Warlord - punished for sacraficing

[Nail]

I count 4 Fighter powers (non-paragon path, mind), vs. the Warlord's 5.

...shows what I know. <reads thru fighter powers> Huh. I see the fighter's no-AC powers are even more suck-tastic than the Warlord's. How 'bout Martial Powers?

I know, when sitting in the Warlord chair, that I'm envious of the strikers and wizard and cleric being able to mix it up a bit. As it is my PC went with a +3 proficiency weapon, since hitting is so crucial.

 

[Spatula]

Y'know, I'm finding it hard to see this not being a pretty rude way of saying "you are a glory hog".

Now it might be that I'm misreading it, and if you want to edit your post that is all well and good, but if you leave it as it is then I'm going to have to take some action against you, especially considering the fact that I've already had to give one warning in this thread.

Every role has its place (and its player). Some people like to roll big numbers and there isn't anything wrong with that. *shrug* I don't see the insult but I'll edit it out if you like.

I don't hold so strongly to that statement at this point (having realized the relative frequency of presence vs other abiltiies). When I did though it was a matter of degrees. The fighter can mark a target, making himself more likely to be attacked. That's self sacraficing.

and that's a class ability, intrinsic to the fighter (and other defenders).

The Warlord gives up an attack so that someone else can roll one.

...and that's not. It's one possible warlord exploit out of many.

I'd rather see the abilties toned down to whatever level they need to be in order to balance with the Warlord being considered an ally of himself.

Many of the riders attached to warlord exploits affect the warlord along with one or more allies. If that's what you want out of the warlord, it already exists with the proper power selection.

 

[Victim]

Except with Furious Smash, though that seems to me like a below par Commanders strike (for Inspirers).

I think that equating Furious and Commander's is a big mistake. Commander's Strike is all about trading the warlord's at will attack for someone else's (with a minor bonus). Since there's a bonus to damage, the other warlord at wills tend to be situational, other STR based attackers can often have better basic attacks than the warlord, and certain secondary effects (ie, marking, another shot at sneak attack or quarry) can be delivered via the extra attack, Commander's is good. It's like a force multiplier for at wills.

Furious Smash is pretty much the opposite. It should never be thought of as a vanilla attack. You use Furious Smash when you need to make some other important attack hit. It's for buffing up big dailies and encounter powers - which don't even have to be melee attacks. This ability in an at will power is very good, in my opinion, since it can be used repeatedly to set up successive characters or used again if it misses. I wish my taclord had something like it actually - I think I'd gladly step down the initial damage from Warlord's Favor for repeat use. It's not too bad to miss with at wills, but losing those encounter powers to no effect has a big impact on how well the party does. Furious Smash can help with that.

-----------------------------------------

Three of those non AC attacks seem pretty good. Chimera Battlestrike is a close burst with a huge slide attached. Hammer and Anvil seems pretty nice for non Taclords. Beat Them into the Ground works with any basic attack, not just melee, so it actually seems superior to the similar level 9 Daily in effect.

 

[Mad Mac]

I have to second Hammer and Anvil. How is that a bad power? Furious Smash is useful as well, it's just not something you want to use all the time.

Anyhow, Martial Power.

Level 1

Opening Shove (At Will) St vs Ref
Luring Focus (En) St vs Fort


Level 3

Flattening Charge St vs Fort

Level 5

Staggering Spin St vs Fort

Level 13

Headstrong Bravery St vs Fort

Ventured Gains St vs Fort

Level 15

Anticipate Attack St vs Ref

Grim Instruction St vs Fort

Level 17

Dead Inspiratoin St vs Ref

Level 23

Daring Display St vs Fort

Shutdown Smite St vs Will

Wounding Focus St vs Ref

Level 25

Primordial Onslaught St vs Will

Wave of Defeat St vs Fort

Level 27

Warlords Indignation St vs Fort

Level 29

Inexorable Surge St+2 Vs AC* (*not exactly non AC, but functionally as good. The power also does 6W and lets your entire team add your Charisma to damage against one enemy at a time for the entire battle.)

So yeah, Martial Power. Fantastic book for any Warlord player.

Personally, my only gripes with Warlords in the PHB was that Inspiring Warlords were pretty lame next to tactical Warlords, but Martial Power makes Cha Warlords just as awesome as Tactlords.

 

[Mad Mac]

Since I'm trumpeting Martial Power already, I'll add a few notes on the paragon paths.

Battlelord of Kord--Cha, about 50/50 selfish/selfless, quite good overall.

Borderlands Marshall--Somewhere, someone made a Ranger/Warlord, and is pleased. I guess.

Commando Captain--works with any build. All about movement and concealment. Awesome.

Concordant Leader--designed for Genesi, pointless elemental powers. Weakest of the bunch.

