My take on the Tactical Warlord section of Warlord Essentials. (Now revised.)

[Obryn]

I don't doubt that this is better advice than the WotC article, but it's definitely lacking in a few different ways from the guides I checked out last night. Those were admittedly better than I expected, with a very reasonable tone, and never really dictated choices so much as pointed out some better ones. They were pretty educational, even if I disagreed with some choices. I could still see a lot of variety coming out of those.

Yours, not so much. For one thing, I think both your guide and your posts have a problem with tone; you're very sure about what's best, communicate this, and leave little room for other options. It's rather off-putting, and would be doubly so if I were a new player. I don't want to be handed a single build; I'd like a discussion of available options and possible traps.

Also, some of your advice I find a bit perplexing. For starters, why are you suggesting Weapon Focus with those At-Wills? Neither have you making a damage roll. Sure, there are always MBAs and your other powers, but it seems like a wasted feat to me. Why not buff up your Leadership abilities with some of those nifty Taclord feats, instead?

For another, I don't understand why a Warlord would want both Opening Shove and Warlord's Strike. Both are very similar, and cover a lot of the same ground. From a certain standpoint, sure, you can use the same feats on both powers, but I just see it as a lack of variety. I don't see how this would either add to a character's optimization, or make them more fun to play. (It's like Avengers who take two melee At-Wills, rather than a bread & butter melee At-Will and a Ranged attack because they were so focused on their Oath they forgot that enemies sometimes end up out of reach.)

-O

 

[MrMyth]

Here would be my own, simple editing of the original article. Your attempt here is a good one, but the length really makes it unmanageable for the original purpose, and the tone comes across as limiting options, rather than providing them.

I do sympathize with your goal, since the given advice is poor in places and outright terrible in others. But substituting it with a lengthy treatise that pushes someone down a single optimized path is not a good solution, in all honesty. It would make for an excellent optimization article in a wiki, but fills a very different role than the short, general advise that these articles are supposed to provide.

[sblock]Tordek, get in there and hold that line! We need covering fire now Mialee! Right. Now, the rest of you, follow me!”
~ Morgan, Veteran Sergeant and Adventurer

Glory comes from command. Glory comes from skilled planning. Glory comes from a small battlefield unit working as a single organism to eliminate every foe in their path. Rather than inspire your companions, react to your enemies’ actions, or incite the party to rash action, you take a direct hand and personally dictate the terms of the battle through proper planning and tactical knowhow. Your attacks create opportunities for your allies, often getting them into the right place at the right time, and providing them with incredible precision for unleashing the most effective attack for any given situation.

As a tactical warlord, you are a leader first and foremost. You do stand on the front-line, and you can take advantage of some of your own bonuses to take on a secondary role of striker. But at heart, you help your allies reach heights of excellence they couldn't dream of without you. Tactical Presence gives allies an accuracy boost when they make attacks from their action points, helping to ensure that no action point spent is wasted. The bonus is equal to one-half your Intelligence modifier, and can be further enhanced by Improved Tactics (Martial Power, page 136) and Tactical Assault to ensure that a single action point can easily turn the tide of battle.

You’re going to be in the thick of things, so defensive feats such as Shield Proficiency (heavy), and Toughness can be good investments. With a high intelligence as your secondary stat, you can take good advantage of wearing light armor and avoid worrying about feats to give proficiency with heavier armors. You can also find a measure of protection by using a weapon with reach, allowing you to fight from the front line without being fully caught up in the fray. Accuracy, however, is even more valuable for you - like many warlords, you require many of your powers to hit in order to provide the greatest effect for the party, so choosing a high proficiency weapon and selecting Weapon Expertise (PHB 2, page 190) can prevent poor dice rolls from constantly ruining your tactical plans.

Power Selection: Tactical warlord powers reflect your leadership, and your ability to take what your allies do well, and make them even more exceptional at it. Look for powers that grant benefits to allies when you hit, or that get them in just the right place to have control of the battlefield.

