Warlord - I don't get it

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

That said, I'm not sure how much benefit groups who play gridless 4e will get from a warlord.

I think you could say the same thing about the fighter.

 

[Mercule]

The, ahem, theoretical person I am imagining isn't actually an antisocial jerk — he (or theoretically she) is actually a great group player. He just has a hard time containing his good ideas when it's someone else's turn. The warlord gives a legitimate place for what he loves within the context of the game.

Yup. That's why I think I'd love to play a warlord. I've got more gaming experience than anyone else in the group and am pretty good at tactics. It's freakin' hard for me to not try to advise others on how to deal with combat. I'm not a jerk, and I've tried making background/support characters, but always end up getting thrown into the leadership (in a more normal English sense of the word) role anyway.

The warlord is a class that encourages me to shout out tactics to others. But, it does so in a way bounded by mechanics. If someone does something tactically foolish, I can keep my mouth shut during their turn knowing that I have an opportunity to adjust things a bit during my turn. I don't have control over their characters and can't do anything without their permission. There is a controlled time and manner for me to give my advice, which means I am also reassured and encouraged in just letting them take their turn.

 

[Kez Darksun]

I'm trying to regain my enthusiasm for the Warlord. Maybe I just wrong in expecting both Leaders to have an equal ability to provide healing for a group, but from what I've been able to see so far, the Cleric still has a pretty big advantage when it comes to healing than a Warlord does. I understand that the Warlord also is able to provide more tactical options to a party than a Cleric, but I guess I had hoped the Cleric amd Warlord would be able to heal equally, and then each have their own seperate nitch that helps to define the class.

As of right now, if I wanted to select a healer for a party without any other considerations of other sub-roles, there is no question that I would take a Cleric first every time. If there was room, I'd love to have a Warlord as a back-up healer, but there is no way I'd feel comfortable with a Warlord as the only healer in the group. I'm hoping that someone who has read the classes powers more can reassure my doubts about the Warlords healing ability. Its either that, or pray that the Martial Powers sourcebook has powers for the Warlord that can allow them to better function as a primary healer in a group.

 

[Fallen Seraph]

Well the Warlord was never supposed to be as good of a healer as the Cleric, that is part of the Cleric's niche. The Warlord simply is more able to provide aid then other classes.

He keeps other characters alive more from providing bonuses, getting them out of trouble, etc. then just healing them.

That being said, I have counted more then 10 powers that the Warlord has that heals.

 

[malraux]

I dunno, the cleric isn't much better at healing, but the warlord is really good at opening up tactical offense for the party. The cleric just gives minor bonuses, whereas the warlord gives lots more movement plus bonuses.

 

[lutecius]

The Warlord is also the class for the Bard player who likes to play "support". However, the Warlord does support well by contributing a LOT. He compliments other people's abilities.

I've never heard of anyone who wanted to play a bard to be the party's cheerleader. It was either a flavour thing (be the cool skill guy or some flamboyant swashbuckler) or about casting spells without being too squishy (my case). That's despite being in effect the party's cheerleader during combat.

Likewise, I believe one of the reasons the cleric was overpowered in 3e was to incite players to be the party's healer/buffer.

I don't think "playing support" is a big incentive in itself and i'm afraid the warlord class will rather attract:
A- tactical players who like to control all the pieces in a wargame (in that case, other players' characters)
B- those who take the "leader" role literally and like to picture their character as some Leonidas knockoff or badass sergeant bossing other around.
I find both types annoying.

That should have been right up my alley. Unfortunately, though, I hate the warlord. I can't stand the attack-something-to-buff-your-allies mechanic that pervades the class.

Amen. I thought I was the only one who saw that.

Basing a whole class on this mechanic is way too repetitive. Warlord should have been just a Fighter or Paladin build.
The name would actually work much better for a paragon path. And the "inspiring champion" theme fits the original meaning of Paladin better than "holy warrior with spells".

Damn roles.

 

[Kez Darksun]

Well the Warlord was never supposed to be as good of a healer as the Cleric, that is part of the Cleric's niche. The Warlord simply is more able to provide aid then other classes.

He keeps other characters alive more from providing bonuses, getting them out of trouble, etc. then just healing them.

That being said, I have counted more then 10 powers that the Warlord has that heals.

I was looking at it more of a situation where the Leader role is where they tossed the healers, so I expected an equal ability to heal with each classes niche carved out by their other powers. And I never said the Warlord didn't have healing powers, my main problem with them is when they get their healing powers.

I'm not sure if the healing disparity is as pronounced at higher levels, when warlords have access to more of their healing powers, but right at the start there is a difference. As a quick example, Clerics get an Encounter attack at level 1 that lets an ally spend a healing surge, while a Warlord has to wait 6 more levels to have that same type of ability.

Maybe I just need to rethink how I view the Warlord and see what tactical tricks he can do as opposed to his ability to heal a group. It just disappoints me that I have to think of what else can I do instead of being able to heal as opposed to what else I can do in addition to healing. I'm not denying that Warlords can heal, I just have to look harder at what things they can do for a party to help alleviate the need for them having healing ability equal to that of a Cleric.

 

[Mercule]

I'm trying to regain my enthusiasm for the Warlord. Maybe I just wrong in expecting both Leaders to have an equal ability to provide healing for a group, but from what I've been able to see so far, the Cleric still has a pretty big advantage when it comes to healing than a Warlord does. I understand that the Warlord also is able to provide more tactical options to a party than a Cleric, but I guess I had hoped the Cleric amd Warlord would be able to heal equally, and then each have their own seperate nitch that helps to define the class.

I say "feature" not "bug". I really don't like playing "the healer" but I don't mind being support, otherwise The variance between the two classes is a good thing, IMO.

Besides, it really looks to me like the cleric does somewhat less healing in 4E than in prior editions. So, I think the perceived difference between the two classes may be less than the reality.

 

[Blackeagle]

If there was room, I'd love to have a Warlord as a back-up healer, but there is no way I'd feel comfortable with a Warlord as the only healer in the group. I'm hoping that someone who has read the classes powers more can reassure my doubts about the Warlords healing ability. Its either that, or pray that the Martial Powers sourcebook has powers for the Warlord that can allow them to better function as a primary healer in a group.

Honestly, I'm having a little trouble understanding this. Far from requiring a cleric, I think the game is perfectly runnable without any healer in the party.

 

[Kez Darksun]

I understand completely about not wanting to be the one that gets stuck playing "the healer", thats one of the reasons why it took a while to play a Cletic in 3.0/3.5. One of the things I did and do like about 4th edition was that it allowed the player to heal while doing other things like attacking. I had just hoped that, with the Warlord being the Martial Leader, I'd see more powers for the Warlord that did that than I have so far. I'll have to take a longer look at the two classes and see what impressions I get from a higher level comparison as well as pay more attention to the Warlords other tricks and evaluate the class further.