Warlord - punished for sacraficing

I'm just starting with 4th Ed after years of 3rd, and had heard good things about the Warlord (I like to metagame combat tactics ) and also how 4th Ed was so well balanced with regards to classes. Unfortunately I hit a wall with the Warlord in that there isn't any build option which doesn’t violate my rule against punishing players who build to help others. Each of the "Presence" class features is really nice - for everyone other than the Warlord. For example (this, I think, is the best of them):

Bravura Presence

When an ally who can see you spends an action point to take an extra action and uses the action to make an attack, the ally can choose to take advantage of this feature before the attack roll. If the ally chooses to do so and the attack hits, the ally can either make a basic attack or take a move action after the attack as a free action. If the attack misses, the ally grants combat advantage to all enemies until the end of his or her next turn.

Click to expand...

I think it would be pretty cool to make that decision (extra attack worth the risk of failure?) and see the consequences during a fight. I think it would be less fun to watch everyone BUT me be able to weigh up the situation and make that call. The deal breaker though, is that this ability is one of the Warlord’s few core class features. The other classes get just as many, and they look just as useful - but they are useful for the person who has them. I could find very few abilities which would reciprocate this favor the Warlord is expected to grant.

I have trouble explaining it but its like if every class had 4 "Kewl Abilties" but one of the Warlord's abilities was only to grant a neat power to everyone else. That means, in reality, the Warlord only has 3 Kewl Abilities while everyone else now has 5. Sure, the party overall is way better off, but how much fun is it for guy who is now two powers behind the curve?


Another way to look at it: If you played a Warlord solo as opposed to a fighter solo, would they do equally well ? I'm assuming that the Warlord would be weaker because they have these useful-only-to-others abilities that would go unused. If that's the case, then Warlord is weaker than Fighter solo. Not really balanced. Now suppose you put the two together or into a group. The Warlord gains no abilties from the Fighter but the Fighter gains cool stuff from the Warlord. So the Warlord is weaker solo, and everyone but the Warlord gains strength when grouped? That's even less balanced.

I know some people enjoy “taking one for the team” and all that, but I ain't him and I also (as a DM) don't want to punish my players like that. In my book, it's just plain bad design. You should not use peer pressure or hearty slaps-on-the-back to balance out game mechanics. 3.5 sucks in that the Cleric has to waste his actions to heal others, but the class is given other benefits to balance out that sacrifice. I couldn’t find any such balancing here – though I’m a total newb and could be missing something.

Ki Ryn said:

I couldn’t find any such balancing here – though I’m a total newb and could be missing something.

Click to expand...

The balancing factor is that if you don't like the Warlord, you don't play the Warlord. The Warlord exists solely for those people that enjoy giving things to other players.

Commander's Strike = you never get to attack
Furious Smash = you deal reduced damage to improve an ally's attack
Opening Shove = no damage to do a little push and move an ally

And yes, a Warlord solo against a Fighter solo would lose. So? 4e is NOT balanced in terms of PvP. They never even considered PvP. If you're doing PvP with your party, something is going extremely wrong.

As for 3.x Cleric being "given other benefits to balance out that sacrifice." If you mean "whenever you they were not being a healbot, they completely obliterated everything that stood against them," then yes, they were compensated. That didn't make it balanced either.

And if you're being pressured into playing a specific class... Most people I know would either leave that group or punch the person pressuring them. There is a huge difference between playing something that someone tells you to play and playing something you want to play.

The warlord just is not for everybody. It starts with simple stuff like commander's strike. Giving away your standard action so someone else can roll? Not my cup of tea, but I've met great players who enjoy exactly this.
They tend to be highly skill in combat tactics, and use their leader role in combat to combine good thinking with powers that apply it to battle moves. The warlord powers also give you the feeling of being a commander.

I do feel that the leaders don't get even innate awesome. I have no problem with a class thathelps the the party, but what's wrong with them being innately awesome while they do it?

In my game, I made a houserule that once per encounter a warlord (and cleric) can make one ability or power that affects only their allies also affect them.

The "awesomeness" you're supposed to feel when playing a Warlord is when your ally kills the solo, when your ally wipes the floor with her Daily, when your ally carries the day. The Warlord is for the quiet satisfaction that none of the celebration would have happened without your involvement.

Don't play a Warlord if you need a place in the spotlight, simple as that.

Following the discussions on these boards, WotC seems to have succeeded in balancing the class. (At least they have succeeded much better than for the 3E Bard, that's for sure)

I would be wary of giving it bonuses myself, it's all too easy to overestimate "awesome" powers of destruction and underestimate buffs and boosts as it is.

CapnZapp said:

Don't play a Warlord if you need a place in the spotlight, simple as that.

Click to expand...

Its not quite as simple as that.

For example, let's say a character wants to a play a "smart fighter". Perfectly normal archetype. In 4e, there is no advantage for a fighter with int, dex is better in every way. The best alternative to the smart fighter is the tactical warlord. But now I've not just picked a mold to fit my desired flavor, I've now also changed my role to the "selfless class".