More than any other warlord's, you can make good use of the at-will attack power Commander's Strike from the Player's Handbook. Not only does your high intelligence mean it will let an ally make exceptionally damaging attacks upon command, it works well in conjunction with your other powers. Use an Encounter power to give an ally a large bonus to attack or damage on one round, and use Commander's Strike on the following round to give him an extra chance to use those bonuses before they run out. The other at-will attack power that serves your role well is Wolf Pack Tactics, which helps provide you a reliable way to get your allies into position. Bonuses to enhance an ally on one hand, mobility and battlefield control on the other - these are the two key elements of the tactical warlord, and you should continue to seek out similar effects in your encounter and daily attack power selections.

Ability Score Spread: Strength 16, Constitution 13, Dexterity 10, Intelligence 16, Wisdom 8, Charisma 11
“... genasi and eladrin both make for excellent tactical warlords ...”
[/sblock]

 

[karlindel]

I do like that you're being constructive about it. I agree that the article has problems. However, I also think that you are a bit heavy-handed in some spots, as you seem to be pushing a particular build as opposed to merely giving good advice. In addition, although being longer means that you can include more information, it is difficult to argue that yours is better if you are not laboring under the same restrictions that the authors of the article had, such as space limitations.

Your race section seems to imply that +2 intelligence is more important than +2 strength. Although there may be a good argument for this viewpoint, I think that it will confuse new players. If you mean that races with a boost to intelligence are also worth looking at, then I think it should be worded more clearly that way.

I think adding in another at-will option or two would be helpful. I agree that Commander's Strike is almost a must take, but Opening Shove is not vastly superior to all other options. Wolf Pack Tactics can be very useful for the Tactical Warlord, as it is extremely versatile.

I think your weapon section could use some work. Although polearms are useful for a warlord, they are not the only option. I think this section should focus on the need for a +3 proficiency bonus weapon, and mention the usefulness of a polearms as reach weapons.

I also think that at least briefly mentioning using a shield in the armor section would be helpful.

I think the feats section focuses a bit too much on weapon expertise (which is a must have, but not necessarily a first choice). For someone consistently using Commander's Strike, Lend Might is more useful than Weapon Expertise as the bonus will come into play more often. Similarly, for a sword and board warlord, Heavy Shield Proficiency might also be taken over Weapon Expertise.

 

[EarthSeraphEdna]

Yours, not so much. For one thing, I think both your guide and your posts have a problem with tone; you're very sure about what's best, communicate this, and leave little room for other options. It's rather off-putting, and would be doubly so if I were a new player. I don't want to be handed a single build; I'd like a discussion of available options and possible traps.

Most of the feats available to a Tactical Presence warlord are, to be earnest, situational chaff. While they are passable, they pale in comparison to certain essential feats, and I feel that discussing lesser alternatives would nearly double the length of each section of the article.

Also, some of your advice I find a bit perplexing. For starters, why are you suggesting Weapon Focus with those At-Wills? Neither have you making a damage roll. Sure, there are always MBAs and your other powers, but it seems like a wasted feat to me. Why not buff up your Leadership abilities with some of those nifty Taclord feats, instead?

That has been corrected. See above.

For another, I don't understand why a Warlord would want both Opening Shove and Warlord's Strike. Both are very similar, and cover a lot of the same ground. From a certain standpoint, sure, you can use the same feats on both powers, but I just see it as a lack of variety. I don't see how this would either add to a character's optimization, or make them more fun to play.

Commander's Strike is for simple situations. Opening Shove is for more complex exigencies and has the benefit of greater versatility than Wolf Pack Tactics.

(It's like Avengers who take two melee At-Wills, rather than a bread & butter melee At-Will and a Ranged attack because they were so focused on their Oath they forgot that enemies sometimes end up out of reach.)

Radiant Vengeance is just plain not worth it due to the impossibility of not being able to apply your Oath of Enmity on it, and while you can in the case of Bond of Censure (DP), it still does not justify the considerable magic item tax and feat tax that you have to pay for using an implement-based at-will attack. Overwhelming Strike (for the shifting and sliding, along with the conversion into a melee basic attack thanks to the Power of Skill feat) and one other melee at-will are the usual picks for an avenger.

