Warlord. A bad or a good Cleric?

[vhailor]

The greater the number of Party Members the Better a Warlord becomes.

Clerics tend towards the opposite.

What is the Size of your Party?

I'm not sure we will be able to gather 6(5 + DM), so I should say 4.

 

[vhailor]

For me it would make more sense if a cleric would allow characters to regain lost HP, and not allowing them to gain temporary HP. The Warlord, on the ohter hand, should boost them with giving them temporary HP by encouraging them etc.(what you expect from a leader). I haven't checked in higher levels, but that seems strange to me.

 

[Storminator]

The big difference between their powers, at least in the Heroic tier, is that clerics are more likely to have powers that impose conditions on enemies (dazed, immobilized, etc), and warlords are more like to increase an ally's damage and movement.

Both tend to add to hp, attack and defense bonuses, and saving throws.

PS

 

[cmbarona]

I play an Inspiring Warlord myself, and so far I've only had an ally go down once on my watch. It's worth mentioning that it was also the case that 1) the group was separated, and 2) we had a new player, so healing was spread a little thin. Since we have more people, I'm thinking of retraining Knight's Move to Aid the Injured next time I level. But overall, no matter how much the Wizard complains (and why he's complaining, not to mention hogging/hoarding healing potions, is completely beyond me), a Warlord has been a fantastic and effective alternative to a Cleric thus far.

 

[Staffan]

Warlord at-wills seem a bit weaker than Cleric at-wills to me. The cleric gets Lance of Faith (d8+Wis damage and an ally you can see gets +2 to hit the target) and Righteous Brand (W+Str damage and an ally gets to add your Str to his attacks against the target for a turn).

The Warlord gets Furious Smash. It does have the advantage of being Weapon vs non-AC defense, but on the other hand it only does Str damage (meaning you lose out on enhancement bonus, weapon focus, etc.). It gives a bonus equal to your Cha, which means it's only useful for inspiring Warlords (and there's no real counterpart for the tactical ones), though in its defense it also gives a bonus to damage. Finally, the character who is to benefit from the bonus has to be adjacent either to you or to your enemy.

The tactical warlord is even worse off. He gets Commander's Strike, which essentially lets him turn his standard action into an ally's basic attack plus Int to damage. The whole point of the leader's attack bonuses is to help your buddies land their big guns, but Commander's strike totally fails to do that.

 

[Minigiant]

If your party is more than 50% melee, a warlord helps a lot more than a cleric. Cleric are more healing and direct damage. Warlord provide more positioning and attack buff focused. If you are packing more wizards, warlocks, and ranged attacker, warlord don't help a lot. But if you are using melee strikers are multiple defenders, your strikers will get hit less, your defenders will hold their marks still, and everyone will be doing more damage.

 

[cmbarona]

Warlord at-wills seem a bit weaker than Cleric at-wills to me. The cleric gets Lance of Faith (d8+Wis damage and an ally you can see gets +2 to hit the target) and Righteous Brand (W+Str damage and an ally gets to add your Str to his attacks against the target for a turn).

The Warlord gets Furious Smash. It does have the advantage of being Weapon vs non-AC defense, but on the other hand it only does Str damage (meaning you lose out on enhancement bonus, weapon focus, etc.). It gives a bonus equal to your Cha, which means it's only useful for inspiring Warlords (and there's no real counterpart for the tactical ones), though in its defense it also gives a bonus to damage. Finally, the character who is to benefit from the bonus has to be adjacent either to you or to your enemy.

The tactical warlord is even worse off. He gets Commander's Strike, which essentially lets him turn his standard action into an ally's basic attack plus Int to damage. The whole point of the leader's attack bonuses is to help your buddies land their big guns, but Commander's strike totally fails to do that.

When and where Warlords use their powers will determine their effectiveness. I want to make this very clear: Warlords are near useless in a vacuum. Furious Smash is not there to deal damage, it's there to make sure your allies' Encounter and Daily powers hit mire often. Commander's Strike is far from useless if the basic attack you give is better than yours (i.e., activating a Striker's extra damage dice). Likewise, Wolf Pack Tactics and Viper's Strike have thier situational uses, which should seem obvious, but I'll go over them too: Wolf Pack Tactics allows better positioning, either through making/breaking flanks or allowing allies to escape. Viper's Strike helps pin down a foe and deter, say, a flanked opponent from moving.

Warlord powers are extremely situational. If you don't play tactically, of course they're going to seem ineffective.

 

[Glimmin]

The tactical warlord is even worse off. He gets Commander's Strike, which essentially lets him turn his standard action into an ally's basic attack plus Int to damage. The whole point of the leader's attack bonuses is to help your buddies land their big guns, but Commander's strike totally fails to do that.

I've consider Commander's Strike to be an amazing at-will power. What if your party's Rogue missed with his sneak attack? This lets him try again. What if the Rogue ended up with crappy initiative this turn and you have to kill the (insert specific enemy here) first? Knight's Move to get the Rogue where they need to be, then Commander's Strike. If the Rogue doesn't need help, then just picking your ally with the largest melee weapon seems to work well. My party's warlord carries a mace (d8), so he usually picks the paladin with a flail (d10) to swing and get to add in his INT bonus to the damage. I haven't yet seen the Warlord of the party do less damage with Commander's Strike than he would have done using one of his other at-wills. Also, add a Helm of Heroes on the guy, and then he can command others to use at-will attacks instead of just melee basic attacks.

 

[Storminator]

The tactical warlord is even worse off. He gets Commander's Strike, which essentially lets him turn his standard action into an ally's basic attack plus Int to damage. The whole point of the leader's attack bonuses is to help your buddies land their big guns, but Commander's strike totally fails to do that.

When I grant our fighter Righteous Brand (+4 attack) and the warlord gives him Commander's Strike (+3 damage) and he swings that greataxe... watch out!

PS

 

[Staffan]

When and where Warlords use their powers will determine their effectiveness.

I've consider Commander's Strike to be an amazing at-will power.

I'm not saying Warlords are totally pointless. I'm saying they're worse at helping the rest of the group set up their power-moves than the cleric is, especially since their boosts are limited to melee only, while the cleric can help both melee and ranged characters.

If I was setting up an entire party that's supposed to face an impartially created series of threats (as if I was playing a computer version of 4e), I'd definitely choose a cleric over a warlord. The cleric gets better healing, and he's better at giving the rest of the party attack bonuses.