But a person may not want to just be selfless, they want to play a smart fighter, etc.

Its the same if a person wants to be an archer, they are going to be a ranger. You can't play a fighter and be an archer, etc.

So I agree that while its fine for the leaders to lean towards group play, it shouldn't require complete selflessness. Let a warlord buff the party...but get a little out of it himself.

CapnZapp said:

Following the discussions on these boards, WotC seems to have succeeded in balancing the class. (At least they have succeeded much better than for the 3E Bard, that's for sure)

Click to expand...

I fervently hope that the 4E bard is as good as the Warlord

CapnZapp said:

I would be wary of giving it bonuses myself, it's all too easy to overestimate "awesome" powers of destruction and underestimate buffs and boosts as it is.

Click to expand...

Let's remember that "self-buffing til it was a better Fighter than the Fighter" was what made the 3E Cleric into an unbalanced mess

Stalker0 said:

Its not quite as simple as that.

For example, let's say a character wants to a play a "smart fighter". Perfectly normal archetype. In 4e, there is no advantage for a fighter with int, dex is better in every way. The best alternative to the smart fighter is the tactical warlord. But now I've not just picked a mold to fit my desired flavor, I've now also changed my role to the "selfless class".

But a person may not want to just be selfless, they want to play a smart fighter, etc.

Its the same if a person wants to be an archer, they are going to be a ranger. You can't play a fighter and be an archer, etc.

So I agree that while its fine for the leaders to lean towards group play, it shouldn't require complete selflessness. Let a warlord buff the party...but get a little out of it himself.

Click to expand...

Now you're discussing archetypes.

WotC have said flat out that each 4E class is much more restricted in what archetypes it supports.

That is, the "ranged fighter" arguably doesn't exist in 4E. Because the best fit is the ranger, which gives you a load of abilities and powers not explicitly designed for the "ranged fighter" archetype. You get Hunter's Quarry, for instance. And you're not a tank, and you don't get heavy armor. Basically, you've become a Striker, not a Defender. Which might be exactly what you had in mind for your "ranged fighter". Or not - in which case you're screwed.

Same with the current example.

The ideal solution is to wait for a class that supports your archetype.

The practical solution is to create a new build for the best-fit existing class.

But just adding stuff on top just leads to imbalance. It isn't the 4E way.


So, if I may make a guess; the OP would encounter much less resistance and much more enthusiasm if he clearly showed his mastery of these concepts, perhaps in presenting a new Warlord build. That is, not just adding stuff, but taking away stuff too.

But that's just a guess.

Amphimir Míriel said:

Let's remember that "self-buffing til it was a better Fighter than the Fighter" was what made the 3E Cleric into an unbalanced mess

Click to expand...

Exactly.

If we follow stalker0's advice on this (and normally he gives GREAT advice), we'd turn the warlord into the 3e cleric. I played a 3e cleric. It was teh awesome, and put the other party members to shame 9 times out of 10....and I played him as the party buffer! I could do that and still take out the Big Bad.

I currently play a Genasi Warlord. I picked the class because of the "tactical" aspect, and because I've found - time and again - that buffing works. It's true it takes a certain mind-set to do it well. If that's not your "thang", pick another class.

If you are looking for the "canny fighter" archetype, I think Rogue or Ranger or Swordmage might be a better fit.

Mind you, the fighter gets good benefit of Wisdom.

High wisdom reflects a canny mind, able to see through deceptions. My fighter is Wis 14 and Int 10 and I see no contradiction in playing him very canny and smart.

In D&D, smart just as easily translate to high Wis rather than Int, especially if by 'smart' you mean 'thinks quickly on his feet'.

Though of course, no matter what his stats are, the PC is only ever as tactical as the players. We've all seen 18 INT PC make idiotic decisions

---

I know some people enjoy “taking one for the team” and all that, but I ain't him and I also (as a DM) don't want to punish my players like that. In my book, it's just plain bad design. You should not use peer pressure or hearty slaps-on-the-back to balance out game mechanics. 3.5 sucks in that the Cleric has to waste his actions to heal others, but the class is given other benefits to balance out that sacrifice. I couldn’t find any such balancing here – though I’m a total newb and could be missing something.

Click to expand...

It's not bad design and the warlord is very powerful. It's just a matter of perspective. Every single points of damage dealt that wouldn't have been dealt without the warlord has to be laid at his feet.

When the warlord is using Commander's strike to give an attack with a an Int bonus to a friend, it's really the warlord making the attack, and a pretty powerful one at that. Every time an attack would have missed without the warlord, it's damage that has to be added to the warlord's account. Heck, in many campaign, especially online, it's the warlord's player who rolls the bonus attacks made by the other PCs through the warlords powers.

He's dealing effects through his friends but it's still him dealing these effects. If the player can't see that and don't enjoy the result, play another class. Not every class is for everyone.