 

[EarthSeraphEdna]

Your race section seems to imply that +2 intelligence is more important than +2 strength. Although there may be a good argument for this viewpoint, I think that it will confuse new players. If you mean that races with a boost to intelligence are also worth looking at, then I think it should be worded more clearly that way.

I believe that +2 Intelligence is marginally more vital to a Tactical Presence warlord over +2 Strength.

I think adding in another at-will option or two would be helpful. I agree that Commander's Strike is almost a must take, but Opening Shove is not vastly superior to all other options. Wolf Pack Tactics can be very useful for the Tactical Warlord, as it is extremely versatile.

See above for my analysis of Opening Shove.

I think your weapon section could use some work. Although polearms are useful for a warlord, they are not the only option. I think this section should focus on the need for a +3 proficiency bonus weapon, and mention the usefulness of a polearms as reach weapons.

Reach weapons are just that good for a Tactical Presence warlord, though I suppose a longsword and a light shield could prove to be a barely passable alternative. I feel the need for emphasizing a +3 proficiency bonus was fulfilled.

I think the feats section focuses a bit too much on weapon expertise (which is a must have, but not necessarily a first choice). For someone consistently using Commander's Strike, Lend Might is more useful than Weapon Expertise as the bonus will come into play more often.

It requires you to be adjacent to the enemy. This leads to less flexibility due to the psychological issue of "Hm, I have a reach weapon, but I should stay adjacent anyway because I would get to use Lend Might then...", and besides, Weapon Expertise leads to hitting with, say, Warlord's Favor or Lead the Attack.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Reach weapons are just that good for a Tactical Presence warlord, though I suppose a longsword and a light shield could prove to be a barely passable alternative. I feel the need for emphasizing a +3 proficiency bonus was fulfilled.

I wonder what you would think of our genesi warlord in our epic game...she started with a 16 str and a 16 Int (after race mind you) and used a kopesh for most of her heroic, all of her paragon, and now in epic levels...

and she bought heavy sheild prof so she can weild her second weapon witch is the captian america sheild from AVI as her ranged attack...

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Opening Shove is for more complex exigencies and has the benefit of greater versatility than Wolf Pack Tactics..

Why? How?

Aside from that - what if the party does not have a character with decent basic (melee) attacks? That can happen a lot easier than you might think. It's certainly a problem in the group where I am playing a Warlord and the only other melee combatant is a Protecting Paladin (before Divine Power). I am the one with the best basic attacks in that party.

 

[Obryn]

Most of the feats available to a Tactical Presence warlord are, to be earnest, situational chaff. While they are passable, they pale in comparison to certain essential feats, and I feel that discussing lesser alternatives would nearly double the length of each section of the article.

They would - but that's what an article like this is for. Presenting options, not limiting them. Most Guides take this into account, and yours does not.

Commander's Strike is for simple situations. Opening Shove is for more complex exigencies and has the benefit of greater versatility than Wolf Pack Tactics.

That's just it, though. I disagree with your analysis that having two at-wills that do fundamentally similar things in ideal situations is superior to having a breadth of at-will options that can make a character viable in both ideal and non-ideal situations. See below.

Radiant Vengeance is just plain not worth it due to the impossibility of not being able to apply your Oath of Enmity on it, and while you can in the case of Bond of Censure (DP), it still does not justify the considerable magic item tax and feat tax that you have to pay for using an implement-based at-will attack. Overwhelming Strike (for the shifting and sliding, along with the conversion into a melee basic attack thanks to the Power of Skill feat) and one other melee at-will are the usual picks for an avenger.

And like I said, this is myopic, and a result of looking at characters as purely mathematical exercises rather than characters in a variety of combat situations. Radiant Vengeance isn't oath-able, true. But it gives a character breadth. All melee Avenger at-wills do fundamentally similar things, and a character will use their main one most of the time in melee situations. Adding a ranged at-will gives an Avenger options when they can't close to melee range, due to a status effect, environmental effect, or a flying opponent. Having a second option during ideal situations is, IME, a lot less useful than having a viable option to bring out during less-than-ideal situations in an actual game. In other words, it is the same problem as giving a Taclord both Warlord's Strike and Opening Shove.

