come up that often, especially on warlords who are usually granting them, not taking them. Mixing stuff like this can be somewhat tricky but all warlords are STR primary so its not like a big deal. Take Armored Warlord and carry a bow for a backup ranged weapon if you want, or even a hand crossbow if you don't want to deal with shield issues and aren't going to be taking a bunch of shots in a row.
In terms of using the Archer Warlord powers though there's no NEED to be an Archer Warlord, you still get to use STR. Admittedly your RBA won't be STR based, but RBA's don't come up that often, especially on warlords who are usually granting them, not taking them. Mixing stuff like this can be somewhat tricky but all warlords are STR primary so its not like a big deal. Take Armored Warlord and carry a bow for a backup ranged weapon if you want, or even a hand crossbow if you don't want to deal with shield issues and aren't going to be taking a bunch of shots in a row.
Ferghis
First Post
I agree, it's probably not RAI. I'm no expert of the game, but I don't know of any other situation where a character is able to wear a heavier armor without being proficient in all the lighter ones. It seems like an errata requiring proficiency in chainmail before allowing scale is in order.
Having said that, if the character is not very optimized, I wouldn't houserule the proposed errata. If you and your DM are clear about the character fluff, and it fits, it doesn't warrant a patch. The patch would only be needed to deter abuse.
The DM is one of my players who decided to set up a second group for 5 of us who would not mind running two games a week, and I don't think he'll mind the concept.
DracoSuave
First Post
In terms of it being abusing:
You're taking a feat to gain a net of +1 AC, vs you're taking a feat to gain a net of +1 AC, if and only if you don't have 18 Intellegence at creation.
Contrast that with what the feat normally gives you: A net of +2 AC and +1 Reflexes.
Generally abuses are what occur when you get an advantage -above- baseline. If the best you can do is break even, then you're not really abusing it all too much.
You're taking a feat to gain a net of +1 AC, vs you're taking a feat to gain a net of +1 AC, if and only if you don't have 18 Intellegence at creation.
Contrast that with what the feat normally gives you: A net of +2 AC and +1 Reflexes.
Generally abuses are what occur when you get an advantage -above- baseline. If the best you can do is break even, then you're not really abusing it all too much.
JohnSnow
Hero
I confess I found myself wondering the exact same thing. I think a careful reading of the intent of the PHB, Martial Power, and Martial Power 2 allows the Warlord to select Combat Leader or one of the alternatives (Battlefront Leader, Canny Leader, or Archer Warlord) AND any Commanding Presence Feature (Inspiring, Tactical, Resourceful, Bravura, Insightful or Skirmishing). Warlords also get Inspiring Word.
Technically speaking, however, Archer Warlord doesn't say "this feature replaces your Combat Leader class feature," even if that's clearly how it's used in MP2. So I suppose you could give up your Commanding Presence (or Inspiring Word, but nobody would do that) class feature in order to take both Archer Warlord and Battlefront Leader, even if that seems odd.
However, your character is splitting his focus by doing this, and your group loses out on the benefits that Commanding Presence provides. I'd say whether the cost is worth the versatility your character gains probably depends a great deal on your group and your DM.
What is NOT legal is taking Archer Warlord, Battlefront Leader and also getting the benefit of a Commanding Presence feature. It may still be suboptimal, but for the cost of one feat, you could have better weapons AND better armor than any other warlord (and make str-based ranged basic attacks) without giving up anything. Suboptimal or not, that would be unfair.
But if you want to give up a key class feature for it? Sure, why not? It's probably dumb, but I'd agree that it's legal.
Technically speaking, however, Archer Warlord doesn't say "this feature replaces your Combat Leader class feature," even if that's clearly how it's used in MP2. So I suppose you could give up your Commanding Presence (or Inspiring Word, but nobody would do that) class feature in order to take both Archer Warlord and Battlefront Leader, even if that seems odd.
However, your character is splitting his focus by doing this, and your group loses out on the benefits that Commanding Presence provides. I'd say whether the cost is worth the versatility your character gains probably depends a great deal on your group and your DM.
What is NOT legal is taking Archer Warlord, Battlefront Leader and also getting the benefit of a Commanding Presence feature. It may still be suboptimal, but for the cost of one feat, you could have better weapons AND better armor than any other warlord (and make str-based ranged basic attacks) without giving up anything. Suboptimal or not, that would be unfair.
But if you want to give up a key class feature for it? Sure, why not? It's probably dumb, but I'd agree that it's legal.
DracoSuave
First Post
I think a careful reading of the MP2 shows that Archer Warlord has nothing to do with Combat Leader and everything to do with the proficiency selection. Further careful reading shows that Battlefront Leader is explicitly mentioned to be intended to go with any Warlord build, explicitly including the Skirmishing Warlord, which includes the Archer Warlord.
When you argue 'Rules as Intended' you need to be aware when they claim in the primary source what their intentions are. Sometimes they lay it out for you.
Further, the Skirmishing Warlord is an Intellegence-based build primarily, which means that with a 16 Intellegence, the 'downside' to Archer Warlord is not one-- Hide and a 16 is the same AC as Chain. If you have an 18 Intellegence (Many warlords go 16/18 rather than 18/16) then you're actually as good as in plate.
