To Warlord or Not To Warlord?

[blargney the second]

Starfox, you're absolutely right that the warlord is most useful with certain party compositions. All they really need is one strength-based heavy-hitting melee buddy to be effective, but generally speaking the more the merrier.
-blarg

 

[Thanee]

To answer your question... you should play what you want to play.

If your party has no healing apart from your Warlord, you should consider something with healing powers, though.

Bye
Thanee

 

[vagabundo]

I think a "Leader" does make a difference, it is a harder slog without one, but you should not let that influence your decision.

Play something that you would enjoy.

 

[Storminator]

Isn't the Warlord melee-oriented to the point of being crippled? Honest question here - not played with one - but our typical party composition only has 1-2 people in melee and the Warlord actually needs people next to him in order to do anything.

Seems you people find them viable anyways.

If your party has 1-2 meleers, and you add a Warlord, now you have 2-3. Which is plenty.

We have a big party (if everyone show we have 8 players) and the Warlord is fantastic.

PS

 

[Herschel]

I like to look at it as the "buddy system" around the damage dealers.

Rogues need flankers and to "mix it up" in melee. They love Warlords & Swordmages. Fighters aren't so bad either.

Archer Rangers love Clerics & Fighters. They don't generally want to mix it up but stay mobile and back. Swordmages are okay.

Everybody loves parfait.

 

[cdrcjsn]

It's more that a Leader is a very effective force multiplier, not necessarily being a warlord.

I know that when I'm playing a melee class, I love it when there's a Warlord or Strength Cleric around.

Likewise a Shaman, Artificer or Bard, when I'm playing a caster or ranged character.

Leaders just make the entire party better. So far I'm loving how each leader type is doing that in slightly different ways.