Warlord - punished for sacraficing

[MadLordOfMilk]

Well, you could always let the Warlord roll the attack of the player he's "attacking through". It's a lot funner to roll a d20 and damage dice, etc than to just say "ok, John, you get a free attack.". I think that'd help a lot toward fixing the "lack of fun" you'd feel in your particular case.

 

[Cadfan]

The problem with a warlord build that "doesn't self sacrifice" is that it either is inherently unbalanced, or it isn't a warlord build.

If you boost your allies but still receive the same ability to fight personally, you're getting everything a regular character gets plus the ability to boost allies. That's not balanced. If you don't boost allies, you just fight on your own, then you should probably not be a warlord in the first place.

I tend to play clerics rather than warlords, but I get my feelings of accomplishment not only through watching my allies do better than they otherwise would, but also through tactically controlling the fight. And believe me, I do. If I tell my allies that I'm doing X and they better do X as well if they want to be in the area of effect of whatever spell I'm about to cast, they do X. No one argues with the guy who's about to grant them ridiculously large attack bonuses and more hit points than they can possibly use.

That's where the kudos come when playing a leader class. Leading.

 

[Mr. Wilson]

The warlord class was made for me. WotC came together and decided to make a class just for Frank. I'm sorry that my class is taking up space in your PHB, but you don't have to play it if you don't want.

The fighter specializes in wielding a weapon.
The warlord specializes in wielding a party. My weapon is much bigger than yours.

I have always been more concerned about how the party performs than only just how I perform.

Apparently WoTC made a class for Frank and BJ.

Nothing makes me happier than giving the rogue another chance to land that sneak attack, or the fighter to mark another foe, or landing an encounter changing party buff (+5 to hit the bbeg for the entire encounter at 1st level, yes please!)

The warlord is the character I tried to make in 3.X multiclassing between Bard, Rogue, and Fighter multiple different ways.

I love it.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Most classes work better as part of a team. Leaders hand out bonuses to allies: no allies, no bonus. Defenders mark enemies to protect allies - with no allies present, the mark is meaningless. Even strikers, possibly the most 'selfish' role, do better with allies about to help them. Archer-rangers won't do too well without a defender to screen them from melee; rogues won't dish near so much damage without flanking buddies; and so forth.

A warlord build can be pretty extreme in that regard, though. It's very easy to choose powers that, like Commanding Presence, or only of use when you have allies around. I can understand that seeming altruistic or 'taking one for the team,' but, it depends on how you look at it. As a warlord, you own the battle, the party is your arsenal, the victory (or responsibility for failure) is yours. Your features and powers are enhancing your allies, yes - but you can think of that as giving away your characters 'cool' or as apropriating everyone else's.

 

[Milambus]

I tend to play clerics rather than warlords, but I get my feelings of accomplishment not only through watching my allies do better than they otherwise would, but also through tactically controlling the fight. And believe me, I do. If I tell my allies that I'm doing X and they better do X as well if they want to be in the area of effect of whatever spell I'm about to cast, they do X. No one argues with the guy who's about to grant them ridiculously large attack bonuses and more hit points than they can possibly use.

That's where the kudos come when playing a leader class. Leading.

Heres an example from my play time as a Warlord.

I look across the table at the Fighter and say "Ready your attack on my attack." He immediately turns to the DM and says "I do what he just said," no questions asked.

My turn comes around, I spend my action point (human with Action Surge) for the +3 to the attack. I then use Warlord's Favor dealing 2W+str damage, and granting the ally of my choice +4 to attack to the enemy until the end of my next turn. The Fighter's attack triggers with the +4 attack bonus. Since I used my action point, I have another standard action so I use Commander's Strike to order the Fighter to attack again, this time with +5 to attack and +3 to damage. (Lend Might feat for the extra +1 to attack.)

Fighter's next turn comes up (right before mine since he had readied an action the previous turn), +4 to attack the target against. My next turn, another Commander's Strike (+5 attack, +3 damage).

So for the use of my Encounter power, the fighter got:
2 attacks at +4 attack (would have been 3 if he wanted to spend his action point)
2 basic attacks at +5 attack, +3 damage

If you can't be happy doing that sort of thing once per encounter, then no the Warlord is not the class for you. But I feel completely balanced with other classes with I use my Warlord, in fact I often feel over powered.

 

[Ds Da Man]

Gotta agree. At first it seems like your sacraficing all your fun for others, but like the cleric, soon your commanding the party to do certain things to get cool extras to their attacks. You actually come to love the tactical aspect of the warlord, and appreciate that not only do you get to beat things up, but get to help others beat the up also. It really is cool how wizards redisgned the game so that all classes are fun.

 

[CapnZapp]

As far as I'm concerned this thread is over.

The OP got answers to his questions. To keep heaping dung on the Warlord class is just trolling.

What I mean here, Ki Ryn, is lay off the passive aggressiveness, okay? You alternate your "disappointment" with claims that Wizards' design is "poor" or "lazy". But you have gotten answers that clearly show that this is not the case, and that Warlord players isn't playing a class that "needs balancing mechanically". Warlord players aren't helped by your sniping, so cut it out. Thanks.

