NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="MechaPilot" data-source="post: 7367535" data-attributes="member: 82779">Situationally.  If the warlord does slightly more damage (i.e. 4 attacks) or slightly less damage (i.e. 3 attacks), then action granting is best used at a distance and for acceleration.  A good example of this would be if an enemy is farther away than the warlord can move, but an ally of the warlord is adjacent to that enemy, especially if that enemy has proved to have devastating attacks and the group wants to whittle that enemy down quickly.Other good examples include if an ally has a magic weapon, or a different type of weapon than the warlord, which bypasses a resistance or plays to a vulnerability of an enemy.I'm not worried about the -5/+10 feat builds.  One, feats are optional (I use them, but they are optional).  Two, I have yet to see these feats be a problem in actual play.  I see people (predominantly Zardnaar) complaining about them online, but the player at my table with that feat never broke anything by using that feat, even when his character was blessed.Re: Lazylords, I'm not entirely certain what that jargon refers to.  I've had warlords at my table in 4e, but no one ever called their character a lazylord.  Is that a Char Op term?  Because I don't really visit Char Op boards.You don't use shocking grasp on the warlord to negate action-granting; you use it on the ally of the warlord who you don't want to be able to take off-turn attacks, because then they wouldn't have a reaction available to spend on making the off-turn attack.  In your example, this would mean using shocking grasp on the rogue.Ignore?  No.  But, a 7.5 point swing at the highest levels of play is purely de minimums.</blockquote>

Verification