Warlord vs. Str. Cleric

[Ridley's Cohort]

Am I the only one here who actually likes their Inspiring Warlord?

It sounds like most of the complaints I hear cite the fact that Warlords essentially aren't strikers or controllers (and occasionally, defenders). I hear a lot of complaints about them not doing enough damage; well, is that really a good argument when talking about a leader? Why should I complain about not doing damage when I just set up the Rogue to flank and made him score a huge Sneak Attack with Hammer and Anvil?

Isn't there supposed to be some fun in enabling victory over being the one to acheive it?

I diagnose this as a matter of Sex Appeal of the suite of abilities.

That is the same problem as the 1e/2e/3e Cleric. There was never any actual balance problem -- Clerics were, if anything, more consistently effective overall than the other classes.

Let's face it, we play for fun. And for most people there is a better emotional payoff getting a few moments in the spotlight, than never being in the spotlight, or always being the person pointing the spotlight on someone else.

Most people will actually enjoy handing a serving of glory to a friend about as much getting some more themselves if they feel like their share of the glory is close to fair. I have played a number of Enabler characters, and I do not mind getting a lesser amount of time in the spotlight; but I do want the option to be there some of the time.

I agree with Mad Mac about the identity issue. The concept of Warlord seems to imply someone can dish it out, maybe not all the time, but at least some of the time.

 

[Rashak Mani]

We have a tactical Warlord in our first 4E group... and he does seem frustrated. Even though he did pull off a great maneuver in the last game... getting two other characters into flanking positions and really avoiding a nasty flanking of one of our own. But these moments are rare compared to the delight of swinging and getting some damage in oneself.

I feel the warlord misses way too many attacks due to MAD. He has 18 int.

The fighter in our group is a bit chaotic... she tends to run ahead into trouble. Not only making it hard for her to cooperate with the Warlord... but requiring him to spend overly in her healing.

Yet the more effective the melee guys ... even less will the Warlord shine in comparison.

 

[Ibixat]

My LFR battle cleric is made of awesome.
20 str, 13 wis.
Intend to take no powers, ever, except for turn undead, that require wis.
It's a prof build ... feat selection: scale prof (1), plate prof (2), grandblade prof (4), light shield prof (6), heavy shield prof (8); retrain grandblade prof to bastard sword prof (8r4), student of the sword (10), plate spec (11), etc.
Intend to take kensai as a PP.

To be fair, it's a little overboard, but it's LFR so overboard is the order of the day.

I can see scale at 1, 20 str 13 wis 13 con coverying the 13 for str and con, but how are you managing 15 con with 20 str 13 wis 13 con at level 1 to take plate at level 2?

 

[Ibixat]

I can see scale at 1, 20 str 13 wis 13 con coverying the 13 for str and con, but how are you managing 15 con with 20 str 13 wis 13 con at level 1 to take plate at level 2?

and DDI answers my own question, warforged.

Nevermind =)

 

[Danceofmasks]

It's LFR and I am using an orc creation card.
In all seriousness, I reckon human is a fair bit stronger from a charop perspective, but I heard the first adventure I was gonna play would be set in orc lands.
Err ... so I'm playing an orc for fluff reasons.

 

[Ibixat]

It's LFR and I am using an orc creation card.
In all seriousness, I reckon human is a fair bit stronger from a charop perspective, but I heard the first adventure I was gonna play would be set in orc lands.
Err ... so I'm playing an orc for fluff reasons.

oh cool you had a creation card. I just noticed warforged was a valid choice too for str con... I was going to go dragonborn for my strength cleric, wanted a longtooth shifter but My first lfr event ever won't even be until um, well tomorrow =)

I probably won't even play my cleric, I want to play my rogue more at this time.

 

[Danceofmasks]

I'd play a human over a warforged .. warforged are so out of place in the realms ..
My first choice was actually a fighter, but the folks I play LFR with (13 people at present, will be more soon) already had 3 defenders .. and 1 leader.

 

[Ibixat]

I'm not a fan of warforged in the realms, my history in the realms goes back to playing ruins of adventure and curse of the azure bonds with 2 of my best friends in a game his brother ran for us with 2 other people, must have been 13 or 14 at the time, before that we had done scourge of the slavelords and temple of elemental evil (obviously not FR), I still have very fond memories of all those games.

I guess what gets me is the severe change in the realms since the last setting, they never really jumped this far in one edition before, but the changes were huge, and I like what I see so far. But the warforged in FR still give me the "wtf" response as well.

 

[HazardCatcher]

The Warlord is badly designed.


I played a Dragonborn Inspiring Warlord as my first character during Keep on the Shadowfell. He ended up dying during the last encounter of the night and I was glad. His at-wills were furious smash and wolf pack tactics. Most turns all I was able to do was a melee basic attack because no one was next to me or needed what I was able to offer.

I had a very good idea of how 4e and my character worked. The cleric in the group had picked terrible ability scores and split his at-wills between wisdom and strength. He also had no idea how to play 4e and made terrible tactical choices all night. Because of the range, strength, and versatility of his at-wills he was far more effective and had more fun.

I was most excited about the Warlord class coming out with 4e and this was terribly disappointing.

I honestly hope WotC releases errata changing or improving all four of the Warlord's at-will powers.

The Warlord feels like a cheerleader maybe a quarter of the time at best. The rest he feels like a tacted on mercenary, not a hero, one able to make a melee basic attack and that's it.

 

[Zinovia]

I don't believe that people are disappointed in the inspiring warlord because they want to deal damage like a striker, but rather that you often default to having no option other than a basic attack. Sure, you can use Wolf Pack Tactics or Furious Smash, but if you just can't maneuver so that you and an ally are on the same foe or adjacent to each other, then you get no benefit from that power and may as well use a basic attack. The battle cleric is far more flexible, and seems more effective in combat in addition to being a better healer. The buffs they give with their attacks don't *always* require that an ally be directly adjacent to to them or the same opponent.

The inspiring warlord needs some of their ally-boosting abilities to work at range, or something that lets them more easily get into that tactical position adjacent to a particular foe or ally - perhaps a bonus to charge attacks. I was envisioning someone who can smack the bad guy, and tell his ally "Hit him like this!", not "Well, I only hit him for 3 points, but you go ahead and get him now". Wolf Pack Tactics is a good power, but is highly situational. There's no at-will for the inspiring warlord that is always superior to a basic melee attack. That's what is most disappointing about the class.

I feel that Taclord has better options in combat, but we'll have to see how it plays out. As it is, our dragonborn inspiring warlord is going to transmogrify into a battle cleric mid-game, and she seems very happy at the prospect. She wants to play a leader with a good choice of options, and that turns out to be the cleric, not the inspiring warlord.