Playing a Warlord sucks!!

[Hawkeye]

When no one else will enter melee combat with you. Stupid Warlock, Wizard and Archery based Ranger. Shame our two weapon based Ranger and Fighter couldn't make it to the game. Maybe next time.

At least I got the heal the Ranger after he had been ambushed and had to run towards my warlord to be healed.

It was my first 4ed combat. It actually went pretty quickly. In real time it took about 30 to 40 mins to ajudicate our first combat. From my character's perspective, he defeated three foes in about 18 seconds: Two minions and the killing blow on a striker.

Hawkeye

 

[MerricB]

Word. Best way to have a death in 4e as far as I'm aware is to have only one melee combatant.

 

[Hawkeye]

The ranger was out scouting ahead of the party, using a tree to get a view ahead. He flubbed a perception roll, so he missed the small party of kobolds sneaking up on him. He got critted a couple of times and started retreating towards us. Because of the distance he was ahead, the rest of us, myself included used ranged attacks to start taking out minions. He was chased all of the way back by the striker stabbing at him and the brute lumbering behind, but not close enough to do anything. The Ranger managed to get his own crit off the striker in return. Once he got close enough, I used inspiring word to heal the Ranger, then stepped up to the stiker and used Wolf Pack tactics to shift the Ranger to safety and dropped the Striker where he stood. The brute never even made it within melee range and my character was too slow to close the distance as he retreated and was killed by the range damaged characters. I need to get faster.

Hawkeye

 

[Imaro]

The Warlord is an... interesting character. I have one player in my group and after watching him play one up to 2nd level so far, I'm not sure I really like them that much (note, I am the DM). I've seen the Warlord player basically become frustrated when the party or the setup of the encounter doesn't give him the opportunities he needs to let his abilities shine (and no it was not intentional... battles just go a certain way sometimes.). One example I remember is when the party was split up by an ambush by slavers along The Road of Bones in our last adventure. The attackers gained surprise and basically cut off certain members of the party from others. They ended up defeating the slavers, and it was a hard won battle... but the Warlord player didn't really get a chance to shine.

I think that may be one of the inherent problems with both the Warlord and to a lesser extent the Cleric, alot of their fun really depends on other people. In a game where the design philosophy was that everyone be equal in fun and spotlight time... the leader classes just seem really dependent on the choices other people make to shine. Perhaps it will even out more at higher levels... but as of right now I don't really like it too much and my Warlord player is the only one I've seen get frustrated like this. Everyone else seems to be able to shine in their own way if they play smart (ranger/rogue with stealth and bluff in combat, fighter/paladin with marks and damage, wizard with area distance attks, etc.) and then shine better with teamwork. The leaders however seem subpar by themselves and then really shine with coordination.

 

[Hawkeye]

I have to agree that it seems the Warlod depends a bit more on what others are doing to be more effective. That may change when the rest of the characters get a chance to play.

Hawkeye

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

The Warlord is an... interesting character. I have one player in my group and after watching him play one up to 2nd level so far, I'm not sure I really like them that much (note, I am the DM). I've seen the Warlord player basically become frustrated when the party or the setup of the encounter doesn't give him the opportunities he needs to let his abilities shine (and no it was not intentional... battles just go a certain way sometimes.). One example I remember is when the party was split up by an ambush by slavers along The Road of Bones in our last adventure. The attackers gained surprise and basically cut off certain members of the party from others. They ended up defeating the slavers, and it was a hard won battle... but the Warlord player didn't really get a chance to shine.

I think that may be one of the inherent problems with both the Warlord and to a lesser extent the Cleric, alot of their fun really depends on other people. In a game where the design philosophy was that everyone be equal in fun and spotlight time... the leader classes just seem really dependent on the choices other people make to shine. Perhaps it will even out more at higher levels... but as of right now I don't really like it too much and my Warlord player is the only one I've seen get frustrated like this. Everyone else seems to be able to shine in their own way if they play smart (ranger/rogue with stealth and bluff in combat, fighter/paladin with marks and damage, wizard with area distance attks, etc.) and then shine better with teamwork. The leaders however seem subpar by themselves and then really shine with coordination.

