Warlord - punished for sacraficing

[Admiral Caine]

The balancing factor is that if you don't like the Warlord, you don't play the Warlord.

That's unhelpful. He sees the Warlord in a particular way and he's specifically asking if there is something he's overlooking.

If he's not overlooking anything, then that is a valid answer.

If he is overlooking something, then explaining what that might be, would also be a valid answer.

"Don't play it then," is a way to shut down any meaningful discussion. You're correct, he shouldn't play if he doesn't want to. But that's not why he posted. That's not a conversation.

And yes, a Warlord solo against a Fighter solo would lose. So? 4e is NOT balanced in terms of PvP. They never even considered PvP. If you're doing PvP with your party, something is going extremely wrong.

That never came up in his post. He referred to the Fighter and the Warlord in comparision to each other. See how they rate side by side, not in opposition to each other. Making the point that one class has more fun factor than the other.

And if you're being pressured into playing a specific class... Most people I know would either leave that group or punch the person pressuring them. There is a huge difference between playing something that someone tells you to play and playing something you want to play.

You know, I found this to be very disappointing. I'd love to go off the rails and rant and rave, because you're talking about me. I'm the GM in question. You know.. the one you're advocating getting punched.

This wasn't a particularly classy post.

I never pressured anybody, and when he wasn't comfortable with the warlord, I immediately suggested that he try something else. There's another player who has volunteered to chose his class/role last, to help people who have never played before. I've asked that player if perhaps we can switch around a little to help Ki Ryn get the play experience that makes him feel most comfortable.

In fact, if we have no warlord in the party, I'm good with that. Since it's a new group I am looking for a volunteer to try a Leader. If no one steps up, we'll look at roles that overlap.

I didn't take his comments about "back-slapping' and peer pressure to literally mean his fellow players, but rather a broad sweeping statement regarding clerics and support characters.

As for suggesting that people walk out of games or hit people... I think you got some anger issues. Because you're projected a lot of potential scenarios that he never really described. If somebody pressured you once and made you upset, that doesn't necessarily mean that I'm going to do that him.

Ultimately, I don't know if I agree with Ki Ryn or not, since I'm GMing 4E for the first time. But I'll make my own opinion. I'm sure his fellow players will too.

In fact, I didn't plan on commenting at all, except the first damn post in the thread advocated punching the GM. Sheeesh.

 

[Admiral Caine]

For the record.. I don't myself disagree with a lot of the comments in this thread.

I'm not throwing Ki Ryn under the bus, he and I are mature adults and can disagree.. particularly since this doesn't preclude him from playing and enjoying the game, or from me running and enjoying the game.

I'd probably enjoy a Warlord.

Fortunately, I have no need to convince anybody how they need to feel about a particular class when there are lots of great alternatives and news classes coming down the pipe.

Thanks to those with meaningful feedback!

 

[0-hr]

That said, as someone who is currently playing a warlord, I sometimes get annoyed when I can't target myself with some of my own healing or save-boosting powers. Particularly "Stand the Fallen"; by the time I need to use that, I usually need healing just as badly as everyone else.

Certainly, I think letting the warlord consider himself an "ally" of himself would go a long way towards alleiviating the problem.

 

[Pickles JG]

Certainly, I think letting the warlord consider himself an "ally" of himself would go a long way towards alleiviating the problem.

I think you are setting up the Warlord as a strawman. There is nothing wrong with them in power level or their ally focus but they are not for everyone - from your comments it seems certainly not for you.

To then call this bad design is specious - not every class will suit every player & this one suits people who are either interfering or altruistic but not solo grandstanders (for instance). Hmm a party of only warlords would be interesting as they all buff one another through the roof.

Mind you all of the leader roles tend to give assistance to other characters more than themselves & they have many ally only buffs. This does mean that noone might want to play the leader which could become an issue. It does avoid the selfish super self buffing 3e cleric though.
By extension you would presumably want to apply cleric ally buffs to other people - so battle celrics could chain righteous brands with themselves for example?

 

[Dalzig]

I apologize for parts of my post. I did misunderstand a little bit, and the people I hang around with do actually have a habit of punching each other.

My initial understanding of the OP was that "punishing the players" was referring to a situation akin to the 3.5 healing cleric. Where someone is being forced to play a class they don't want just to have a filled-out party.

The PvP comment came from 'The Warlord is weaker than the Fighter' which how can you really tell unless they fight, therefore I thought he was talking about them fighting.

So here's my revised post:

No, you're not missing anything. If you aren't a self-sacrificing type of player, the Warlord might not be for you.

 

[Admiral Caine]

I apologize for parts of my post. I did misunderstand a little bit, and the people I hang around with do actually have a habit of punching each other.

