Excerpt: The Warlord

[ryryguy]

Odd. As a current history student, I can separate it from the modern, anachronistic meaning that doesn't have any relevance to the class, and use the classic, mythological and fantasy literature -inspired meaning without any problems.

I can totally separate it too - as I said, using it for the class name doesn't bother me. But for whatever reason, for me the modern meaning pops up in my head before the classic/fantasy meaning. Perhaps after 4e comes out and we play with this new class for a while, that will switch around.

And... I've never commented on the Warlord class name before, in fact just created an account to comment on it because I think this is an interesting point. Deal with it.

(I promise not to keep commenting on it forever. )

 

[Hussar]

I could have lived with Warleader as well. Then again, I've been reading Steven Erikson of late, and the idea of Warleader is just frikkin cool.

I gotta go with John Snow on this one. While specifically a cleric may not have been required, you pretty much had to have something that did the job just as well - Favored Soul, etc. A group without any divine spells died. End of story.

And, try playing beyond about 13th level without access to Heal spells.

 

[fba827]

So far, I like what I'm seeing with the Warlord, but one of my personal pet peeves has reared its ugly head again... wording ambiguity. On the Tactical Warlord's daily power, "Lead the Attack", it reads like this:

Lead the Attack Warlord Attack 1
Under your direction, arrows hit their marks and blades drive home.

Daily - Martial, Weapon
Standard Action Melee - weapon
Target: One creature
Attack: Strength vs. AC

Hit: 3[W] + Strength modifier damage. Until the end of the encounter, you and each ally within 5 squares of you gain a power bonus to attack rolls against the target equal to 1 + your Intelligence modifier.

Miss: Until the end of the encounter, you and each ally within 5 squares of you gain a +1 power bonus to attack rolls against the target.

The emphasis in the Hit and Miss entries is mine. Does this mean:

Any ally who is standing within 5 squares of the warlord at the time this power is used gains the bonus until the end of the encounter, regardless of where they move to afterward (for example, an eladrin ranger standing near the warlord gets the bonus, then fey steps across the room to get a better archery position on the target)?

After this power is used, any ally that makes an attack while standing within 5 squares of the warlord gets the bonus until the end of the encounter, regardless of where they were when the power was actually utilized (for example, an eladrin ranger who was engaging other enemies sees the warlord across the room use this power on a black dragon, so he fey steps nearby to aid in the fight, gaining this bonus since he's now within 5 squares of the warlord)?

Something else?

I, also, found it unclear and had the exact same question in mind. But, without any official clarification, I shall choose to go with your first option as it seems the easiest to keep track of (don't have to recheck location-based bonuses every round, just go with what was there previously; plus this goes with the 4e mantra of everything being 'simplified'). It's also easy for me to justify to myself "PC1 was so close and saw the warlord strike the BBEG hard and I saw how he did it. He's not going to forget that when he walks a few squares over." Whereas, if it were a magically-powered aura thing (rather than martial), then I'd go with your second option.

But, as you said, I agree that it's up for interpretation based on the way it is presented. And I'll chose my view of it until I hear an official clarification.

 

[Shroomy]

I'm pretty sure its number two because it doesn't say that it only affects you and your allies within 5 squares at the time it is used. Also, it make the daily power more powerful and it is certainly more permissive.

 

[Dausuul]

I'm pretty sure its number two because it doesn't say that it only affects you and your allies within 5 squares at the time it is used. Also, it make the daily power more powerful and it is certainly more permissive.

More powerful? IMO it makes it significantly less powerful. With option #2, everybody has to stay within 5 squares of you at all times or lose the benefit. With option #1, you only have to get the other PCs within a 5-square radius for one moment; then you trigger the daily and the whole party turns into kobolds for the rest of the encounter.

 

[Shroomy]

More powerful? IMO it makes it significantly less powerful. With option #2, everybody has to stay within 5 squares of you at all times or lose the benefit. With option #1, you only have to get the other PCs within a 5-square radius for one moment; then you trigger the daily and the whole party turns into kobolds for the rest of the encounter.

Maybe "powerful" was a poor choice of words, "flexible" would probably work better. However, I think it is more powerful because it can be applied to any PCs who enters the five-square area of effect, not just those who happened to be nearby at the time of its usage.

 

[Sojorn]

Here's a question:

Does the fact that the "Until the end of the encounter" phase comes first in Lead the Attack and last in Bastion of Defense actually mean anything?

The phrasing makes it sound like Bastion of Defense is "Everyone within 5 squares of you right now gets +1 to defense" and then they keep it until the end of the encounter.

The phrasing of Lead the Attack makes it sound like you have an aura.

 

[Shroomy]

Here's a question:

Does the fact that the "Until the end of the encounter" phase comes first in Lead the Attack and last in Bastion of Defense actually mean anything?

The phrasing makes it sound like Bastion of Defense is "Everyone within 5 squares of you right now gets +1 to defense" and then they keep it until the end of the encounter.

The phrasing of Lead the Attack makes it sound like you have an aura.

I don't think there is a difference between the two; it just different phrasing.

 

[Rykaar]

I won't lie, definitely disappointed about no at-will powers. I mean WOTC knows tons of people are showing people 4e through the pregens, we already have a lot of warlord dailies known. Instead of 2 dailies, couldn't we have gotten 2 at-wills and actually play the class?

First let me say I'm loving the crunch we've seen appearing recently from WotC's Tower of Secrets. I think they're on the right track. But I have to agree with Stalker0 that the warlord article was more than a bit light.

Also, and in my mind more importantly and more generally, I'm continually frustrated with the fact that we really have no way of seeing how a character of any class looks at mid to high levels. Without giving away all of a particular class's power list, how 'bout 2 of each level of encounter, daily, and utility, all the way up the ladder to 30? For just ONE SAMPLE CLASS!!!We've seen stats on monsters at mid to high levels, but we just don't know how the average hero/paragon/rock star is going to stack up in comparison.

The question of "What are they like after level 1?" has been nagging me since the DDXP posts started appearing.

Oh, but in other respects, the warlord is not only a great idea for a class, but is symbolically the heart of the 4e game: the party's tactical unifier and coordinator. There's so much room to play the class badly (and annoyingly) but equally much potential for glory.

 

[hbarsquared]

Yet now you have the warlock/warlord problem. In my last playtest, I accidentally called the warlock a warlord twice, and there wasn't even a warlord in the game.

It would also be unfortunate to have a warforged in the party.