The "problem" of the Warlord (and Cleric) might be a general "problem" of D&D 4 - team-work is very important. And the Leaders need it even more. If you liked to play a Bard as a supporter guy, you will love Warlords and Clerics. But if you preferred Rogues, Fighters or Wizards that took enemies on their own, you won't be attracted to the leader role. If all players in a group are more the non-supporter type of player, they might get frustrated.

In my group, I think 3-4 out of 5 members also enjoy playing leader-type characters, so there's no problem with that. So, as far as anecdotical evidence goes, as a Warlord player last session, I immensely enjoyed the game. I enjoy being responsible for the well-being of the party, and to hand out some generous buffs.

 

[Imaro]

The "problem" of the Warlord (and Cleric) might be a general "problem" of D&D 4 - team-work is very important. And the Leaders need it even more. If you liked to play a Bard as a supporter guy, you will love Warlords and Clerics. But if you preferred Rogues, Fighters or Wizards that took enemies on their own, you won't be attracted to the leader role. If all players in a group are more the non-supporter type of player, they might get frustrated.

No, this isn't the "problem" I'm talking about. If you read my post more closely I stated that it seems everyone except the Warlord and Cleric seem able to "shine" without having to depend on another... To win encounters teamwork is definitely important, but a lone Rogue or Ranger can do massive damage and get a high five...A Wizard can clear a path of minions in one attack and Fighters/Paladins can hold back monsters with marks and challenges. The Warlord/Cleric need others to have a shinning moment.

In my group, I think 3-4 out of 5 members also enjoy playing leader-type characters, so there's no problem with that. So, as far as anecdotical evidence goes, as a Warlord player last session, I immensely enjoyed the game. I enjoy being responsible for the well-being of the party, and to hand out some generous buffs.

I didn't say playing a Warlord was no fun, so please don't get defensive. what I did note was for the designers to tote each class being balanced and fun in combat, the Leader types have a pretty big restriction on their "fun" compared to the others. Whether this is good or bad depends on your playstyle, but it reminds me of the buff/healer cleric everyone complained about. YMMV of course

 

[serow]

Yup, I noticed that too in my first 4E game. My warlord NEEDS others to shine, otherwise... I'm just a really subpar character alone.

 

[Bump2daWiza]

Inappropriate image deleted. Bump2daWiza, check your e-mail.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

No, this isn't the "problem" I'm talking about. If you read my post more closely I stated that it seems everyone except the Warlord and Cleric seem able to "shine" without having to depend on another... To win encounters teamwork is definitely important, but a lone Rogue or Ranger can do massive damage and get a high five...A Wizard can clear a path of minions in one attack and Fighters/Paladins can hold back monsters with marks and challenges. The Warlord/Cleric need others to have a shinning moment.

I am not sure I entirely agree. I have the feeling that others also shine more in teamwork. But you're certainly correct that it's more important for Leader-types. Their "extra effects" directly go to allies (temporary hit points, attack bonus and stuff), so you can't shine alone.

I didn't say playing a Warlord was no fun, so please don't get defensive.

Oh, I didn't mean to appear being defensive. (Sorry if I came off that way. )

what I did note was for the designers to tote each class being balanced and fun in combat, the Leader types have a pretty big restriction on their "fun" compared to the others. Whether this is good or bad depends on your playstyle, but it reminds me of the buff/healer cleric everyone complained about. YMMV of course

I think the reason why it is this way because that's how the role "works". To be a leader, you must rely on others - you must have someone to lead. It is an inherent trait of the class, I think.

For the record, I never enjoyed playing Clerics. I can't point down why that is the case. I didn't enjoy the self-buffing parts, and I didn't feel good with the debuff/save or die effects either, nor with most of the buffs itself, too. But I can't point down what it is exactly that I don't like.
I found the Bards, despite their general inferiority, always more interesting. They have a stronger out-of-combat presence, and in-combat, their benefit to the party was always clearly visible to me (even if it was, overall, probably worth less then the contribution of a Cleric)

Maybe it has nothing to do with mechanics in my case. Maybe I am just not into playing a priest/believer. I am not sure I like the 4E Cleric, either. Though I think I could enjoy the Paladin. But I still prefer the Fighter above him.