Warlord At-Will Powers level 1 via June Preview

[Minigiant]

I can see 2 warlord ordering two fighters to beat each other up.

Warlord: Ogg use Slash Now!

Fighter used Slash. It's a Critical Hit. Enemy ORC RAIDER has Fainted

ORC CHEIFTAIN Turgak is defeated.
ORC CHEIFTAIN Turgak: I have failed you Gruumsh

 

[GnomeWorks]

You're disappointed that you can model a Leonidas-type character?

Way to misinterpret.

Being able to model Leonidas is fine and dandy. It is the lack of support for other character types that the warlord would best fit that irks me.

If you're disappointed that Leonidas is the only archetype that fits the warlord, fear not! There are in fact other character types that fit the warlord quite nicely. They don't even have to be in the military!

...and they're still all melee, all the time.

 

[Exen Trik]

Being able to model Leonidas is fine and dandy. It is the lack of support for other character types that the warlord would best fit that irks me.

Er, you do realize that this is only a preview? And that there are likely a half dozen or more at will powers to choose from? It's a bit early to start complaining about what a class lacks at this point.

 

[hennebeck]

I would say let the Warlord have a basic melee along with the giving away basic melee attack. That would work for me.

When others are doing 2[W] with their (editAt-Wills, it seems unequal.
If it had burst 5(Is that the correct notation), then it would work, as others have said. Slowed warlord, split by chasm, that sort of thing.

If we had 4 or 5 at-wills, it would work, because it might be worthwhile 20% of the time, but not 50%.

 

[Incenjucar]

I would say let the Warlord have a basic melee along with the giving away basic melee attack. That would work for me.

When others are doing 2[W] with their dailies, it seems unequal.
If it had burst 5(Is that the correct notation), then it would work, as others have said. Slowed warlord, split by chasm, that sort of thing.

If we had 4 or 5 at-wills, it would work, because it might be worthwhile 20% of the time, but not 50%.

Uh... this is an At-Will power.

A warlord can just use a pair of shields the entire encounter, telling the berserk death-dealing, Strengthened, flametongue greatsword-weilding fighter next to him "Oh here have an extra attack with +3 to damage on the house while I use a defensive stance and your marked opponent has a -2 to hit me anyways." every single round if they so desire.

 

[chitzk0i]

When others are doing 2[W] with their dailies, it seems unequal.
If it had burst 5(Is that the correct notation), then it would work, as others have said. Slowed warlord, split by chasm, that sort of thing.

Don't most dailies we've seen deal 3[W]? And why are you comparing a daily to an at-will?

 

[hennebeck]

My bad. I did mean At-will.

It doesn't negate my argument.
Others are doing stuff, even clerics are doing stuff and healing.
And now warlords aren't actually doing anything themselves.

If all their allies are down, this ability doesn't add anything.
What it does tell me is that Warlords are Melee Leaders and clerics are Ranged Leaders. IMO.

EDIT: To add, why have a warlord stand around with shields adding 1d8 +INT to combat when you could just have a second rogue?

As I said, It doesn't appear to be equal, not that it is bad.

 

[GoodKingJayIII]

...and they're still all melee, all the time.

Now who's misrepresenting?

Based on what we've seen, the warlord seems no more forced into melee than the 3e barbarian. Perhaps you have a problem with that too, but this is not anything new. Having a class that does a specific thing well is a-ok with me.

 

[Bishmon]

Now who's misrepresenting?

Based on what we've seen, the warlord seems no more forced into melee than the 3e barbarian. Perhaps you have a problem with that too, but this is not anything new. Having a class that does a specific thing well is a-ok with me.

The complaint isn't that the warlord can't do melee well. He can certainly do that specific thing well.

The complaint is that, based on what we've seen, that's all he can do. We've now seen six warlord powers, and every single one of them requires the warlord to be in melee range, even a power that simply requires the warlord to command another player to attack.

I don't think it's hard to see why that might not be ideal to people who picture playing a warlord who is more about sitting back, surveying the battlefield, and issuing commands instead of wading into melee and attacking stuff with his sword in order to help his allies.

 

[GoodKingJayIII]

1) What does the 3E barbarian have to do with this?

It was an example of a class whose powers are entirely geared for melee.

2) The complaint isn't that the warlord can't do melee well. He can certainly do that specific thing well.

I know that.

The complaint is that, based on what we've seen, that's all he can do.

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.

As I said before, one might've had a problem with the barbarian's narrowness as well. It's basically the same issue we're talking about with the warlord.

That's all.