Battle Cleric vs. Warlord

[tiornys]

On the subject of "18 is enough" ... that's the sort of thing that leads to "wardens are overpowered" or heck ... "warlords are not weaker than battle clerics"
Wardens are good, sure ... but they're not overpowerd because they don't have a viable 20 stat build.
I do have a lot of 18 stat builds .. heck, my favourite laser cleric build only has 18 wis.
The question must always be asked, which is better for the build - maxed mainstat, or spread out stats?
Well, for 95% of dex and int classes for example, that 20 does so much it's almost a travesty to go anything less.
Of course, even then there are exceptions ... some orbizard builds fall in that 5%.

My cleric does have a ranged at-will of choice ... it's called a magic javelin, yo.
RBA with heavy thrown is better than a wis-based attack on a battle cleric.
As always, backup plans are nice to have, but when it's used once in about 100 attacks, having a half decent sacred flame isn't worth gimping strength for.

So, apparently you believe Warlords are weaker than Battle Clerics? You're going to have to make a better case for that than just listing powers they way you did in your first post. I've seen Battle Clerics in action, and while they are potent, they can't offer the kind of nova power that a well built TacLord can. And, judging from the comments of various posters on WotC's CharOp forum, the other Warlord builds are likewise similarly superior at nova promotion.

Excuse me?
If by 'various posters' you mean people who say "you won't suffer too much to hit" and in the next sentence "grant awesome bonuses if you hit" it's by definition a fail at nova trigger.

By "various posters" I mean people who have actually played Inspiring Warlords, Resourceful Warlords, and Bravura Warlords. Unlike myself. I can't claim anything about these builds based on personal experience, but I can benefit from the experiences of others.

Taclords need hitroll more than anything, 'cos on a miss they do bugger all.
Taclords also need too much int, 'cos that's the value of the bonuses they grant.
The only way a taclord's hitroll bonuses would be competitive with a battle cleric is if the battle cleric doesn't max strength. Or the cleric is in a party that is crap at melee, but that's a different story altogether.

Yes, an OP'ed Battle Cleric can achieve a 1 point higher to-hit than an OP'ed TacLord, although it is slightly more costly for the Battle Cleric to do so (they're either using a dagger or spending a feat on a better weapon; it'd be a significant cost if not for the fact that the TacLord will also usually upgrade to a superior weapon--but if squeezed for feats they can use a longsword for free and be fine). 1 point is obviously significant, but it's hardly the only thing to look at.

In any case, you're wrong about TacLords needing to hit or "do bugger all".

Some things TacLords do by existing:

• Increase the party's initiative. Eventually, by more than twice the boost from Improved Initiative.
• Increase the accuracy and damage of anyone who spends an action point.
• Grant a +2 bonus to all attacks during the first round of combat and the surprise round (if a Battle Captain, which an optimized TacLord is).

Some things TacLords do way better than Clerics without needing to make an attack roll:

• Grant extra attacks to double up on temporary buffs at will (Commander's Strike).
• Grant a round-long sizable damage bonus to an ally once per encounter (Adaptive Stratagem).
• Grant a round-long sizable attack and speed bonus to an ally 3 times per encounter (Battle Inspiration).
• Give away actions to allies, often with boosts.

And, of course, TacLords have access to far more offensively oriented powers that do require them to hit. Which they will do only a little less often than the Battle Cleric. In general, TacLords are comparable at melee attack bonuses (and are strictly better in terms of encounter and daily powers, but behind vs. Righteous Brand on at-wills), superior at ranged/area attack bonuses, superior at mobility, and vastly superior at extra attacks when compared to a Battle Cleric.

Are they weaker at healing? Yes (usually--Eladrins are actually better but are 2 points behind on attack bonus). Are they weaker at defensive buffs? Yes, straight up. Are they weaker at being leaders? Depends on what you value in a leader.

t~

 

[Danceofmasks]

Huh, and the feat investment in much of those things a taclord can do are expensive.
In contrast, a battle cleric can just invest most of their feats on being personally kickass.

Like I've said, a battle cleric should pick up a better weapon early, and not just for the hitroll ...
1) They don't get shields
2) All their powers are [W], so bring the big damage dice.

Battle clerics get enough encounter-long buffs to have one active every battle and brand every round.
They got those daily attack powers that ... wait for it ... provide encounter long buffs ... at the same time as dish out multitarget non-AC targeting [W] attacks.
And remember ... since every single feat a cleric takes increases either personal defense or offense, those [W] attacks are potent.

You underestimate hitroll, you really do. A 1 point difference = 1 less hit every 20 attacks, right?
Well, every single attack a battle cleric makes deals decent damage as well as buff.
If you're dragging PPs into this, heck, I love hitroll so much my cleric MCs Fighter to get into Kensei (though he'll have to get rid of the javelin, then) ... and since he's a fighter anyway, power swap for come and get it.

Yes, that means battle clerics are 'selfish' leaders. Glory hogs.
A charge-brand build deals what, D12 + 10 + D8 + D6 ... 24.5 average? Probably a bit miscalculated. But it's done with a charge. Additional +1 to hit.
Oh, by the way, have +5 to hit this guy.

