Playing a Warlord sucks!!

[Ander00]

I love the warlord concept, but in practice I too sometimes find he relies on allies just a little too much, especially since our groups are usually on the small side (3 players). In the campaign I play a warlord in, we've since added two more characters. While I'd generally prefer just playing one character, playing the warlord is now a much more rewarding experience.


cheers

 

[davethegame]

We had another interesting complaint from the Warlord's player in our last two games: he finds his abilities are often dampened by the combat areas.

For example, there was a fight in a forest (which was counted as difficult terrain) so none of his shifting powers would work.

Then there was a fight across a couple giant gears, which meant that the ability to move around was pretty restricted (without falling off the edge, that is.)

 

[blargney the second]

Warlords work best when there's another Str-based melee PC in the party. If there isn't one, then the warlord should focus on powers that move allies around to get them out of trouble.

 

[Imaro]

Well upon further consideration and thinking about the powers the 2nd level Warlord in our campaign uses... it seems to me the Warlord is little more than a glorified sidekick for the other melee types. This one of the reasons I prefer the Cleric to the Warlord (especially at low levels).

Majority of the Warlords low-level powers require him to be adjacent to the beneficiary of his effects, thus with 4e's paradigm of bigger spaces and more opponents, you tend to have an almost comedic game where the Warlord is chasing one of the melee characters around so that he can give the effect to him. It's Robin to the Striker/Defenders Batman. On the other hand the Cleric has a nice number of ranged and burst attacks that do damage and give the effects at range, so he doesn't have to play follow the leader, and can actually hold his own against an opponent somewhere else and still grant beneficial effects to the party.

Now admittedly this is low-level play so it might balance out at higher levels... but it, IMHO, puts the low-level Warlord in a position that can often result in less fun for the player... especially if there is also a cleric in the party.

 

[Vaslov]

Sorry to hear that OP. A warlord w/o a melee friend would be a sad warlord indeed.

I have been playing a warlord for our first go at 4E. We are only 5 combats into the game. I have one fighter with me, but I am less able to assist the cleric and mage. Despite being disappointed that I have rolled poorly on my all uses of my daily and encounter powers I am still having a lot of fun with it.

The party seems to really appreciate the powers the warlord brings to the table. Our mage is alive thanks to Wolf Pack Tactics. While I'm not the one chopping heads off, I am the reason they are. That fits the character I was aiming for. The roleplaying aspect of it has been quite fun as well. Our fighter has taken to calling me boss as I am always using CS with him.

Some small things that have helped....
- I've bought a d20 that's about the size of a baseball. When I use Commander's Strike I toss it at the player who's is attacking. It gives me a stronger sense of being in the game and lets me see the die roll from the other side of the table.
- Using a little stand up board for me to list out my aura like powers on so I don't have to verbally remind everyone constantly.

 

[frankthedm]

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.

Reminds me of playing a Gestalt Fighter [Mounted Archer] Mage in a group with two TWF sneak attackers. Sucks when the party wants to do the opposite of what you do.

Me: "We have the advantage, let them come to us while we shoot them!"
Rest of the party: "Run into melee!
Me:

 

[fba827]

Our party warlord rocks. Though, we do have another melee character that goes to the front line with her.

Hopefully your parties experiences with the warlord will become better at some point.

 

[d12]

From my limited experience so far it seems like a warlord is more useful in a larger party and/or one that includes a rogue. For smaller parties (say 3-4 total) a cleric would probably be a bit better.

 

[Hawkeye]

Sorry to hear that OP. A warlord w/o a melee friend would be a sad warlord indeed.

My post was meant partly in jest. It's frustrating when all your powers are melee based and melee support and no one, including the majority of the NPCs are entering melee combat. If you actually have to hit something for most of your powers to activate and there is nothing to hit, it's not much different than earlier editions where the 1st level wizard burns their only spell for the day and has to fall back on using a crossbow or sling to aid his party. This may be a weakness in the class, but it was my first combat with the warlord. I'll wait and see.

I have been playing a warlord for our first go at 4E. We are only 5 combats into the game. I have one fighter with me, but I am less able to assist the cleric and mage. Despite being disappointed that I have rolled poorly on my all uses of my daily and encounter powers I am still having a lot of fun with it.

The party seems to really appreciate the powers the warlord brings to the table. Our mage is alive thanks to Wolf Pack Tactics. While I'm not the one chopping heads off, I am the reason they are. That fits the character I was aiming for. The roleplaying aspect of it has been quite fun as well. Our fighter has taken to calling me boss as I am always using CS with him.

Some small things that have helped....
- I've bought a d20 that's about the size of a baseball. When I use Commander's Strike I toss it at the player who's is attacking. It gives me a stronger sense of being in the game and lets me see the die roll from the other side of the table.
- Using a little stand up board for me to list out my aura like powers on so I don't have to verbally remind everyone constantly.

I like those ideas, but since we play over the internet, it will be hard to do those. I have macros that I use to post my abilites, like Combat leader when intiative is called for etc...

Hawkeye

 

[lutecius]

Playing a Warlord sucks

Serves you right for playing this abomination that dared replace the bard.

Seriously, I didn't think there would be more classes like this in light of the 3e cleric's problem (he had to be overpowered just to make someone accept being the party's healbot.)

This is just another example of why these roles don't work. The only necessary combat role was meatshield. Everything else is needlessly forcing a strategy on a character. To use 4e terminology, healing/buffing is not fun, it shouldn't be a single character's task. There is no reason why a wizard couldn't heal or a fighter couldn't inspire in combat. Just give the cleric and bard an out of combat advantage in these domains.
If the fighter lacked options so badly, why not give him a few well-chosen inspirational and tactical powers, instead of making a sub-par fighter class based on the tired "hit = allies get random bonus" mechanic?

Flavour-wise, this so called warlord isn't even an archetype. Any inspiring hero I can think of is an outstanding warrior first (or mage or trickster or whatever shtick he has) or he actually has people under his command, or both. The warlord is neither.