-O

 

[EarthSeraphEdna]

I wonder what you would think of our genesi warlord in our epic game...she started with a 16 str and a 16 Int (after race mind you) and used a kopesh for most of her heroic, all of her paragon, and now in epic levels...

Just as you can play a rogue and wield a short sword rather than a dagger, a rapier, or a double sword, you can play a warlord with a khopesh (a +2 proficiency bonus weapon). You simply shall not be as effective as a character with a better weapon.

and she bought heavy sheild prof so she can weild her second weapon witch is the captian america sheild from AVI as her ranged attack...

The magic item in question is not very impressive, and it leaves no room for items such as Iron Armbands of Power or Couters of Second Chances.

Why? How?

It allows an ally to perform a substantial shift or perform a melee basic attack. It can even be used as a substitute for Commander's Strike in tricky scenarios, such as when you are immobilized or dazed and wish to grant a melee basic attack to an ally located 4 squares away from you.

Aside from that - what if the party does not have a character with decent basic (melee) attacks? That can happen a lot easier than you might think. It's certainly a problem in the group where I am playing a Warlord and the only other melee combatant is a Protecting Paladin (before Divine Power). I am the one with the best basic attacks in that party.

A party that lacks members with good melee basic attacks is such a drastic handicap for a Tactical Presence warlord that it would require an entirely different guide (it is not simply a matter of at-wills), yet such a corner case that it would not be worth writing something for.

And like I said, this is myopic, and a result of looking at characters as purely mathematical exercises rather than characters in a variety of combat situations. Radiant Vengeance isn't oath-able, true. But it gives a character breadth. All melee Avenger at-wills do fundamentally similar things, and a character will use their main one most of the time in melee situations. Adding a ranged at-will gives an Avenger options when they can't close to melee range, due to a status effect, environmental effect, or a flying opponent.

What you see as lacking foresight is what I view as prudent power selection. It is superior to have two options that grant you similar, yet distinct, results well than to have one of those be something you can do perform in certain cases only in certain scenarios and only half-heartedly. Take a Censure of Unity avenger, for example. She can use Leading Strike when she has an ally available to grant the bonus to, and Overwhelming Strike for when positioning is going to provide a great benefit, for charges, for opportunity attacks, and for attacks granted by a leader.

In other words, it is the same problem as giving a Taclord both Warlord's Strike and Opening Shove.

See above. Commander's Strike and Opening Shove are similar, yet they are different keys for different locks.

 

[MrMyth]

Reach weapons are just that good for a Tactical Presence warlord, though I suppose a longsword and a light shield could prove to be a barely passable alternative. I feel the need for emphasizing a +3 proficiency bonus was fulfilled.

I think this right here sums up my issues with your version of the article, and why I almost prefer the bad advice reasonably offered than your good advice presented unreasonably.

A warlord with a longsword and a light shield isn't a 'barely passable alternative'. It is a perfectly viable character, with good accuracy on the attacks and some defense to make up for being in the front line. Choosing a nifty magical shield isn't going to cripple the character - Iron Armbands aren't even that valuable for a warlord. Couters of Second Chances, and the one reroll a day they give you - useful, sure, but hardly required for an effective character.

Your standard for what is an acceptable character is wildly out of line with what a character actually needs to be capable of. And because of that - because you are approaching this from the idea that these options aren't just good choices to enhance a character, but are outright required to make the character functional... because of that, your article stops being useful for the people it should actually be intended for.

The goal of a 'Class Essentials' article should be to provide useful tips on the class, help define what makes that class (and build) unique, and put forward some solid general options for those looking to be steered in the right direction. The WotC Warlord article failed at that, by showing a criminal misunderstanding of what a tactical warlord is all about. Your article, on the other hand, gets it from the start - the tactical warlord is the commander of a small, elite wolfpack that overwhelms the foe through a coordinated offense.

But jumping from there to the 'one true way' to build a tactical warlord simply undercuts the goal of an article like this. You want to present options and guidance, not limit choices and force strict rules upon the reader. The article should be about the essentials of building a tactical warlord, not optimizing one, and I think that missing the difference between those two is the single issue that most hurts the point you are trying to make.