Warlord. A bad or a good Cleric?

[WalterKovacs]

Tactical Warlord's action point ability, Warlord's Favor, Lead the Attack ...

While his at-wills may not be as good as the Cleric's to giving boosts to hit, the Warlord has them as well. Many of the Cleric effects give effects that provide combat advantage ... the Warlord relies mostly on providing flanks to accomplish that goal. However, a high INT tactical warlord can provide a lot of bonuses to hit.

So far I've DM'ed a group with a Tactical Warlord. The group is at level 5, and he's done a good job as the only healer in the party [not even a Paladin]. He was 16 STR and 18 INT at the start, thus he's relied on commander's strike and giving out healing and his action points to benefit the party. He has the best AC in the party, and can set himself up to hit his dailies/encounters [Tiefling, so often wait until opponent is bloodied, get a flank and possibly even rebuke].

 

[Ander00]

We've had two warlords so far. One started out as an inspiring one, but ended up being rather frustrating to play. He, and the party, have since gone through a few changes. On the positive side, the increase in party size from 3 to 5, the inclusion of a brutal scoundrel, and him now being a tactical warlord, even though dragonborn seem to be made for inspiring warlords. So far, he's a lot more fun this way (even though he just can't seem to hit with one of his encounter powers).

The second one was also an inspiring warlord, in a higher level game. The player was quite disappointed with the character and she was shelved after one session.

Party size and composition matter a lot for the warlord, which is a bit unfortunate for small groups like ours.


cheers

 

[GoodKingJayIII]

Warlords seem to be like bards in that they are a great fifth man (or I guess in 4e, sixth man), but as stand ins for another class (e.g., fighter, paladin, cleric) they don't quite cut the mustard.

I like the class, but they are incredibly melee-centric, and it seems to me that you'd need at least two melee classes (probably defender and striker) for the warlord to shine.

Clearly though, they're not that terrible based on the anecdotal evidence.

 

[SadisticFishing]

Wait, so granting an ally an extra attack doesn't increase their chance to hit?

I don't get it.

Warlords are awesome, but I've never seen one passed level 1 (we died ), so I could be wrong. Tactical Warlord just fits me, as a player, too, so I guess that helps.

From what I gather, a Tactical Warlord can replace a Cleric in a smaller group, and an Inspiring one can do it in a big OR small group.

 

[Darkthorne]

Both warlords work decently, I think Inspiring works better with smaller groups when you focus on giving them extra save if one is down etc. As for the tactical one in one of my groups the dwarven fighter in the party attacked bad guy, next I gave him an extra action w/ commader's strike, then deliberately provoke an oa from the same target which the fighter got a basic attack off prior to the bad guy resolving his attack on me. Funny thing is I seem to find myself using my healing abilties on myself more than the other pc's but if they are taking less damage than me then that works just as well

 

[DracoSuave]

Commander's Strike is a more flexible Sly Flourish for a different class. How is that bad?

 

[Mithreinmaethor]

Why not make an Orc Tactical Warlord. With 18 str 16 int and 15 con.

Take proficiency with Scale armor and use a reach weapon. Or take proficiency with a Great Spear. Your only sacrificing 1 AC but gaining +1 to hit that way as well.

With the Orc you get an encounter power that you can heal yourself with and not have to waste one of your heals on.

Just an idea

 

[the Jester]

My party (8 pcs) has both a cleric, an inspiring warlord and a tactical warlord. All three carry their own weight pretty well.

 

[Staffan]

Tactical Warlord's action point ability, Warlord's Favor, Lead the Attack ...

All of which use limited resources (action points, encounter power, daily power).

Wait, so granting an ally an extra attack doesn't increase their chance to hit?

The cleric can dole out attack bonuses at will to his allies, that they can then use for whatever purpose they want. He boosts the fighter for a round, and then the fighter uses that bonus to land his Brutal Strike for 3W. Next round he boosts the warlock, who blasts the target with a Fiery Bolt for 3d6 (with splash damage). The third round the ranger gets a bonus to his Splintering Shot for 3W plus a debuff. This not only helps the group win the battle, it also helps with the fun factor by reducing misses.

The Warlord's Commander's Strike can't be used for that. It just gives an ally a vanilla melee attack (instead of the warlord's attack). Commander's Strike as a minor action, now that would have been something, or as a power that both let the warlord attack and let a buddy attack as well.

 

[Victim]

Commander's Strike isn't for buffing up encounter and daily powers. It gives the fighter another marked target, a rogue or ranger another chance to land their Sneak Attack/Quarry for the round, or multiplies the effectiveness of some buff - if one person has a bonus to attacks for the round (like from Warlord's Favor or Righteous Brand), then giving them an extra attack with bonus damage works really well.

And it's not like the Warlord's movement related abilities are worthless.