Lastly, The gain an Archer Warlord gets from this entire combo is +1 AC (and +1 speed), and a VERY minor benefit with bows they're rarely likely to use. Contrast with Non-Archer Warlords doing this, who get +2 AC, +1 Reflexes, and +1 speed.
Again, where is the abuse when what you are ending up with is -below- the baseline?
JohnSnow
Hero
Indeed. And that's what I'm basing this on. From the "Suggested Options" section under "Skirmishing Warlord" in Martial Power 2, I quote:
Note that this build very explicity contains only two class features in addition to Inspiring Word, just like every other one. The Skirmishing Warlord specifically says that archer warlord is a class feature you can select "instead of another option." In this case, Archer Warlord is selected in place of the PHB's Combat Leader feature, and Skirmishing Presence is the Commanding Presence selection. However, I freely admit that Archer Warlord does not explicitly state that it replaces your Combat Leader Class feature (although as I said, that IS how it's used in the sample build). So that leaves open the (IMO somewhat oddball) option of choosing Battlefront Leader to replace Combat Leader and choosing Archer Warlord in lieu of the Commanding Presence option.
As I said, I think it's RAW legal to take Archer Warlord and Battlefront Leader and not have any Warlord Presence ability, and would allow that. I just don't think it's something the designers expected anyone to do. However, I do feel it's quite clear from what's written that Archer Warlord is an actual class feature that replaces one of your other options, and not just a proficiency swap.
DracoSuave said:
Actually, by my math an 18 INT makes hide equal to scale (+7), not plate (+8). Unless you mean that if you also carry a heavy shield, that you're actually as good as someone in plate and a light shield (+9).
Last edited:
DracoSuave
First Post
tl;dr summary of below: The MP2 features tell you exactly what they are replacing, common sense should apply there.
Seeing as you are quoting here:
ARCHER WARLORD
When you choose the Archer Warlord class feature, you lose proficiency with chainmail and light shields.
I don't read anything in the Archer Warlord section about it being able to replace any class trait at all, except for your proficiencies.
Furthermore, the text YOU are stating demands giving up Combat Leader or Commanding Presence is this:
NEW CLASS FEATURES
You can select the following class features instead of another option, such as the ones presented in the player's handbook or martial power. You need not pick the skirmishing warlord build to select these features.
Under this heading is included Skirmishing Presence. Which, by your logic, means that, because it is under the same general heading and therefore follows the exact same rules as Archer Warlord, that you can select for a warlord Skirmishing Presence and Tactical Presence, using the 'New Class Features' rule you've stated to replace Combat Leader with Tactical Presence, and Skirmishing Presence to replace... well, Tactical Presence.
However, you'll then take notice that Skirmishing Presence tells you exactly what it replaces:
'When you choose a Commanding Presence, you can select the following option.'
This means that under the heading you described, the feature that is replacing dictates what option it replaces. As well, Combat Leader is not technically an option, it's a set in stone class feature. Which also means by your logic, the only thing Battlefront Leader and Canny Leader can replace is your Commanding Presence.
Obviously, that doesn't make sense, seeing as the Insightful Build goes ahead and shows you that Canny Leader and a Commanding Presence option are living side by side.
The only conclusion made from that, then, is that Canny Leader and Battlefront Leader's telling you what class trait they replace (Combat Leader) means only what it says there, that the only thing it replaces is Combat Leader. And therefore, by logical extention, the only thing Archer Warlord replaces is exactly what it says there, your proficiency with shields and chainmail.
1) You're not carrying a heavy shield as an archer warlord.
2) If you're NOT an archer warlord, and you're a one-handed weapon user (no compelling reason not to with a Warlord, unless you want reach), then chain mail + light shield does upgrade to scale mail + heavy shield. Which is better than plate and light shield. AC is the same, but the extra point of reflexes and speed and skill checks is nothing to sneeze at.
3) Edit: My mentioning of plate there was a typo, my bad.
ppaladin123
Adventurer
Actually the archer/skirmisher build uses wisdom or intelligence. As the archer feature is currently written, you get screwed if you wanted to make wisdom your secondary score since you'll end up with around 13-14 AC total (depending on your dex mod). I don't have a problem with letting people choose battlefront commander and then pick up scale proficiency. Combat leader isn't all that great for a wisdom-warlord anyway.
For intelligence-warlords it is probably not a good idea to turn in combat leader (it becomes very good once you get to paragon and pick up the upgrade). For wisdom-archer-warlords it is basically required (and a feat tax).
I expect this all to be the subject of errata in May, actually. With any luck they'll also change the paragon feat feat to allow wisdom bonus to initiative or at least offer an equivalent feat for the canny leader alternative (the one that gives bonuses to perception and insight).
For intelligence-warlords it is probably not a good idea to turn in combat leader (it becomes very good once you get to paragon and pick up the upgrade). For wisdom-archer-warlords it is basically required (and a feat tax).
I expect this all to be the subject of errata in May, actually. With any luck they'll also change the paragon feat feat to allow wisdom bonus to initiative or at least offer an equivalent feat for the canny leader alternative (the one that gives bonuses to perception and insight).