My initial understanding of the OP was that "punishing the players" was referring to a situation akin to the 3.5 healing cleric. Where someone is being forced to play a class they don't want just to have a filled-out party.

The PvP comment came from 'The Warlord is weaker than the Fighter' which how can you really tell unless they fight, therefore I thought he was talking about them fighting.

So here's my revised post:

No, you're not missing anything. If you aren't a self-sacrificing type of player, the Warlord might not be for you.

We're cool.. I didn't need to get so het up.

 

[Starglim]

The warlord is not punished. His attacks and defences are just as good as a skirmisher monster, a cleric, or a fighter making a ranged attack, then he gets additional powers that greatly increase the party's positioning options, hit potential and damage. He doesn't need to do amazing things with his melee or ranged weapons because his minions that he sends into battle are his weapons.

 

[Simm]

The PvP comment came from 'The Warlord is weaker than the Fighter' which how can you really tell unless they fight, therefore I thought he was talking about them fighting.

I can't acctually be certain what the OP intended from his statement but I interpreted it a little differently. He proposed three scenarios: in the first a Fighter fights alone against a group of monsters, in the second an Warlord fights alone against a group of monsters, and in the third a Warlord and a Fighter fight a group of monters together. Comparing the first two scenarios the Fighter will be more successful than the Warlord because he is a more powerful individual combatant. Many of the Warlord's powers are ineffective because they rely on haveing allies which aren't present in this situation.

In the third scenario the Fighter will be even more sucessful than he was when he was alone because he is gaining benefits fro the Warlord's powers and class features. The warlord, however, is not signiffigantly more effective than the he was alone because his class feature do not affect him and many of his powers weaken his own attacks to benefit allies. Therefore Measured by individual accomplishments the Fighter has a margin of supiriority over the Warlord when they fight individually and an even larger margin when they fight together. Either way the Warlord loses.

I, personally, do not agree with useing individual accomplishment as a metric for success in D&D, but that is purely my own style.

 

[Victim]

Considering the warlord's easier access to healing, I think he might actually do better than many fighters by himself. Unless those fighters have numerous healing potions. Especially over a period of several encounters, since the fighter's daily healing from powers might be enough for one fight, whereas the warlord has per encounter heals.

The whole sort of point of the warlord is to act as a force multiplier for the group though. That doesn't make it bad or poorly designed. It's just catering to a playstyle focusing on winning as a whole, rather than the success of any individual character.

Besides, if you're going to look at things from invidual metric, then any damage that hits because of warlord buff is the warlord's damage, even if it comes from someone else. Any damage at all done by someone who is taking actions because of the warlord's heals or support is the warlord's damage. The other characters are just the tools being used by the warlord in addition to normal things like magic weapons.

 

[N8Ball]

I feel that balancing mechanical penalties (a class feature that does you no good) with real-life emotional benefits (the warm glow of helping others) is likewise poor, or just lazy, game design.

That is not at all what makes the Warlord balanced. What makes the warlord balanced is the effects that he creates by his very presence and they should ALL be credited to him. There's a lot of crunch there, and if you narrow your view of what makes a class "good" to what they can do with the weapon in their own hands, then you've boxed out the entire concept of leaders.
When the Warlord uses Commander's strike to attack with an ally, all the damage done should be credited to the Warlord it was HIS action thant made the attack, just not his hand. When an ally does 3 extra damage because of a Warlord effect, then that 3 dmg done belongs to the warlord. When one of the party members just squeaks by a hit because of the warlords +1 buff, then that whole hit can be credited to the warlord.

If you want to compare how one class fares solo to how another fares, then you might as well conclude that wizards and rouges are unbalanced too because they don't fare as well as the fighter solo.

One might also argue that the fighter is unbalanced because they fight poorly at range, or that the Warlock is crappy because they can't fight melee well, but those are silly arguments because that's not what they do, and evaluating them outside their intended context is inappropriate. Likewise, evaluating the warlord outside of the context of his party is equally silly.

I agree only in part with one previous posted that suggested evaluating the fighter and warlord seperate and then together, but I would suggest that in the final analysis, that all the improved effectiveness of the fighter in the team fight is because of the Warlord and should be credited to the warlord as such.

I see your beef with the class (that they can't hold their own) and I think it stems from missing the essence of the class itself. They aren't supposed to "hold their own" on the front lines any more than a wizard is expected to step up and swing away with his magic staff. They are supposed to wield their party for maximum effectiveness and that's only partly about swinging a sword. Commanders strike alone gives the Warlord MUCH more powerful attacks and options than he's otherwise have.

You must look at the total value added to find the crunch for the Warlord and when you do, you'll find it's one of the most versitile and effective classes in the game (when used as intended, and not trying to make him a fighter).