Dujun of Erathis--Int, very team focused, but strong.

Earthfast Brigadier--Con (yes Con) virtually all benefits apply to yourself as well as allies.

Flamebrow Commander--Cha (Bravura Specific) Powers help allies, passive benefits (including the ability to use your own Commanders Presence) are all self only.

Infernal Strategist--Resourceful. Slightly tilted towards selfish.

Longarm Marshall--Int Almost completely selfish, but reach is great for a Tactical Warlord.

Platinum Warlord--Cha, most powers benefit both you and allies. One of the best.

Spiral Tactician--Int. For Eladrin Tactlords who want to be unspeakably awesome.

Twiceborn Leader--Cha, generally benefits from powers alongside allies.

 

[Saeviomagy]

As for what suits me, a Striker is out of the question because I'd feel guilty getting benefits from a Warlord and giving him nothing in return. If we're just looking at classes, something like the fighter suits me best as it is easy to mix selfishness and selflessness.

I think the problem here is that you're somehow thinking of "damage done" as some sort of currency, and that the winner of the party is the one that does the most.

You like doing damage. That's totally fine. But there are almost certainly party members that don't particularly care: they want their character to survive, save the world etc, and whom did what point of damage matters not a whit.

Think of it this way: if a monster dies in one round instead of two because you did lots of damage to it, then that means it didn't hurt party members.

If you risked yourself to cause that damage (as a melee ranger or a rogue does), then you're actually being self-sacrificing.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nail
Cleric also gets to target something besides AC -- whereas the Warlord always targets AC. (sigh)

Except with Furious Smash, though that seems to me like a below par Commanders strike (for Inspirers).

Furious Smash targets FORT, yes. At low level, even my Taclord was using it a lot as an efficient minion-popper.

Anyway, aside from that, the warlord's powers are all AC...

...except for Hammer & Anvil ...and Villain's Nightmare... and Chimera Battlestrike which or REF... as are a couple of paragon path powers...

... and Beat Them Into the Ground which is FORT...

...and whatever's in Martial Power.
(edit: XOMG, that's a lot!)

The Warlord doesn't have anywhere near the non-AC targetting powers that casters do, nor so many as the Rogue, but he's even with or ahead of the fighter and even Ranger, IIRC.

Weapon-keyword powers that target n-ACDs are pretty serious, actually. Targeting a n-ACD with an implement power hits about as well as targeting AC with a weapon power, so you're looking at a two or three point advantage when you combine a weapon prof bonus vs a non-AC defense. The Warlord and Rogue are the only classes in the PH that have an at-will weapon-keyword power that targets something other than AC.

 

[Amphimir Míriel]

Borderlands Marshall--Somewhere, someone made a Ranger/Warlord, and is pleased. I guess.

Actually, this one was made for the people who basically want to play Aragorn, IMHO

 

[Mad Mac]

Actually, this one was made for the people who basically want to play Aragorn, IMHO

Hmmm, you may be right. Personally, I have to admit that I never even considered multiclassing Warlord/Ranger before seeing this PP.

 

[RigaMortus2]

I don't hold so strongly to that statement at this point (having realized the relative frequency of presence vs other abiltiies). When I did though it was a matter of degrees. The fighter can mark a target, making himself more likely to be attacked. That's self sacraficing. The Warlord gives up an attack so that someone else can roll one. That's a much larger sacrafice.

How do you define how big of a sacrifice one is over the other though? What do you use to measure it? The Fighter marks the target basically encouraging it to attack him. Take enough damage, and you're dead. The player of the Fighter knows this, and chooses to play the Fighter anyway. Whereas the Warlord gets to use his power, help the PARTY as a whole (through one of his party members getting an extra attack) and basically stay out of harms way, not encouraging the enemies to attack him. I think the risk of death is a lot more of a sacrifice than what amounts to "skipping my attack so an ally can make one instead".

Still, the sucker part of it is where the Warlord can't consider himself an ally. It makes little sense and is just punishing a player who wants to help everyone out.

People have already said this multiple times already. If a person is choosing the play that type of character, and they ENJOY granting their allies benefits and not themselves, how is that punishment? That's like saying, your are punishing someone by making them play a game they enjoy.

As for what suits me, a Striker is out of the question because I'd feel guilty getting benefits from a Warlord and giving him nothing in return.

Someone else said it before, but it bears repeating... The benefit you are giving them is a pile dead enemies If your ally is granting you more attacks, and that helps take enemies down quicker, that is good for the party as a whole. No shame or guilt in that.

It seems like you are thinking more on the "whats good for me" lines and not on the "whats good for the party lines". 4E (and the previous versions) is a group game. The mechanics reflect this. Stop thinking "what am I getting out of this" and start thinking "what benefits is the party getting out of this" and you should be fine no matter what class you choose.