Warlord - punished for sacraficing

[Azigoth]

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

If you really thought that - instead of being "passive aggressive" yourself - you would have stopped right there. Instead of ad hominem attacks against the OP either post something meaningful to the discussion at hand or go find somewhere else to play.

Back on topic, IMO the Warlord is fundamentally unbalanced in the way that Ki Ryn has noticed. I disagree that the rest of the party is his/her "weapon" - that's a pretty patronizing viewpoint of the other players at the table. The reason people get so worked up about this is the discontinuity between in-game tactical "benefit" (the immediate effect one has on the outcome of an encounter) and the storyline "benefit" (the appreciation, in-game or out-of-game, the others may have for the Warlord's self sacrifice). It's obvious different people play the game for different reasons and expect different things out of the experience. No reason to get threatened by different kinds of players. So, a hearty tut tut on those who would make value judgments on the spirit of the originial post, which was a valid question.

It does look like the question has been answered. The Warlord is indeed punished for self-sacrificing. Of course, that's why it's self-sacrificing and not self-aggrandisement.

 

[Caliban]

For the Bravura Warlord there is a Paragon Path that fixes that. The Flamebrow path lets you take advantage of your own Bravura presence when you spend an action point.

 

[Plane Sailing]

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.

Do not presume to say someone is 'trolling' because they post an opinion which is different to yours. It is a quick way to get a temporary banning.

For goodness sake, I'm really disappointed at the mob mentality which I'm seeing in this thread. Someone (and possibly another) wants to discuss potential shortcomings that they see with a class and all I see is a dogpile that ranges from "just don't play it" to "don't say anything bad about this class"

I'm really disappointed.

 

[Klaus]

I'm just starting with 4th Ed after years of 3rd, and had heard good things about the Warlord (I like to metagame combat tactics ) and also how 4th Ed was so well balanced with regards to classes. Unfortunately I hit a wall with the Warlord in that there isn't any build option which doesn’t violate my rule against punishing players who build to help others. Each of the "Presence" class features is really nice - for everyone other than the Warlord. For example (this, I think, is the best of them):



I think it would be pretty cool to make that decision (extra attack worth the risk of failure?) and see the consequences during a fight. I think it would be less fun to watch everyone BUT me be able to weigh up the situation and make that call. The deal breaker though, is that this ability is one of the Warlord’s few core class features. The other classes get just as many, and they look just as useful - but they are useful for the person who has them. I could find very few abilities which would reciprocate this favor the Warlord is expected to grant.

I have trouble explaining it but its like if every class had 4 "Kewl Abilties" but one of the Warlord's abilities was only to grant a neat power to everyone else. That means, in reality, the Warlord only has 3 Kewl Abilities while everyone else now has 5. Sure, the party overall is way better off, but how much fun is it for guy who is now two powers behind the curve?


Another way to look at it: If you played a Warlord solo as opposed to a fighter solo, would they do equally well ? I'm assuming that the Warlord would be weaker because they have these useful-only-to-others abilities that would go unused. If that's the case, then Warlord is weaker than Fighter solo. Not really balanced. Now suppose you put the two together or into a group. The Warlord gains no abilties from the Fighter but the Fighter gains cool stuff from the Warlord. So the Warlord is weaker solo, and everyone but the Warlord gains strength when grouped? That's even less balanced.

I know some people enjoy “taking one for the team” and all that, but I ain't him and I also (as a DM) don't want to punish my players like that. In my book, it's just plain bad design. You should not use peer pressure or hearty slaps-on-the-back to balance out game mechanics. 3.5 sucks in that the Cleric has to waste his actions to heal others, but the class is given other benefits to balance out that sacrifice. I couldn’t find any such balancing here – though I’m a total newb and could be missing something.

IMC the warlord can choose to use Bravura himself. Hasn't been unbalanced, and it actually saved the game from tediousness. The gambling aspect of Bravura sparked really well with my party (and the two-weapon ranger with Action Surge looooves it).

 

[nittanytbone]

My biggest beef is with the Warlord's Presence features. Especially at low levels, your class features are just as important as your powers as far as giving you options or a "shtick."

Even the Cleric's healing bonus is something that makes them the best at something, and it can help them out too.

I don't really see how giving the warlord the benefit of their own presence would break the game -- except for the TacLord, because their presence is so badass.

 

[Vaslov]

I think you're right on this - good point. Rolling the dice etc. is probably a part of it.

Ki, two quick things I did playing a warlord to get past the passive vibe I got from time to time.

1) I bought a baseball size d20. When someone used my power I threw them the d20. Doing something physically myself really seemed to help and I could see the result from across the table.

2) The DM got me a small display board which I would list out my active powers on for everyone's reference. As certain powers became relevant or turned on I got to play Vanna.

