Playing a Warlord sucks!!

[Ruin Explorer]

Of the Warlord, one of my players said, reading the PHB - "So wait, this guy is just a Bard without the prancing and singing and general limp-wristed-ness?", and now the players call it the "Quasi-Bard" or "Stabbing Bard". Still, overall reaction was positive, mainly because it wasn't a bard, I suspect. I then pointed out that their all-round favourite LotR character, Boromir, was very Warlord-ish, and I think LotR is a good source for giving people a positive opinion of Warlords (esp. with it's pre-battle speeches and so on - "But not this day!").

4E is very reliant, I'd say slightly over-reliant personally, on people working together, not just in actual play, but in picking their characters. I mean, without a defender, the party is awfully vulnerable to TPKs unless they DM is extremely careful about what he fights them with - luckily my group now has a defender, and the defender and leader are the players most near to 100% certain to turn up to any given session, too.

Imaro - You're exactly right, and when people want to play things that play well together, it's awesome, but there is a distinct danger with 4E, that, unless your players are aware of the Roles, aware that it's important to fill them (albeit controller and striker less so), and happy to play the "right" classes, then there's trouble ahead. I don't think it's any accident, for example, that KotS includes both current Defenders, and not, say, two Strikers in the pre-gen characters.

 

[Mercule]

I understood your point...I was just making my own in that, it only works out that way if that is the character class [B[you[/B] want to play... otherwise you just end up playing a character you didn't want to so Mark can have fun.

The game isn't forcing this, though. The warlord is an option. With healing surges, I don't think anyone actually has to play a leader role character. But, if you've got a group open to group tactics, then the warlord is an awesome inclusion. If you've got cowboys, then not so much.

It's a bit like playing an item creation focused wizard in 3.x. If you know your group tends toward continuous play without much opportunity for off-camera activities, then you're screwed by playing the artificer archetype (be it the class or otherwise) and should know better.

Sure, there are encouraged options, but I don't think "try to be a team player" is a bad one for what is, essentially, a team activity.

 

[Dwight]

If the Rogue wants to shine they'll seek out my Warlord. It felt fine leading the charge into battle followed by Leaf on the Wind (great for digging out entenched enemies) and/or a Knights Move (two moves in one round will get you a long way across a battlefield) if necessary followed by a flurry of Commander's Strikes and the Rogue is going to really rack up serious damage without even expending Encounter/Daily Exploits. Plus it was fun shouting at him to "do it right!" when he missed and "just buck it up" when his HP were running low.

And that's just an example. I found pulling people into place for my own Flanks was handy (took Shadowy whatever so I can add SA dmg once/encounter). Clerics have some interesting 'debuffs' as well to help the Rogue. Rogues "cowboying" around the battlefield don't get that.

EDIT: I imagine that the Knight's Move would be handy to keep comrades from getting squashed by traps. I know I would have appreciated someone doing that for me before I got run over by that big stone ball. In much the same way that I really appreciated the Paladin letting me know to duck and avoid the certain-death breath weapon Crit headed my way (he's not going to shine like that without someone else, either)

 

[Herremann the Wise]

For that you need others to play along. More often than not, a character who shouts orders or worse, a player always telling others what to do (I’m not sure which one you meant) is not cool and bound to attract "friendly fireballs" at some point.

In our group, there is a good delineation between characters and players so the former. In game, when my Warlord hit a creature thus giving a particular bonus to a particular ally against that particular creature, he made sure his ally knew about it, either with some carefully worded direction or if bloodied, a more direct order to strike the bastard. I found it important to convey these bonuses in game rather than just saying "yeah, your paladin gets +2 to hit and +4 to damage". When you help the rest of the team hit and be more effective, you pretty much nullify the chance of friendly fireballs - they generally try to keep you alive. Giving directions in character is different than being an arse of a player. I certainly was not suggesting the latter.

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise

 

[Hawkeye]

I appreciate everyone's input. I have been thinking about what I can do to help lessen the impact of ranged combat, possibly by enhancing his ranged combat options through feats. There are pitifully few at the heroic level. The only one I can find is Weapon Focus and that would only give a bonus of +1. I guess I'll just have to wait and see.

Hawkeye