Warlord At-Will Powers level 1 via June Preview

[Mad Mac]

It just seems like the Warlord is giving up his action to give another player an action... Again, useful on occasions, but how is this going to be repeatedly fun for the Warlord?

Being able to introduce the party's fighter as "My favorite weapon" is always worth it.

 

[Bishmon]

No. Based on what we've seen, that's what his powers are geared towards. A 4e warlord can fire a bow just as well as a 3e barbarian. That was my point.

I don't think that's true. Warlords don't seem to have any powers using the bow, or any ranged weapon, which is a death knell for a warlord being an archer considering that powers are now how characters will be effective. It's certainly much worse than a 3E barbarian simply being a couple feats behind the ranger, but still being able to take full attacks with a bow to his heart's content. And to top it off, warlords are only proficient with simple ranged weapons, so it's likely that they're not even proficient with a bow in the first place.

Anyway, that point is completely irrelevant. If something was a 'problem' in 3E, that doesn't somehow make it ok for it to be a problem in 4E.

 

[Surgoshan]

Being able to introduce the party's fighter as "My favorite weapon" is always worth it.

Say hello to my little friend!
*halfling backstabs*

 

[GoodKingJayIII]

Anyway, that point is completely irrelevant. If something was a 'problem' in 3E, that doesn't somehow make it ok for it to be a problem in 4E.

I don't consider it a problem, and never said that it was. I just think it's an odd thing to worry/complain about. Of course, I wasn't around when 3e was coming out...

 

[Bishmon]

I don't consider it a problem, and never said that it was. I just think it's an odd thing to worry/complain about. Of course, I wasn't around when 3e was coming out...

I've honestly completely lost whatever point you were making, and I don't mean that in a mean-spirited way.

Ultimately, we're right back to some people believing the 4E warlord is too focused on melee. Maybe I'll just leave it there.

 

[GoodKingJayIII]

Ultimately, we're right back to some people believing the 4E warlord is too focused on melee. Maybe I'll just leave it there.

Sigh... probably. It's late and my rather curt posts are probably not the best way to express my feelings on the matter. Sorry about that.

But I think you're right; where else can we really take this? It's just a difference of opinion. I guess I was trying to say that I haven't heard others complain about narrow class design before (like the barbarian or the paladin), so I don't quite understand why it's a problem now. That's all, really.

 

[Staffan]

A 4e warlord can fire a bow just as well as a 3e barbarian. That was my point.

I don't think he can. From the excerpt on warlords: "Weapon Proficiencies: Simple melee, military melee, simple ranged"

Sure, we don't know exactly what weapons are included in "simple ranged", but I think it's a pretty safe bet bows aren't.

 

[cdrcjsn]

My bad. I did mean At-will.

What at-will ability have we seen that did more than 1W? At other than Epic levels I mean.

It's been revealed from DDXP that a basic melee attack does 1W+Str.

So this attack does 1W + ally's Str + warlord's Int.

Good enough benefit imo, especially if said ally has additional bonuses on damage.

 

[Darkthorne]

Does anyone have the link where WOTC_Miko states the warlord HAS to be in melee to give their ally the extra attack? I want to read it in context.
Thanks

 

[Nikosandros]

Does anyone have the link where WOTC_Miko states the warlord HAS to be in melee to give their ally the extra attack? I want to read it in context.
Thanks

Here you go. It seems to me that the statement is unequivocal. The warlord has to be in melee range in order to use the power.