And that's in heroic tier.
Eventually, a landed brand = "hey you, unless you roll a 1, you hit"

 

[tiornys]

Huh, and the feat investment in much of those things a taclord can do are expensive.
In contrast, a battle cleric can just invest most of their feats on being personally kickass.

Hmm. The things I listed cost only two feats. One adds damage to action points, so it doesn't do anything to make the TacLord personally kickass. The other boosts everyone's initiative, including the TacLord's, so it does help make the TacLord personally kickass. Not actually that expensive.

Like I've said, a battle cleric should pick up a better weapon early, and not just for the hitroll ...
1) They don't get shields
2) All their powers are [W], so bring the big damage dice.

Oh, I agree. That's why I listed it as only slightly more expensive than a Warlord.

Battle clerics get enough encounter-long buffs to have one active every battle and brand every round.
They got those daily attack powers that ... wait for it ... provide encounter long buffs ... at the same time as dish out multitarget non-AC targeting [W] attacks.
And remember ... since every single feat a cleric takes increases either personal defense or offense, those [W] attacks are potent.

Not denying that a Battle Cleric is an effective character. None of this addresses my primary point of contention: Warlords are better at enabling early combat novas than Battle Clerics. If you agree with that assessment, then we can discuss how valuable that ability is. I personally think it is very valuable because early elimination of an enemy or two makes the encounter significantly easier.

You underestimate hitroll, you really do. A 1 point difference = 1 less hit every 20 attacks, right?
Well, every single attack a battle cleric makes deals decent damage as well as buff.

No, really, I don't underestimate it. I've played 28 levels of a starting 18 Str (Dragonborn) TacLord and I've played 13 levels of a starting 16 Str (Eladrin) TacLord. I know exactly how valuable that extra +1 was.

Oh, and every attack I made with the Dragonborn did decent damage. Every attack I make with the Eladrin does strong damage (thanks to Eladrin Soldier). And buffs, of course.

If you're dragging PPs into this, heck, I love hitroll so much my cleric MCs Fighter to get into Kensei (though he'll have to get rid of the javelin, then) ... and since he's a fighter anyway, power swap for come and get it.

Yeah, Kensei's a good choice, although it's just as available to a TacLord. TacLords, however, have a superior option.

Yes, that means battle clerics are 'selfish' leaders. Glory hogs.
A charge-brand build deals what, D12 + 10 + D8 + D6 ... 24.5 average? Probably a bit miscalculated. But it's done with a charge. Additional +1 to hit.
Oh, by the way, have +5 to hit this guy.

And that's in heroic tier.
Eventually, a landed brand = "hey you, unless you roll a 1, you hit"

And around that same time, the TacLord can say "hey you, unless you roll a 1, you hit" by spending a minor action. Without needing to hit. Sure, they can't do it at-will, but really, how many rounds of that do you need?

t~

 

[Elric]

In a melee heavy party, a Battle Cleric that starts with 20 Strength and takes Righteous Brand has the best leader at-will by far. If you're at low heroic and are using mainly at-wills, it's going to be hard for any other leader to compete.

That said, by Paragon tier characters are at their maximum of four encounter powers and, as long as fights don't run on too much, the percentage of the time a character has to use their at-will drops significantly.

 

[Danceofmasks]

I think your assessment of "decent damage" and mine are somewhat different.
Wanna compare damage output level by level?

On the subject of novas (you did not specify early combat novas), Brand is right up there.
1) It hits more often than a warlord's attacks
2) It applies to all melee attack rolls ... meaning your ally can AP and get that bonus multiple times. On the most effective powers.

But that's still beside the point. Taclords add initiative, clerics don't.
So what?
If we're talking 'making combats significantly easier,' a precast shield of faith nerfs every incoming AC targeting attack by -2.
So can Divine Power (though generally speaking, dishing out more damage while 'only' buffing self + defender is probably a better use for it)

Your claim that "I did decent damage, and buffs too" is weak. Doesn't the cleric hit more often, deal more damage, and grant bigger buffs?

 

[kugelkj]

this isn't an apples to apples comparison... the taclord leads in melee by giving out extra attacks to his allies AND buffing hitroll/damage, not by being a glory hog as you say.

the twin strike/sure strike argument applies here, getting to hitroll more often trumps getting to hitroll with a bonus.

My heroic tier eladrin taclord uses commanders strike with lend might to give +3 hit (+2 flank, +1 lend might) and +INT mod damage... so flanking with the striker (avenger in this case) allows me to dish out MUCH more damage (fullblade) than any battle cleric can with far superior accuracy than righteous brand can deliver (esp if its the only adj. mob and he gets to hitroll twice with those bonuses) and crit chance just blow the battle cleric damage out of the water.

additionally, i use opening shove with warding shield style and a heavy shield to give me a +5 total proficiency bonus (+3 longsword, +2 heavy shield) and give superior control (shift INT mod AND push 1) or an extra attack (though I don't do any damage)

the taclord just works in a totally different way than a battle cleric... comparison = fail

 

[Blackbrrd]

In a melee heavy party, a Battle Cleric that starts with 20 Strength and takes Righteous Brand has the best leader at-will by far. If you're at low heroic and are using mainly at-wills, it's going to be hard for any other leader to compete.