They might seem silly or small, but they went a long way to dealing with the passive feel I had for the class. Overall I really enjoyed playing it and will definitely try it again. (Party experienced a TKP so I'm trying a new class).

 

[Mad Mac]

I like the idea of letting the Warlord roll dice for other players when using their powers. Just a little something to make the Warlord player feel more involved and also helping combat move along a little faster.

For what it's worth, while the effects of Warlord powers rarely benefit themselves, the damage those powers do are often quite meaty for a leader class. Lead the Attack isn't just an amazing power for the whole team, it also does as much damage as Brute Strike!

Warlord powers consistantly have pretty high weapon dice, and the Warlord can easily pick up a bastard sword or similar weapon so that they're rolling lots of d10s on a consistant basis. (Reach weapons are also good, of course.) Compare to Strength Clerics who are better at inflicting negative status effects but start with weaker weapons and can't break 2W until very high levels.

Also, for a player who wants a few more selfish powers to round out their selection, it is dead easy for the Warlord to multiclass as Fighter--the two classes are already using the same weapons and ability scores.

 

[op1983]

In basic training my drill sergeant passed out everyone and MRE(meal ready to eat). They are bagged meals that can be taken around and will keep for a very long time but are fairly bulky. After everyone had their lunch he told us to put them in our cargo pockets. After a bit of fumbling around with the MRE and cargo pocket I was sure that there was no way it would fit. Then he told us we had 3 seconds to put it in our pocket. And by the time he got to zero everyone had made the impossible happen due to the drills sergeants coaxing.

To me this is the essense of the Warlord. They are a leader that makes the impossible happen. The warlord shines brightest when everyone on his team shines. He helps himself by having others help themselves. If the rest of the warlords team is alive and kicking the warlord will live.

To me I can fully understand some one not wanting to play a warlord. I personally dont enjoy the rogue but I understand why some would. I only played the warlord because it was new and I wanted to try it out. At first I was apprehensive but after a couple rounds of combat I was hooked.

 

[WalterKovacs]

One thing that I thought would have been brought up in the thread.

The fighter, and other defenders are also self sacrificing.

Without a party to go with it, marking isn't THAT helpful. There are a few "selfish" mark based powers. A Fighter can still discourage shifting, a paladin has an at-will that does more damage if you are attacking someone that is marked, etc.

However, ultimately the defender role, while perhaps not as 'selfless' as the leader, is still about protecting the party.

Team a fighter with a warlord and you increase the effectiveness of both.

First of all, the warlord actually gets to give some people his powers. Similarly, the fighter gets to use some of his powers, such as marking. That means the warlord gets an effective boost to AC that the fighter himself doesn't get. The warlord is able to increase his damage output because he can get the fighter to attack "for him".

As a party, a warlord can help to make better investments of resources. A fighter with a good weapon and other items to increase their melee damage is good, but throw in a warlord, and the fighter may end up making more attacks, and thus those items are more useful in the long run.

Many classes are better or worse depending on the rest of the party.

As the size of a party increases, the value of a leader increases as well, as more people benefit from the leader powers. With a warlord, you want to make sure the various "basic attack" type powers will work (so you'd rather a fighter, or a strong paladin to a charismatic paladin, for example). A rogue, to be at peak effectiveness, will want the rest of the party to help him get combat advantage each round, whether it be melee characters to flank with, or people that have knock prone/daze/stun/blind/etc type powers. Controllers, especially when maintaining zones, like to have party members that can control the opponent's movement.

Ultimately though, the party relies on each other to make them better than just their individual pieces. A leader gives out bonuses that he himself may not have access to. However, a defender does not get the same benefit that the rest of the party gets when he marks people.

 

[0-hr]

It seems like the leaders are designed for self-sacraficers, strikers for selfish players, and defenders for the rest (I don't know anything about wizards). I think I'd get annoyed if I were a leader always giving up my turn so someone else could take two. But I'd also feel guilty if I were a striker benefiting from a leader all the time and giving nothing back to him. I'm glad that there are defenders (and that's what I ended up playing), but basing the character classes on player personality types really limits what I'll enjoy playing.

It would not have been THAT difficult to make sure every class had at least one selfish build path and one selfless one. Today, I'd like to play a Warlord who considers himself an ally. Some day I might want to play a Warlock who can give up some of his uberness to help other's shine. With a game system as mature as this one, I think it's fair to expect such considerations.

Let me say though that the severity of the mechanical effects of personality-based design in this game is less than I had at first thought. The differences are more subtle and somewhat balanced out by other complex factors. In the end I don't think that they will have as large an effect on gameplay as it seemed they would on first reading. Anyway, my thesis sentence has changed from "OMG, Warlord is the sux0rz!!1! you rubes!" to "Hrm, these classes could have been tuned a little better to allow for enjoyment by a wider variety of players." I thank (most) of the respondants in this thread for helping me evolve my viewpoint on the matter.