To Warlord or Not To Warlord?

[Herremann the Wise]

In our 4e campaign, my Warlord Tiefling Thorn bit the bullet against the big bad evil guy. Thus I was in the position of bringing him back or introducing a new character. I thought I'd go for something new but with 5 other characters, there was not much variety to be had in terms of playing something different - I'm looking forward to PHB II.

It then hit me how much all the other players were hoping I'd bring Thorn back. Not so much because they liked the character I think, as much as how many bonuses he could hand out to the group in every combat. These buffs from a Tactical Warlord seem to be significant, where there are very few ways of increasing your chance of hitting. Getting a huge +5 to hit is huge for characters getting off their dailies and big guns. Along with all the other buffs and assistance he contributes, he actually seems pretty pivotal to the success of the group.

And so I got thinking, does the Warlord make that much of a difference to a party? Do they elevate the efficiency of a group significantly compared to non-warlord groups? Should I bring the Warlord back or try something different?

Any thoughts would be muchly appreciated.

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise

 

[MerricB]

Yes, the Warlord does make that much difference to the party. Most of our adventuring has been done without one, so when Ben can actually play in a session, we notice. Big time.

The bonus the tactical warlord gives the group on an Action Point expenditure is surprisingly effective; the players have learnt to run their dailies or important encounter powers that way. (The half-elf is having a great time also with the human feat that adds an additional +3... getting a +6 or similar bonus to that attack is very nice indeed).

It's also fun watching their Initiatives move into the reasonable range when Ben's around.

Then there's the healing - something, with only a paladin, that they're in short supply of otherwise.

I feel that either the Cleric or a Warlord does indeed make a significant contribution to our group. Yes, we can survive without them and do lots of effective combat, but having a warlord around does help greatly.

Cheers!

 

[Leatherhead]

When my groups leader switched from Warlord to Cleric, the only thing the party missed much was initiative bonus. However, the Cleric made up for it in lots of other ways.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Yes, the Warlord brings a lot to the party. But so does every class. If your party has a lot of guys in melee, he is certainly one of the better choice.

I would certainly try to keep playing him, because I love Warlords.
A tactical Warlord is well suited to avoid The Grind, since he can basically guarantee that most of the "high value" attacks will hit, and he hands out extra attacks to people that can make the most out of it.
(An inspiring Warlord by comparison tends to boost healing, making you - but also the combats - last longer)

A Cleric can also provide a lot of bonus to attacks, but the Tactical Presence feature of course would be missing.

Ultimiately, I think most group composition can prove viable, but its get more interesting if you have different classes and roles.

 

[Gort]

When my groups leader switched from Warlord to Cleric, the only thing the party missed much was initiative bonus. However, the Cleric made up for it in lots of other ways.

One thing my group are loving about my inspiring warlord is getting 5 HP and a free saving throw at +3 every time they use an action point.

 

[Herschel]

Warlords are really good, especially for a melee-heavy party. Working properly, they make a party much more efficient. They're sneaky-awesome.

Clerics are good too, but I prefer the Warlord in melee-based so far and Clerics for ranged-based parties. YMMV.

 

[Dedekind]

One thing my group are loving about my inspiring warlord is getting 5 HP and a free saving throw at +3 every time they use an action point.

My group likes that, too. Martial Power really increases the variety for the Warlord. I really like the powers and the feats, and some of them are must haves to me. For example, there are 3 Level 6 Utilities that I would love to have.

 

[Dedekind]

Not so much because they liked the character I think, as much as how many bonuses he could hand out to the group in every combat. These buffs from a Tactical Warlord seem to be significant, where there are very few ways of increasing your chance of hitting. Getting a huge +5 to hit is huge for characters getting off their dailies and big guns. Along with all the other buffs and assistance he contributes, he actually seems pretty pivotal to the success of the group.

Herremann the Wise

Did you look at the Resourceful Presence build in Martial Power? It is focused on providing timely bonuses. For example, Resourceful presence gives a bonus to damage on an attack, but if it misses they get hp instead. Several of the powers function such that the ally can choose what bonus they wish to apply.

 

[blargney the second]

Tactical warlords rock. I love giving extra attacks to strikers that failed to get their class bonus damage during their turn. We shred stuff, and it's wicked fun.
-blarg

 

[Starfox]

Isn't the Warlord melee-oriented to the point of being crippled? Honest question here - not played with one - but our typical party composition only has 1-2 people in melee and the Warlord actually needs people next to him in order to do anything.

Seems you people find them viable anyways.