The heart of it is "Fourth edition has fundamentally selfish classes that care only about their own combat tricks and successes." Just because you don't value "unselfish" powers doesn't mean they are in need of boosting. In fact, the whole point of the class is to be "underpowered" (in your eyes), so any change originating from you would probably just turn it into something it wasn't designed to be.

If you give the Warlord the same "selfishness" as any other class, then assuming it doesn't simply become overpowered, there wouldn't be any reason to use its unselfish side, would it now?

The whole point of the class is to go light on "selfish" powers to make it appealing to "unselfish" players.

Once you understand this, you'll realize your attempts will only destroy what's unique about the class. And that would be trolling, 'kay? If anything, my advice would be for you to start a new thread - in the fan creations subforum - where you reskin the Warlord into a new class, adding "selfish" powers (and not forgetting to drop "unselfish" ones to compensate)!

 

[Ulorian - Agent of Chaos]

Heres an example from my play time as a Warlord.

Seeking some clarification...

My turn comes around, I spend my action point (human with Action Surge) for the +3 to the attack. I then use Warlord's Favor dealing 2W+str damage, and granting the ally of my choice +4 to attack to the enemy until the end of my next turn.

So far, so good.

The Fighter's attack triggers with the +4 attack bonus. Since I used my action point, I have another standard action so I use Commander's Strike to order the Fighter to attack again, this time with +5 to attack and +3 to damage. (Lend Might feat for the extra +1 to attack.)

You must use an Action Point on your turn (PHB p.269). Besides the fact that the Fighter cannot act between your AP-granted Warlord's Favor and your standard action-granted Commander's Strike, everything is still fine. Edit: Actually, I think the way you described it is fine. The immediate reaction from the Fighter's readied action is triggered by the use of Warlord's Favor, so should probably happen immediately after that power is used and before the Warlord uses his standard action for Commander's Strike.

Fighter's next turn comes up (right before mine since he had readied an action the previous turn), +4 to attack the target against.

So for this to work, the Fighter has to have a lower initiative than the Warlord (either through initial roll or through a delay on the Fighter's part on a round prior to this one). On the round this combo kicks in, the Fighter readies an action to react when the Warlord uses Warlord's Favor. This moves the Fighter's initiative in subsequent rounds to immediately before the Warlord, which is how he gets his next's round's attack before the end of the Warlord's next turn. For this round, however, readying allows an immediate reaction, which means he acts directly after the Warlord's Favor is invoked, which means his readied action benefits from the attack bonus bestowed by Warlord's Favor. Both of the basic melee attacks are conferred by the Warlord over the span of the Warlord's Favor's duration, so they obviously both benefit from Warlord's Favor. Right?

My next turn, another Commander's Strike (+5 attack, +3 damage).

All good.

 

[Jack99]

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

Only if you want a broken class.

Heres an example from my play time as a Warlord.

I look across the table at the Fighter and say "Ready your attack on my attack." He immediately turns to the DM and says "I do what he just said," no questions asked.

My turn comes around, I spend my action point (human with Action Surge) for the +3 to the attack. I then use Warlord's Favor dealing 2W+str damage, and granting the ally of my choice +4 to attack to the enemy until the end of my next turn. The Fighter's attack triggers with the +4 attack bonus. Since I used my action point, I have another standard action so I use Commander's Strike to order the Fighter to attack again, this time with +5 to attack and +3 to damage. (Lend Might feat for the extra +1 to attack.)

Fighter's next turn comes up (right before mine since he had readied an action the previous turn), +4 to attack the target against. My next turn, another Commander's Strike (+5 attack, +3 damage).

So for the use of my Encounter power, the fighter got:
2 attacks at +4 attack (would have been 3 if he wanted to spend his action point)
2 basic attacks at +5 attack, +3 damage

If you can't be happy doing that sort of thing once per encounter, then no the Warlord is not the class for you. But I feel completely balanced with other classes with I use my Warlord, in fact I often feel over powered.

Readied Actions do not work like that.
Edit: Ninjaed - I guess I should read the whole thread before answering

 

[0-hr]

Well, you could always let the Warlord roll the attack of the player he's "attacking through". It's a lot funner to roll a d20 and damage dice, etc than to just say "ok, John, you get a free attack.". I think that'd help a lot toward fixing the "lack of fun" you'd feel in your particular case.

I think you're right on this - good point. Rolling the dice etc. is probably a part of it. The ability to do something is the most important resource in about any game. The chance to roll some dice, do some math, and vizualize your character's success or failure is a big part of the appeal. Watching someone else do that can be fun, but not as fun as doing it yourself - even if you gave up your turn for them to do it.

Anyway, I've gotten a better grasp on the Action Points and Healing Surge mechanics and can see that the Warlord's Presence thing is less important than I thought, while his Inspiring Word thing is more important. That lessens the severity of the kick-in-the-teeth quite a bit (since they let the Warlord heal himself).

I think it's funny that the Warlord is not inspired by his own presence. Apparently he's the only one on the team who knows what he's spouting is pure BS.