Actually, I think the Bard's Guiding Strike is pretty good as well. It gives the target a -2 penalty to a defense of choice until EOYNT.

In a party with many characters targetting AC, (For instance a Bard/Fighter/Ranger/Rogue/Wizard party), it effectively gives 4 characters a +2 bonus to hit.

Another kicker is as noted above - the bard's next attack also has a greater chance of hitting.

Personally I think the Inspiring Warlord has a lot going for him. At level 7 he has three powers he can use each encounter to boost to-hit and/or damage for the whole party vs one opponent by approximately his charisma score.

Personally I would go with the Cleric to get better healing, there are some preeeetty broken powers out there. To buff the party I would go for a Warlord of some kind.

Example level 10 Inspiring Warlord submitted:

Spoiler

====== Created Using Wizards of the Coast D&D Character Builder ======
Ghesh, level 10
Dragonborn, Warlord
Commanding Presence: Inspiring Presence
Dragon Breath Key Ability: Dragon Breath Strength
Dragon Breath Damage Type: Dragon Breath Acid

FINAL ABILITY SCORES
Str 21, Con 13, Dex 10, Int 8, Wis 10, Cha 19.

STARTING ABILITY SCORES
Str 17, Con 13, Dex 10, Int 8, Wis 10, Cha 15.


AC: 27 Fort: 23 Reflex: 19 Will: 22
HP: 75 Surges: 8 Surge Value: 19

TRAINED SKILLS
Intimidate +16, Heal +10, Athletics +13, Diplomacy +14

UNTRAINED SKILLS
Acrobatics +3, Arcana +4, Bluff +9, Dungeoneering +5, Endurance +4, History +6, Insight +5, Nature +5, Perception +5, Religion +4, Stealth +3, Streetwise +9, Thievery +3

FEATS
Level 1: Improved Inspiring Word
Level 2: Shield Proficiency (Heavy)
Level 4: Saving Inspiration
Level 6: Inspired Recovery
Level 8: Armor Proficiency (Scale)
Level 10: Toughness

POWERS
Warlord at-will 1: Furious Smash
Warlord at-will 1: Wolf Pack Tactics
Warlord encounter 1: Hammer and Anvil
Warlord daily 1: Lead by Example
Warlord utility 2: Inspired Belligerence
Warlord encounter 3: Warlord's Strike
Warlord daily 5: Staggering Spin
Warlord utility 6: Rousing Words
Warlord encounter 7: War of Attrition
Warlord daily 9: Warlord's Recovery
Warlord utility 10: Instant Planning

ITEMS
Luckblade Longsword +2, Recoil Shield Heavy Shield (heroic tier), Healer's Brooch +2, Fey-Blessed Circlet (heroic tier), Luckbender Gloves (heroic tier), Shielding Girdle (heroic tier), Boots of the Fencing Master (heroic tier), Drakescale Armor of Durability +2, Reckless Throwing hammer +1
====== Copy to Clipboard and Press the Import Button on the Summary Tab ======

 

[UngeheuerLich]

@ Battle cleric:

20 Strength:

you get: an incresead chance to hit for the whole party including you. A really good strength at will that doesn´t do anything besides damage...
+1 fort

you lose:
- some of your wisdom bonus to healing surges
- durability
- a ranged at will that grants a save
- a bit of your will defense
- initiative/religion
- heal skill bonuses...
- reflex

Is it worth pumping strength to 20?
yes. For a completely combat orientated build

Is it terrible to have only 18 Strength? NO!

Is a battle cleric better than a warlord? In most cases yes, because the warlord is better designed. If righterous brand would have a wisdom secondary effect, the battle cleric would really be back to normal levels as you lose any viable 20 build and get a viable 16 strength build instead...

actually the warlord is not better designed, rather a bit too conservative...

 

[Elric]

Actually, I think the Bard's Guiding Strike is pretty good as well. It gives the target a -2 penalty to a defense of choice until EOYNT.

In a party with many characters targetting AC, (For instance a Bard/Fighter/Ranger/Rogue/Wizard party), it effectively gives 4 characters a +2 bonus to hit.

That is very good! I don't think I realized that it's until end of your next turn, so the bard benefits from it as well. If you can focus fire effectively, that's a lot of to-hit bonuses. However, it doesn't set up characters for "nova" type turns in the same way.

Battle Clerics and Warlords are great complements. A party of a Great Weapon Fighter/Barbarian, 3 Warlords with high Int (likely with Greatspears), and a Battle Cleric would be incredibly lethal (a bunch of Commander's Strike attacks that are very likely to hit every round, and that's not even getting into encounter powers like Adaptive Stratagem). I saw someone report using that party to great effect on the WotC charop boards.

 

[Blackbrrd]

If you are going for a party with multiple Warlords, I would go for one with at least one Inspiring and one Tactical. The Inspiring Warlord is awesome at buffing damage. To complement it, I would have had Rangers to get maximum out of the static damage buffs.