Most Awesome Leader? (Warlord!)

[Mengu]

The reason for this is that one of the fundamental lessons of D&D still holds true - you win by killing them faster than they kill you, healing doesn't keep up.

I have to disagree with this. In our 3.5 game, the most prized items for our party are healing items, not damage dealing items. In 4e, PC's die when they run out of healing. Also, the larger the group, the more healing they will need. So in a party of 3 or 4, a Warlord as the only healer may work fine. But in a party of 5 or 6, if your only healer is a Tactical Warlord, you are either in deep trouble, or the Tactical Warlord must resort to picking up some Inspiring Warlord abilities. The other option is to accept that you will have the occasional character death. A Paladin may be able to reasonably support a Warlord in a larger party. But a Lazor Cleric will still be way better at keeping the party alive longer.

If you are looking for a Leader for a party of 6, my vote goes to the Lazor Cleric. If you are looking for a Leader for a party of 4, my vote goes to the Inspiring Warlord. For a party of 5, it depends on whether there is a Paladin or not, but usually, I'll prefer the Lazor Cleric.

 

[Aservan]

Don't get me wrong the warlord is a good leader. The cleric is a better one.

The warlord's very "tactical" powers are really a form of tactical inflexibility. He basically has to follow the fighter or rogue around the battlefield because the majority of his powers require the beneficiary to be next to him or the thing he is attacking. Commander's strike is a crappy power for a large number of parties. It works OK when you have a two handed weapon fighter because then you can get a large amount of damage out. Or you could miss. In order to set it up you can't be some where else. Some times that is fine. Other times that is horrible and now the monsters are eating the wizard's spleen. Forcing the warlord to be tow to another character actually works best with the rogue since he needs some one to set up sneak attack for him and the rogue does so much damage anyway. Now commander's strike is useless though because the rogue is a one hit per round wonder.

Giving some one an extra +3 to damage is a whoopty-do power. There are loads of ways to get more damage in 4th. Now his encounter and daily powers that give a bonus to hit are awesome. Unless they miss of course. And then they do nothing worth noting. Still when they hit they make solos cry for mommy.

Clerics don't have this problem. They can lead from a more plausible distance. They can stand back survey the field and give that guy over there the bonus he needs. Warlord not so much. They don't have to get into melee but can if they want to. They can lock down the field with attacks that hit every time.

They can't give enormous bonuses to hit, but they are consistent and tactically flexible. They don't have to do things and that is the biggest advantage a leader can have.

 

[Malicea]

Artificer quickly gets broken when it is combined with archmage(easily done by spending a single feat and all its powers are arcane spells). The Healing token as an encounter power means every 5 minutes you can turn 1 healing surge of your own into 2x healing surge value + more.

Multiclass feats don't qualify you for Epic Destinies, only Paragon Paths.

 

[blargney the second]

I've played a battle cleric and a tactical warlord so far. The taclord rocks - being able to increase attack bonuses and then give extra attacks is simply awesome.
-blarg

 

[Vayden]

Clerics don't have this problem. They can lead from a more plausible distance. They can stand back survey the field and give that guy over there the bonus he needs. Warlord not so much. They don't have to get into melee but can if they want to. They can lock down the field with attacks that hit every time.

Let me start by saying that of course a ton of it depends the party size and make-up. My own personal Eladrin Tactical Warlord is in a 4-player group with a two-handed weapon fighter and a rogue, so he constantly is providing one or the other of them with flanking, and frequently can use Commander's Strike to either unleash the fighter or let the rogue make another attempt at sneak attack if he missed. Pretty much the optimal situation, I'll admit it. In a party with a shield fighter and a ranged striker, an inspiring warlord or a battle cleric would probably have the edge.

Leaving that aside though, I do want to disagree slightly with your paragraph which I quoted above. I assume you're talking about a laser cleric, not a battle cleric, when you tout the flexibility of a ranged leader. The problem with that flexibility though is, what do you do when the party needs a little extra tank? Sure, theoretically you can mix and match ranged and melee attacks, but it's hard to keep up a good to-hit with both as you go, especially as you level up. And if you neglect one (presumably melee with a laser cleric), then although you "can" get into melee if you need to, you're not likely to do much when you're there. I'd argue that an oft-overlooked aspect of the leader is that the leader should be helping to keep up everyone else's hitpoints by soaking a few attacks himself, and the laser cleric does a terrible job of that. Sure, the tactical warlord needs to be near the front-line to be effective, but 90% of the time, that's a good place for him to be anyway.

Still, this thread is not meant to denigrate any of the varieties of awesome that is 4e Leadership. I still think the Lord of War is the best, but I'm certainly not denying a laser cleric can bring the pain with the right party.

 

[blargney the second]

delayed blast double post, please disarm & delete

 

[Goumindong]

Giving some one an extra +3 to damage is a whoopty-do power. There are loads of ways to get more damage in 4th. Now his encounter and daily powers that give a bonus to hit are awesome. Unless they miss of course. And then they do nothing worth noting. Still when they hit they make solos cry for mommy.

It doesn't give someone an extra +3 damage. It gives them a basic attack and +3 damage.

At wills are roughly equal to basic attacks with some small bonus that is usually not damage. A warlord giving a friend another attack is not "extra +3 damage" its roughly equivalent to "the best basic attack that your party can muster against this enemy +3 damage" If that is a 20 str fighter with a bastard sword that means the warlord, for no feats gets to attack at (assuming he has 18 str)+2(1 for the extra str, and 1 for the fighters bonus) and gain +5 damage (assuming the warlord is using a longsword).

If its a rogue who didn't hit with their sneak attack they get +2(combat advantage with light blade feat and 20 dex) and +2d6+4 damage.

If you three are ganging up it allows the warlord to gain a flanking bonus even when he is not flanking because he can have one of the flanking characters make the attack. Now you are looking at +4 to attack.

Its not the best all the time. But its not anywhere near bad.

Many of the warlord dailies/encounters have effects that go off regardless of whether or not they hit.

Warlords have some of, if not the best combat utilities in the game.

+damage should never be under estimated, especially with a ranger or fighter in the group. +3 damage for a ranger means +3 to each attack and since they all key off of abilities these just keep going up. E.G. Heart of the Titan at level 22, Dragonborn inspiring can start with 18 str and Cha, at 22 that is 24 cha for +7 damage per attack while making them immune to many of the toughest status effects

Not even getting into the way that warlord synergies with most other classes. Or how great their paragon classes are.(Battle Inspiration! Minor action attack and move boosts! Honor And Glory: Flat +2 Stacking Bonus to attacks given to every adjacent ally!)